Why ISIS fight

[Kilgore_Trout_Redux]

If that was true then ISIS wouldn't have such a small support Base that it currently has out of almost 2 billion muslims how many have actually joined ISIS?

If there was a true khaliphate that was freeing muslim lands from dictators etc the right way without just killing others then me and almost 2 billion other muslims would give them physical and moral support.Isis is not that khaliphate unfortunately and the bulk majority of muslims support that.These(the bulk of muslims today) are people that have subscribed and lived by the Islamic doctrine all their lives in many cases and as can clearly be seen that doctrine is not pushing them towards joining ISIS or moving backwards to things like slavery.

That posted by Orbital article ignored many things like the Prophets positive attitude and encouragement of freeing slaves which basically tells muslims that a slave free world is not undesirable as ISIS would try to twist it.But the article is showing the ISIS muslim point of view so it's correct from that perspective however it's not correct from the perspective of the bulk majority of the almost two billion muslims in the world today.

You are obviously a decent dude but I have a question. You say that you and 2 Billion Muslims would join a caliphate. According to the Koran to qualify as a caliphate it would need to institute strict Shariah law which mandates stuff like public stonings and amputations. Not exactly civilized. How would you reconcile your modern day values with this? If you compromised the more brutal aspects of the Koran would it still be a caliphate? The difference between you and Isis boils down to that simple question.

 

[Fury05]

You are obviously a decent dude but I have a question. You say that you and 2 Billion Muslims would join a caliphate. According to the Koran to qualify as a caliphate it would need to institute strict Shariah law which mandates stuff like public stonings and amputations. Not exactly civilized. How would you reconcile your modern day values with this? If you compromised the more brutal aspects of the Koran would it still be a caliphate? The difference between you and Isis boils down to that simple question.

Just a quick note and do not take this as an endorsement for Sharia Law, but the extreme penalties/punishments are for very specific crimes. Equally important to note is that together with those extreme punishments you also have a much more extreme/burden of proof. The Sharia legal system is much more strict on certain conditions being met, proof produced, witnesses testimonies matching to the letter, before any punishment can be enforced. You are looking at the punishment of Shariah legal system through the lens of a Western Legal system, they are not the same.

Again do not take this as an endorsement, its just a clarification.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Ok. Let's just leave the psychopath discussion for the moment and you graciously accept that psychopath as used by myself in this context = "evil fcking nutters and vermin" - I'll explain why

"evil fcking nutters and vermin" - I use this term because I believe that they, like all other religious nutters, have selectively perverted the meaning and interpretation of the religious texts that they use. I say this because the overwhelming majority of 'mainstream' Muslims reject the ISIS interpretation in the same way that the overwhelming majority of Christians rejected David Koresh's interpretation of the Bible.

They're utilising an interpretation of Islam that is based on the same texts as other interpretations. So which interpretations are "perverted" and which aren't? How do we tell?

There is no such thing as the "correct" Islam. It's all different interpretations using the same vague texts as foundation. Islam specifically has no central authority, as the Catholic Church claims to be for Christianity.

The reams that have been written on the 'sincere religious motivated barbarity' have been written from the perspective of an acceptance that the ISIS version of Islam is the same as the mainstream version of Islam. This is simply not true.

Mainstream Muslims do not believe in Slavery; they do not believe in torture, and they do not accept the kinds of acts that ISIS regards as 'normal' as being 'normal'.

Why on earth do you think this?

Where did I, or either of the articles, equate ISIS with mainstream Islam?

So, the followers of ISIS are "evil fcking nutters and vermin" - normal people (Muslims included), do not look for justifications within "Holy Books" to act out their barbaric motivations.

But they do, as Cray pointed out. You see it wherever atrocities are committed on a large scale. These people are otherwise quite "normal" yet the ideology and dogma has taken hold to a frightening extent.

Disclaimer: My personal belief is that all religion is hogwash; it's a construct that can be useful to 'easily' teach children a 'moral' framework that enables society to function in a positive manner, but the reality is that it is more often perverted to suit the needs of power and control.

Agreed, although I think it's a cheap way of teaching morality.

 

[Jings]

Psychopaths aren't that prevalent and they won't fall in line with ideologues en masse. I wouldn't be surprised if there were quite a few who just use it as a vehicle for their sadism. But that doesn't explain ISIS as a group and their overall brutality.

The definition of a psychopath is actually quite broad:

a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behaviour.

Do you really believe these children will grow up to be peaceful, instead of violent suicide bombers? Why are people surprised by their overall brutality when it's quite evident?
[video=youtube;8loYjHI1jCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8loYjHI1jCg[/video]

 

[Vrotappel]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/world/middleeast/isis-enshrines-a-theology-of-rape.html?_r=2

This is probably one of the reasons why.

Getting a qt.3141 sex slave seems to be enough to motivate men to commit atrocities. Which leads to the question: why are they so desperate?

Thanks for the link. Sickening, raping in the name of your God.

The Islamic State recently made it clear that sex with Christian and Jewish women captured in battle is also permissible, according to a new 34-page manual issued this summer by the terror group’s Research and Fatwa Department.

Just about the only prohibition is having sex with a pregnant slave, and the manual describes how an owner must wait for a female captive to have her menstruating cycle, in order to “make sure there is nothing in her womb,” before having intercourse with her. Of the 21 women and girls interviewed for this article, among the only ones who had not been raped were the women who were already pregnant at the moment of their capture, as well as those who were past menopause.

Beyond that, there appears to be no bounds to what is sexually permissible. Child rape is explicitly condoned: “It is permissible to have intercourse with the female slave who hasn’t reached puberty, if she is fit for intercourse,” according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute of a pamphlet published on Twitter last December.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

The definition of a psychopath is actually quite broad:



Do you really believe these children will grow up to be peaceful, instead of violent suicide bombers? Why are people surprised by their overall brutality when it's quite evident?
[video=youtube;8loYjHI1jCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8loYjHI1jCg[/video]

You're making my point for me. These children aren't psychopaths, they're indoctrinated and brainwashed with violent religious ideology.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Just a quick note and do not take this as an endorsement for Sharia Law, but the extreme penalties/punishments are for very specific crimes. Equally important to note is that together with those extreme punishments you also have a much more extreme/burden of proof. The Sharia legal system is much more strict on certain conditions being met, proof produced, witnesses testimonies matching to the letter, before any punishment can be enforced. You are looking at the punishment of Shariah legal system through the lens of a Western Legal system, they are not the same.

Again do not take this as an endorsement, its just a clarification.

The problem isn't the burden of proof, it's the fact that some of these things are crimes in the first place.

What was the burden of proof when Mohammed ordered a Jewish woman stoned to death for adultery, btw?

 

[Jings]

You're making my point for me. These children aren't psychopaths, they're indoctrinated and brainwashed with violent religious ideology.

Most psychopaths are made the way they are. It's more than religious ideology, it's a way of life. Here is an interview with a woman that has been taught to accept that life is worthless. There are so many more like her.

[video=youtube;BC8SeeRUhaw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC8SeeRUhaw[/video]

 

[Fury05]

The problem isn't the burden of proof, it's the fact that some of these things are crimes in the first place.

What was the burden of proof when Mohammed ordered a Jewish woman stoned to death for adultery, btw?

As I said in my initial post, it was not an endorsement of Shariah Law which I have issues with, it was more a clarification. However, in this instance that Hadith relates to a particular instance of a practice by the Jews of those times, which was to either:

1. Trying to 'expose' the Prophet (pbuh) as a fraud I.e. by him not having knowledge of the laws of God in the Torah
2. Certain leaders of the Jewish community at the time would conceal the Torah from the general community in order to keep the power in the hands of the elite scholars, so to speak.

The Prophet merely told them to enforce their own law as per the Torah.

But we are going off topic now, I'm sure you know we could find multiple hadiths and or verses of the Quran to debate about. I've always stated that Islam was never meant to be a stagnant religion, I firmly believe that it is a certain faction of Muslims who are clinging on the past glory instead of evolving to what Islam was meant to be.

 

[pinball wizard]

. Islam specifically has no central authority, as the Catholic Church claims to be for Christianity.

Well, according to the ISIS interpretation, the Caliph is that central authority.

 

[Kilgore_Trout_Redux]

Just a quick note and do not take this as an endorsement for Sharia Law, but the extreme penalties/punishments are for very specific crimes. Equally important to note is that together with those extreme punishments you also have a much more extreme/burden of proof. The Sharia legal system is much more strict on certain conditions being met, proof produced, witnesses testimonies matching to the letter, before any punishment can be enforced. You are looking at the punishment of Shariah legal system through the lens of a Western Legal system, they are not the same.

Again do not take this as an endorsement, its just a clarification.

Women being stoned to death for the crime of being raped would suggest that the "Lense of Western Law" defence is manure.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Well, according to the ISIS interpretation, the Caliph is that central authority.

Yeah, but that's more a form of government, not religious authority.

 

[Fury05]

Women being stoned to death for the crime of being raped would suggest that the "Lense of Western Law" defence is manure.

Please dont try to misconstrue the point I was trying to make. Oh and source?

Edit: please provide the applicable law pertaining to women being stoned for being raped.

 

[AfricanTech]

They're utilising an interpretation of Islam that is based on the same texts as other interpretations. So which interpretations are "perverted" and which aren't? How do we tell?

There is no such thing as the "correct" Islam. It's all different interpretations using the same vague texts as foundation. Islam specifically has no central authority, as the Catholic Church claims to be for Christianity.

Nah, there are generally accepted 'majority' interpretations rooted in the Sunni traditions and upheld by various centres around the world. They're all pretty similar and will disagree on (relatively speaking) minor points of interpretation.

Why on earth do you think this?

Where did I, or either of the articles, equate ISIS with mainstream Islam?

Ok.

Cool - good to know that you are clear that ISIS Islam cannot be equated with mainstream Islam

But they do, as Cray pointed out. You see it wherever atrocities are committed on a large scale. These people are otherwise quite "normal" yet the ideology and dogma has taken hold to a frightening extent.

Nope - they're not 'normal' - their sense of right and wrong becomes perverted and they are therefore no longer 'normal' - so when kids are taught to hate, that's not 'normal', it's perverse.

Agreed, although I think it's a cheap way of teaching morality.

Indeed. Cheap, but at the same, a very high cost (to the individual in terms of stifling the ability to think independently without the constraint of an external set of rules imposed upon them on the basis of the instructions from an invisible deity)

 

[AfricanTech]

You're making my point for me. These children aren't psychopaths, they're indoctrinated and brainwashed with violent religious ideology.

ie they are being turned into "evil fcking nutters and vermin"

 

[pinball wizard]

Yeah, but that's more a form of government, not religious authority.

Is there really a distinction for the brand of sharia that ISIS implement?

 

[Kilgore_Trout_Redux]

Edit: please provide the applicable law pertaining to women being stoned for being raped.

It is a common interpretation of the law in Islamic countries practicing Sharia Law.

 

[Fury05]

It is a common interpretation of the law in Islamic countries practicing Sharia Law.

If it is common practice then there should be no difficulty in finding the applicable law pertaining to stoning rape victims.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Nah, there are generally accepted 'majority' interpretations rooted in the Sunni traditions and upheld by various centres around the world. They're all pretty similar and will disagree on (relatively speaking) minor points of interpretation.

That doesn't make them correct, it just makes them widely shared. And the schism between Sunni and Shia is quite large. And there's a geopolitical consequence to this - Iran (Shia) vs. Saudi Arabia (Sunni).

And there's some sketchy stuff going on in the majority of Islam, too.

92% of the target group [in Saudi Arabia] believes that "IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law."

Ok.

Cool - good to know that you are clear that ISIS Islam cannot be equated with mainstream Islam

Yep. At the same time, though, Islamism (and its violent version - Jihadism) is a not insignificant force in modern day Islam. It's something of a war for the soul of the religion. The bulk of the victims of Islamism are other Muslims, including reform-minded ones.

Nope - they're not 'normal' - their sense of right and wrong becomes perverted and they are therefore no longer 'normal' - so when kids are taught to hate, that's not 'normal', it's perverse.

They're people who believe they're doing the right thing. They sincerely believe in their ideologies. It's the content of the ideology that fuels their actions, is my point. They're not simply 'evil' in a vacuum.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Is there really a distinction for the brand of sharia that ISIS implement?

Probably not.