ISIS' reasons for enslaving women

[Loptr]

Why is it only slavegirls? Don't they allow for male slaves? What happens when the males are caught.....?

They cut off their heads since homosexuality is considered heresy under islam...

[Scott]

Why is it only slavegirls? Don't they allow for male slaves? What happens when the males are caught.....?

[7by7]

The outdated and out of context verses ISIS use to justify those abomination also allow for the taking of male slaves; those taken in battle, for example.

That ISIS only take females to use as sex slaves is yet more evidence that they are only using the Koran as an excuse for their actions in raping these poor women and ignoring the rest of it which does not suit their desires or purpose.

[chuckd]

Why is it only slavegirls? Don't they allow for male slaves? What happens when the males are caught.....?

They are lined up and murdered.

Check some of the videos on YouTube. I won't provide links.

[Scott]

When I lived in the area, I know that combantants were killed and this basically included males over the age of 12. I was thinking more of the younger ones. Do they believe they can be enslaved or is it just the females.

[chuckd]

When I lived in the area, I know that combantants were killed and this basically included males over the age of 12. I was thinking more of the younger ones. Do they believe they can be enslaved or is it just the females.

Strictly a guess, but, my guess would be they keep the younger ones to raise as future jihadis to carry on the battles. I expect they slaughter any male children over about 10 years of age and move on.

It's easier for them to kill the children than worry about them. We know what happens to the young girls.

They are killing more than combatants though. It seems they are into killing any male prisoner that isn't Sunni.

These guys are the lowest form of animal life and must be eradicated.

[H1w4yR1da]

The outdated and out of context verses ISIS use

The excuses never stop, do they?

[KunMatt]

The outdated and out of context verses ISIS use

The excuses never stop, do they?

Is there such thing as an "outdated" verse in the Koran? I thought that the Koran today is exactly the same, word for word, as it was when it was written, and that the whole book is tied together by a mathematical code than means you cannot change or remove any words because the code and pattern will be broken, and this is why the Koran will never and can never be changed.

[arjunadawn]

Why is it only slavegirls? Don't they allow for male slaves? What happens when the males are caught.....?

Great question; one I guess I'd not thought much about. Generally, in Islam slaves can be taken but the utility of women is the most outrageous, truly mysongonistic. There's few ways to rationalize that core tenets mandate supremacy. Sex in this context is undoubtedly a weapon. Not sure how to research it but many know the tales of sodomizing Christian males is widespread during the varying Muslim conflicts of the past. Perhaps these survive as myth, but it was widely said during crusade years- I've gleaned.

It's an issue of hypocrisy because while sodomy with males is a sin many, many men in the Muslim world are subject to such acts while growing up. Indeed, in Afghanistan an entire subculture has developed using younger men. Without much imagination it can be noted this results from oppressive rules for interacting with the opposite sex.

[arjunadawn]

The outdated and out of context verses ISIS use

The excuses never stop, do they?

Is there such thing as an "outdated" verse in the Koran? I thought that the Koran today is exactly the same, word for word, as it was when it was written, and that the whole book is tied together by a mathematical code than means you cannot change or remove any words because the code and pattern will be broken, and this is why the Koran will never and can never be changed.

IMO, your correct... and not! No prophet can come again, thus the word of God is sealed. It's an error to assign some mystery of revelation and math to the Koran. Don't buy it; the exegesis of such math alone would constitute blasphemy. It's not there. The bible code? Just as likely not. In any event, the Koran is actually only supposed to exist as liturgy in Arabic alone. Thus the only reason this back desert langauGe became ubiquitous throughout the Muslim world. There's no other linguistic reason for this language to have survive- though it's speakers do declare its richness for poetry and imagination; I'm unconvinced.

The Koran was not contemporaneous with the prophet though arguably close. Indeed, after the prophets death the faithful started departing and IMO, after Abu Bekr's efforts, and the 2nd caliph, the assembly of the liturgy helped hold the fledgling faith together. Divinely inspired? I don't know, but assembled by man and no indication mathematicians were involved. The same applies to the Septuagint/Torah/Bible- oral-Greek-Latin-vernacular... Not a lot of room for mathematicians here.

Lastly, there are no outdated verses in Koranic scripture and the prophet spoke directly to this when asked regarding apparent inconsistencies with, for example, earlier peaceful mandates and later warlike mandates, the sword verse, for example.The prophet made it clear that God may see fit to revise a previous command and when done the later superceds the former. This is called abrogation in Islamic exegesis, which a few here argue does not exist. Pull any lovely peaceful passages from the Koran and I will likely be able to prove they came form the earlier, passive, tolerant days in Mecca before they were stregthened in Medina, only to later return to Mecca savages, with most previous admonishments now superseded by aggressive war commands.

Remember when considering the Koran the lower numbers do not reflect an eRlier time, necessarily. The suras of the Koran are organized by size. So, a few overlapping templates exist through which to view the Koran: I've noted a few points but also the Koran is roughly, and fairly, divided into three periods (and three states of action)- Mecca, Medina, Mecca. Reflecting three states of development of Islam toward the dar al Salam (house of peace) 1. Tolerance, as early Islam claimed "Islamophobia!" Really! Nothing new here. 2. Defensive jihad, as re consolidating Islam made migration to Medina where they immediately set up regrouping forces and power and 3., Offensive jihad, reflecting the return to Mecca and the earth shattering debauchery and rivers of blood that flowed from the now significant Muslim hoards (Indeed a river here is called River of Blood after the prophet swore it would be. So many people were be headed that an advisor told the prophet he wasn't sure that it would technically be a "river of blood." Therefore, they improvised a dam which added some water and after many other souls were butchered the river was indeed of blood- still named so).

The graduation of revelations follow the life of the prophet and his push to war and savagery. Thus the later admonishments to war, closer to the passing, are the revisions of God- and thus the impetus to war for 1,400 years. Don't agree? Ok; but I'm correct.

Edited October 18, 2014 by arjunadawn

[H1w4yR1da]

It is relevant in as much as ISIS and similar groups use selected, out of context quotes to justify themselves.

The outdated and out of context verses ISIS use to justify those abomination also allow for the taking of male slaves; those taken in battle, for example.

'Selected', 'out of context', 'outdated' quotes and verses etc.

And you have that gall to wonder why we call you an apologist.

Edited October 18, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[KunMatt]

The outdated and out of context verses ISIS use

The excuses never stop, do they?

Is there such thing as an "outdated" verse in the Koran? I thought that the Koran today is exactly the same, word for word, as it was when it was written, and that the whole book is tied together by a mathematical code than means you cannot change or remove any words because the code and pattern will be broken, and this is why the Koran will never and can never be changed.

IMO, your correct... and not! No prophet can come again, thus the word of God is sealed. It's an error to assign some mystery of revelation and math to the Koran. Don't buy it; the exegesis of such math alone would constitute blasphemy. It's not there. The bible code? Just as likely not. In any event, the Koran is actually only supposed to exist as liturgy in Arabic alone. Thus the only reason this back desert langauGe became ubiquitous throughout the Muslim world. There's no other linguistic reason for this language to have survive- though it's speakers do declare its richness for poetry and imagination; I'm unconvinced.

The Koran was not contemporaneous with the prophet though arguably close. Indeed, after the prophets death the faithful started departing and IMO, after Abu Bekr's efforts, and the 2nd caliph, the assembly of the liturgy helped hold the fledgling faith together. Divinely inspired? I don't know, but assembled by man and no indication mathematicians were involved. The same applies to the Septuagint/Torah/Bible- oral-Greek-Latin-vernacular... Not a lot of room for mathematicians here.

Lastly, there are no outdated verses in Koranic scripture and the prophet spoke directly to this when asked regarding apparent inconsistencies with, for example, earlier peaceful mandates and later warlike mandates, the sword verse, for example.The prophet made it clear that God may see fit to revise a previous command and when done the later superceds the former. This is called abrogation in Islamic exegesis, which a few here argue does not exist. Pull any lovely peaceful passages from the Koran and I will likely be able to prove they came form the earlier, passive, tolerant days in Mecca before they were stregthened in Medina, only to later return to Mecca savages, with most previous admonishments now superseded by aggressive war commands.

Remember when considering the Koran the lower numbers do not reflect an eRlier time, necessarily. The suras of the Koran are organized by size. So, a few overlapping templates exist through which to view the Koran: I've noted a few points but also the Koran is roughly, and fairly, divided into three periods (and three states of action)- Mecca, Medina, Mecca. Reflecting three states of development of Islam toward the dar al Salam (house of peace) 1. Tolerance, as early Islam claimed "Islamophobia!" Really! Nothing new here. 2. Defensive jihad, as re consolidating Islam made migration to Medina where they immediately set up regrouping forces and power and 3., Offensive jihad, reflecting the return to Mecca and the earth shattering debauchery and rivers of blood that flowed from the now significant Muslim hoards (Indeed a river here is called River of Blood after the prophet swore it would be. So many people were be headed that an advisor told the prophet he wasn't sure that it would technically be a "river of blood." Therefore, they improvised a dam which added some water and after many other souls were butchered the river was indeed of blood- still named so).

The graduation of revelations follow the life of the prophet and his push to war and savagery. Thus the later admonishments to war, closer to the passing, are the revisions of God- and thus the impetus to war for 1,400 years. Don't agree? Ok; but I'm correct.

So that would mean that any "outdated verses" would be the more peaceful variety and the verses which apply are the more aggressive "offensive Jihad" verses, which is what the IS are using, right?

So, as discussed before, the IS are the true representation of what Islam is because they are quoting from the 2nd and 3rd periods of the Koran, any Muslim that is not doing defensive or offensive jihad is subscribing to the earlier and outdated texts, is this correct?

[simple1]

Is there such thing as an "outdated" verse in the Koran? I thought that the Koran today is exactly the same, word for word, as it was when it was written, and that the whole book is tied together by a mathematical code than means you cannot change or remove any words because the code and pattern will be broken, and this is why the Koran will never and can never be changed.

IMO, your correct... and not! No prophet can come again, thus the word of God is sealed. It's an error to assign some mystery of revelation and math to the Koran. Don't buy it; the exegesis of such math alone would constitute blasphemy. It's not there. The bible code? Just as likely not. In any event, the Koran is actually only supposed to exist as liturgy in Arabic alone. Thus the only reason this back desert langauGe became ubiquitous throughout the Muslim world. There's no other linguistic reason for this language to have survive- though it's speakers do declare its richness for poetry and imagination; I'm unconvinced.

The Koran was not contemporaneous with the prophet though arguably close. Indeed, after the prophets death the faithful started departing and IMO, after Abu Bekr's efforts, and the 2nd caliph, the assembly of the liturgy helped hold the fledgling faith together. Divinely inspired? I don't know, but assembled by man and no indication mathematicians were involved. The same applies to the Septuagint/Torah/Bible- oral-Greek-Latin-vernacular... Not a lot of room for mathematicians here.

Lastly, there are no outdated verses in Koranic scripture and the prophet spoke directly to this when asked regarding apparent inconsistencies with, for example, earlier peaceful mandates and later warlike mandates, the sword verse, for example.The prophet made it clear that God may see fit to revise a previous command and when done the later superceds the former. This is called abrogation in Islamic exegesis, which a few here argue does not exist. Pull any lovely peaceful passages from the Koran and I will likely be able to prove they came form the earlier, passive, tolerant days in Mecca before they were stregthened in Medina, only to later return to Mecca savages, with most previous admonishments now superseded by aggressive war commands.

Remember when considering the Koran the lower numbers do not reflect an eRlier time, necessarily. The suras of the Koran are organized by size. So, a few overlapping templates exist through which to view the Koran: I've noted a few points but also the Koran is roughly, and fairly, divided into three periods (and three states of action)- Mecca, Medina, Mecca. Reflecting three states of development of Islam toward the dar al Salam (house of peace) 1. Tolerance, as early Islam claimed "Islamophobia!" Really! Nothing new here. 2. Defensive jihad, as re consolidating Islam made migration to Medina where they immediately set up regrouping forces and power and 3., Offensive jihad, reflecting the return to Mecca and the earth shattering debauchery and rivers of blood that flowed from the now significant Muslim hoards (Indeed a river here is called River of Blood after the prophet swore it would be. So many people were be headed that an advisor told the prophet he wasn't sure that it would technically be a "river of blood." Therefore, they improvised a dam which added some water and after many other souls were butchered the river was indeed of blood- still named so).

The graduation of revelations follow the life of the prophet and his push to war and savagery. Thus the later admonishments to war, closer to the passing, are the revisions of God- and thus the impetus to war for 1,400 years. Don't agree? Ok; but I'm correct.

So that would mean that any "outdated verses" would be the more peaceful variety and the verses which apply are the more aggressive "offensive Jihad" verses, which is what the IS are using, right?

So, as discussed before, the IS are the true representation of what Islam is because they are quoting from the 2nd and 3rd periods of the Koran, any Muslim that is not doing defensive or offensive jihad is subscribing to the earlier and outdated texts, is this correct?

Abrogation is not a immutable belief throughout the Islamic world, the majority concur, some don't, it's an ongoing dialogue. In fact there is a Muslim sect that opposes abrogation, I beleive the Ahmadiyya, who are often oppressed and called out as unbelievers. Simplistically, the argument being God's guidance is always perfect and cannot be later changed to suit specific circumstances, as is the case with the so called Sword Verses. A rather dense overview of the fors and against at:

http://iiit.org/Research/ScholarsSummerInstitute/TableofContents/ArgumentsforAbrogationintheQuranACritique/tabid/241/Default.aspx

Naturally, if one has even a small iota of rational thought some of the verses in the Koran are from a man seeking power and domination, which have then used over the centuries to justify similar actions.

[7by7]

Outdated and out of context meaning that the circumstances in which they were written no longer apply; that is not relevant in the modern world. I could give examples of the same from other religions; had doing so not been ruled off topic.

As has been shown again and again, it is not I who call these verses outdated and out of context; but Muslim scholars all over the world; including radical groups like Khilafah.com!

But certain people here would rather believe a terrorist group like ISIS than the multitude of Muslim scholars who denounce ISIS and groups like them.

Yet when asked why this is so; they wont answer.

[KunMatt]

Outdated and out of context meaning that the circumstances in which they were written no longer apply; that is not relevant in the modern world. I could give examples of the same from other religions; had doing so not been ruled off topic.

As has been shown again and again, it is not I who call these verses outdated and out of context; but Muslim scholars all over the world; including radical groups like Khilafah.com!

But certain people here would rather believe a terrorist group like ISIS than the multitude of Muslim scholars who denounce ISIS and groups like them.

Yet when asked why this is so; they wont answer.

These "Multitudes of Muslim scholars who denounce these groups" have been completely drowned out by the millions amd millions of voices supporting and defending these terrorist groups in every form of media for the last 13 years. In fact, until recently Imams and scholars have publicly been showing their support for these groups and the opposition has been completely silent, why is that they never spoke up before? Go and look up any terror act and there will be Muslim leaders in the UK defending and supporting it, they may even be the same sources that you are linking to now who are now speaking out against ISIS.

There are many Muslims Imams preaching hate at their mosques in the UK. There are many Muslim teachers in the UK right now trying to take over UK schools with fundamental Islamic teachings in a trojan plot. There are 100s of terrorists plots in the UK just this year alone. If the vast majority of Mulsims are against groups like the ISIS then how is it that with a Muslim population of less than 3% in the UK there are so many terrorist activities going on and why is there no Muslim resistance to it?

Please point me to the many websites and names of the many anti - terrorist websites and groups run by moderate Muslims who aim to end Islamic terrorism instead of these sole recent quotes, they must exist because of the billion+ moderate Muslims in the world.

[chuckd]

The US Secretary of State has come up with some rather unique and innovative reasons for the violence and tactics of ISIS, including "Climate Change".

He claims Islam is NOT the problem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry: Extremism Not Linked to Islam; Factors Include Deprivation, Climate Change

October 17, 2014 - 4:13 AM

By Patrick Goodenough

(CNSNews.com) – Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday night rejected any link between Islam and extremism practiced by the likes of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS/ISIL/Daesh), pointing instead to factors such as poverty among youthful Mideast populations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – and climate change.

Addressing a reception at the State Department in honor of the recent Islamic holiday of Eid al-Adha, Kerry told an audience of Muslim community representatives, diplomats and others that the world was facing “a very complex time, and there are many currents that are loose out there that have brought us to this moment.”

“The extremism that we see, the radical exploitation of religion which is translated into violence, has no basis in any of the real religions,” he said. “There’s nothing Islamic about what ISIL/Daesh stands for, or is doing to people.”

Article continues here: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/kerry-extremism-not-linked-islam-factors-include-deprivation-climate

[7by7]

KunMatt; I have already provided many links to Muslims, from the UK and elsewhere, opposing and condemning terrorist groups in general and ISIS in particular.

You should read them.

You too, chuckd. You'll see that Kerry is not the only one calling the terrorists un Islamic; the majority of Muslims do as well!

Why do you both, like others here, believe the terrorists and not the majority of Muslims who condemn them as un Islamic?

[transam]

KunMatt; I have already provided many links to Muslims, from the UK and elsewhere, opposing and condemning terrorist groups in general and ISIS in particular.

You should read them.

You too, chuckd. You'll see that Kerry is not the only one calling the terrorists un Islamic; the majority of Muslims do as well!

Why do you both, like others here, believe the terrorists and not the majority of Muslims who condemn them as un Islamic?

Perhaps because the "terrorists" are doing their stuff in the same name of Islam, via the written words from the book they follow.

[7by7]

KunMatt; I have already provided many links to Muslims, from the UK and elsewhere, opposing and condemning terrorist groups in general and ISIS in particular.

You should read them.

You too, chuckd. You'll see that Kerry is not the only one calling the terrorists un Islamic; the majority of Muslims do as well!

Why do you both, like others here, believe the terrorists and not the majority of Muslims who condemn them as un Islamic?

Perhaps because the "terrorists" are doing their stuff in the same name of Islam, via the written words from the book they follow.

Whilst they undoubtedly claim this to be the case, Muslims leaders, scholars, Imams, ordinary Muslims around the world say that they are not; no matter what ISIS claim.

Perhaps you should read all those links as well.

[KunMatt]

KunMatt; I have already provided many links to Muslims, from the UK and elsewhere, opposing and condemning terrorist groups in general and ISIS in particular.

You should read them.

You too, chuckd. You'll see that Kerry is not the only one calling the terrorists un Islamic; the majority of Muslims do as well!

Why do you both, like others here, believe the terrorists and not the majority of Muslims who condemn them as un Islamic?

You know I am aware of your links because I referenced them in my post in one of the many points you blatantly ignored again. You claim that the majority of Muslims oppose terrorist so why is it then that there are so many more people on all types of media supporting and defending Islamic terrorism compared to the few links of recent quotes that you keep going back to?

Do a quick search on the net and see how proportionate Pro-Islamic terror websites are compared to the (non-existent) anti-terror websites WHICH ARE RUN BY MODERATE MUSLIMS. If the radicals are only 20% of all Muslims then how is there such a disproportionate support for them when an 80% majority could easily oppose and stamp out the radicals? How do these 20% encompass so many Imams in the UK that preach hate and incite terror at their mosques without a staunch opposition from moderate Muslims who attend their sermons?? How do 80% of their congregation not stand up and fight them to shut them down and stop them? Simple power in numbers means that 80% of UK Muslims could easily deal with the radical Imams and terrorists but they don't, it has to be dealt with by the non-Muslim anti-terror police while all of the UK Muslims leaders are quiet as a mouse each time. Why is that? Why do the silent majority let this happen and allow the radicals to expand?

Your whole point is that Islam is not a cause of terrorists but all history and facts show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is. Let's pretend you are right and 80% of Muslims are peaceful tolerate people who are not oversensitive to the most minor perceived sleight against their beliefs, that still means that 1 in 5 Muslims are hateful radical Jihadists which is a shocking amount. How many radical Christians are there? Jews? Buddhists? Mormons? Scientologists? How is it that Islam makes at least 20% of it's followers want to kill innocent people and live a barbaric lifestyle?

You say that we are basing our prejudice on a minority of Muslims but there are literally hundreds of millions of radicals, however your only defense right now is based on the words of a handful of Muslim scholars who may well be lying due to taqiyya to defend Islam. For me actions always speak louder than words and having a few Muslims say that Islam is a peaceful religion while their brothers are crucifying, raping, pillaging and committing a mass genocide on that same day is just a ridiculous example for you to use to justify your Muslim bias.

[samran]

KunMatt; I have already provided many links to Muslims, from the UK and elsewhere, opposing and condemning terrorist groups in general and ISIS in particular.

You should read them.

You too, chuckd. You'll see that Kerry is not the only one calling the terrorists un Islamic; the majority of Muslims do as well!

Why do you both, like others here, believe the terrorists and not the majority of Muslims who condemn them as un Islamic?

You know I am aware of your links because I referenced them in my post in one of the many points you blatantly ignored again. You claim that the majority of Muslims oppose terrorist so why is it then that there are so many more people on all types of media supporting and defending Islamic terrorism compared to the few links of recent quotes that you keep going back to?

Do a quick search on the net and see how proportionate Pro-Islamic terror websites are compared to the (non-existent) anti-terror websites WHICH ARE RUN BY MODERATE MUSLIMS. If the radicals are only 20% of all Muslims then how is there such a disproportionate support for them when an 80% majority could easily oppose and stamp out the radicals? How do these 20% encompass so many Imams in the UK that preach hate and incite terror at their mosques without a staunch opposition from moderate Muslims who attend their sermons?? How do 80% of their congregation not stand up and fight them to shut them down and stop them? Simple power in numbers means that 80% of UK Muslims could easily deal with the radical Imams and terrorists but they don't, it has to be dealt with by the non-Muslim anti-terror police while all of the UK Muslims leaders are quiet as a mouse each time. Why is that? Why do the silent majority let this happen and allow the radicals to expand?

Your whole point is that Islam is not a cause of terrorists but all history and facts show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is. Let's pretend you are right and 80% of Muslims are peaceful tolerate people who are not oversensitive to the most minor perceived sleight against their beliefs, that still means that 1 in 5 Muslims are hateful radical Jihadists which is a shocking amount. How many radical Christians are there? Jews? Buddhists? Mormons? Scientologists? How is it that Islam makes at least 20% of it's followers want to kill innocent people and live a barbaric lifestyle?

You say that we are basing our prejudice on a minority of Muslims but there are literally hundreds of millions of radicals, however your only defense right now is based on the words of a handful of Muslim scholars who may well be lying due to taqiyya to defend Islam. For me actions always speak louder than words and having a few Muslims say that Islam is a peaceful religion while their brothers are crucifying, raping, pillaging and committing a mass genocide on that same day is just a ridiculous example for you to use to justify your Muslim bias.

Not sure if doing a straw poll of how many internet websites pop up is a good measure.

It is usually the loons from all walks of life which are best at chucking up the website on whatever gets their bee in a bonnet.

Witness the plethora of right wing nutbag conspiracy websites which tend to be a bit of a fave of some of our Thai visa screaming ninnies, whether they be ones on how Jews control the world, how the US dollar is going the way of a dodo, how Obama was really born in Africa etc etc etc.

It is actually quite ironic that the jihadists are taking lessons from the radical American teaparty playbook, setting up all sorts of two bit AstroTurf one man band associations to make themselves look bigger than they are. The tea baggers, like your EDLs or any other fringe group want you to believe they are speaking for a 'silent majority' when in fact they are just a bunch of disparate people making a lot of noise in the echo chamber otherwise known as the interweb.

These radical Islamists are no different, taking to become YouTube jihadists to scare the bejeesus out of the punters in the west. Fear is control, which is what they want.

Fall for the hype and the panic, rather than cool calm methodical analysis of how to beat them, and they've already won.

Edited October 18, 2014 by samran

[chuckd]

KunMatt; I have already provided many links to Muslims, from the UK and elsewhere, opposing and condemning terrorist groups in general and ISIS in particular.

You should read them.

You too, chuckd. You'll see that Kerry is not the only one calling the terrorists un Islamic; the majority of Muslims do as well!

Why do you both, like others here, believe the terrorists and not the majority of Muslims who condemn them as un Islamic?

I do believe he is the only public official that has made the claim that global warming has had any effect on ISIS.

You might be able to find some Imam somewhere that believes this, though. If so, please let us know.

I see subtlety is not in your portfolio..

[KunMatt]

You know I am aware of your links because I referenced them in my post in one of the many points you blatantly ignored again. You claim that the majority of Muslims oppose terrorist so why is it then that there are so many more people on all types of media supporting and defending Islamic terrorism compared to the few links of recent quotes that you keep going back to?

Do a quick search on the net and see how proportionate Pro-Islamic terror websites are compared to the (non-existent) anti-terror websites WHICH ARE RUN BY MODERATE MUSLIMS. If the radicals are only 20% of all Muslims then how is there such a disproportionate support for them when an 80% majority could easily oppose and stamp out the radicals? How do these 20% encompass so many Imams in the UK that preach hate and incite terror at their mosques without a staunch opposition from moderate Muslims who attend their sermons?? How do 80% of their congregation not stand up and fight them to shut them down and stop them? Simple power in numbers means that 80% of UK Muslims could easily deal with the radical Imams and terrorists but they don't, it has to be dealt with by the non-Muslim anti-terror police while all of the UK Muslims leaders are quiet as a mouse each time. Why is that? Why do the silent majority let this happen and allow the radicals to expand?

Your whole point is that Islam is not a cause of terrorists but all history and facts show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is. Let's pretend you are right and 80% of Muslims are peaceful tolerate people who are not oversensitive to the most minor perceived sleight against their beliefs, that still means that 1 in 5 Muslims are hateful radical Jihadists which is a shocking amount. How many radical Christians are there? Jews? Buddhists? Mormons? Scientologists? How is it that Islam makes at least 20% of it's followers want to kill innocent people and live a barbaric lifestyle?

You say that we are basing our prejudice on a minority of Muslims but there are literally hundreds of millions of radicals, however your only defense right now is based on the words of a handful of Muslim scholars who may well be lying due to taqiyya to defend Islam. For me actions always speak louder than words and having a few Muslims say that Islam is a peaceful religion while their brothers are crucifying, raping, pillaging and committing a mass genocide on that same day is just a ridiculous example for you to use to justify your Muslim bias.

Not sure if doing a straw poll of how many internet websites pop up is a good measure.

It is usually the loons from all walks of life which are best at chucking up the website on whatever gets their bee in a bonnet.

Witness the plethora of right wing nutbag conspiracy websites which tend to be a bit of a fave of some of our Thai visa screaming ninnies, whether they be ones on how Jews control the world, how the US dollar is going the way of a dodo, how Obama was really born in Africa etc etc etc.

It is actually quite ironic that the jihadists are taking lessons from the radical American teaparty playbook, setting up all sorts of two bit AstroTurf one man band associations to make themselves look bigger than they are. The tea baggers, like your EDLs or any other fringe group want you to believe they are speaking for a 'silent majority' when in fact they are just a bunch of disparate people making a lot of noise in the echo chamber otherwise known as the interweb.

These radical Islamists are no different, taking to become YouTube jihadists to scare the bejeesus out of the punters in the west. Fear is control, which is what they want.

Fall for the hype and the panic, rather than cool calm methodical analysis of how to beat them, and they've already won.

I see you are copying 7by7's strategy of picking just one point to refute and ignoring the rest.

You would make a solid argument that these are "just a bunch of desperate people making a lot of noise in the echo chamber otherwise known as the interweb" if radical Muslims didn't make up hundreds of millions of terrorist from all countries in the world who are currently participated in an Islamic crusade.

If all of the genocide, crucifixions, mass beheadings, enslavement, rapes, torture and other crimes against humanity what is happening in the spreading Caliphate don't scare the bejesus out of you of then I don't know what will because it is all an example of what fundamental Islam will be whenever it conquers a new country and it is already starting to quietly conquer our own countries. Besides that I frequently work in the Middle East, Africa and other Islamic countries and I could think of nothing worse than the last voices I ever hear shouting "Allah akbah" before being murdered on video for all of my friends and family to see while millions of people speak up how it is all totally justified because I am a kuffar. So don't say that these are all just empty threats on the internet from "some loons" because this week there will probably be a couple more beheading videos of Westerners who did nothing against Islam apart from be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[simple1]

"if radical Muslims didn't make up hundreds of millions of terrorist from all countries in the world who are currently participated in an Islamic crusade"

From the US State Department, not known for under estimation, as of 2012, even with uprounding approx 200,000 members of known Islamic terrorist organisations. Allowing for a dramatic increase with the rise of Islamic State, let's guesstimate 300,000.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209989.htm

A review of the numbers at:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140506/14033627137/how-many-terrorists-are-there-not-as-many-as-you-might-think.shtml

Got any content that empirically refutes the above?

Edited October 19, 2014 by simple1

[KunMatt]

"if radical Muslims didn't make up hundreds of millions of terrorist from all countries in the world who are currently participated in an Islamic crusade"

From the US State Department, not known for under estimation, as of 2012, even with uprounding approx 200,000 members of known Islamic terrorist organisations. Allowing for a dramatic increase with the rise of Islamic State, let's guesstimate 300,000.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209989.htm

A review of the numbers at:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140506/14033627137/how-many-terrorists-are-there-not-as-many-as-you-might-think.shtml

Got any content that empirically refutes the above?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

I know the website itself has an agenda but they have a list of links to reputable sources who point out the percentage of Muslims who support radicals. It seems to range from 10% to 50% of Muslims worldwide depending on region, so let's just go with the figure of 20% I've always been using in this thread. There are between 1.2 to 1.8 billion Muslims globally, let's use the lowest figure again, so 20% of 1.2 billion Muslims = 240 million Muslims who are radical Muslims and that is the most conservative figure, I believe that it would be more like 40% to 60% of Muslims are in support of offensive Jihad. Even in the UK 25% of British Muslims supported the 7/7 bombings which killed 52 innocent civilians who were just going about their daily life, so in a civilised Western country 25% of Muslims supported offensive Jihad against Brits, and that was nearly 10 years ago, we have had a lot more radicalising and division since then.

Edited October 19, 2014 by KunMatt

[samran]

You know I am aware of your links because I referenced them in my post in one of the many points you blatantly ignored again. You claim that the majority of Muslims oppose terrorist so why is it then that there are so many more people on all types of media supporting and defending Islamic terrorism compared to the few links of recent quotes that you keep going back to?

Do a quick search on the net and see how proportionate Pro-Islamic terror websites are compared to the (non-existent) anti-terror websites WHICH ARE RUN BY MODERATE MUSLIMS. If the radicals are only 20% of all Muslims then how is there such a disproportionate support for them when an 80% majority could easily oppose and stamp out the radicals? How do these 20% encompass so many Imams in the UK that preach hate and incite terror at their mosques without a staunch opposition from moderate Muslims who attend their sermons?? How do 80% of their congregation not stand up and fight them to shut them down and stop them? Simple power in numbers means that 80% of UK Muslims could easily deal with the radical Imams and terrorists but they don't, it has to be dealt with by the non-Muslim anti-terror police while all of the UK Muslims leaders are quiet as a mouse each time. Why is that? Why do the silent majority let this happen and allow the radicals to expand?

Your whole point is that Islam is not a cause of terrorists but all history and facts show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is. Let's pretend you are right and 80% of Muslims are peaceful tolerate people who are not oversensitive to the most minor perceived sleight against their beliefs, that still means that 1 in 5 Muslims are hateful radical Jihadists which is a shocking amount. How many radical Christians are there? Jews? Buddhists? Mormons? Scientologists? How is it that Islam makes at least 20% of it's followers want to kill innocent people and live a barbaric lifestyle?

You say that we are basing our prejudice on a minority of Muslims but there are literally hundreds of millions of radicals, however your only defense right now is based on the words of a handful of Muslim scholars who may well be lying due to taqiyya to defend Islam. For me actions always speak louder than words and having a few Muslims say that Islam is a peaceful religion while their brothers are crucifying, raping, pillaging and committing a mass genocide on that same day is just a ridiculous example for you to use to justify your Muslim bias.

Not sure if doing a straw poll of how many internet websites pop up is a good measure.

It is usually the loons from all walks of life which are best at chucking up the website on whatever gets their bee in a bonnet.

Witness the plethora of right wing nutbag conspiracy websites which tend to be a bit of a fave of some of our Thai visa screaming ninnies, whether they be ones on how Jews control the world, how the US dollar is going the way of a dodo, how Obama was really born in Africa etc etc etc.

It is actually quite ironic that the jihadists are taking lessons from the radical American teaparty playbook, setting up all sorts of two bit AstroTurf one man band associations to make themselves look bigger than they are. The tea baggers, like your EDLs or any other fringe group want you to believe they are speaking for a 'silent majority' when in fact they are just a bunch of disparate people making a lot of noise in the echo chamber otherwise known as the interweb.

These radical Islamists are no different, taking to become YouTube jihadists to scare the bejeesus out of the punters in the west. Fear is control, which is what they want.

Fall for the hype and the panic, rather than cool calm methodical analysis of how to beat them, and they've already won.

I see you are copying 7by7's strategy of picking just one point to refute and ignoring the rest.

You would make a solid argument that these are "just a bunch of desperate people making a lot of noise in the echo chamber otherwise known as the interweb" if radical Muslims didn't make up hundreds of millions of terrorist from all countries in the world who are currently participated in an Islamic crusade.

If all of the genocide, crucifixions, mass beheadings, enslavement, rapes, torture and other crimes against humanity what is happening in the spreading Caliphate don't scare the bejesus out of you of then I don't know what will because it is all an example of what fundamental Islam will be whenever it conquers a new country and it is already starting to quietly conquer our own countries. Besides that I frequently work in the Middle East, Africa and other Islamic countries and I could think of nothing worse than the last voices I ever hear shouting "Allah akbah" before being murdered on video for all of my friends and family to see while millions of people speak up how it is all totally justified because I am a kuffar. So don't say that these are all just empty threats on the internet from "some loons" because this week there will probably be a couple more beheading videos of Westerners who did nothing against Islam apart from be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Um, I'm deflecting nothing. Simply making an analysis of the marketing strategies de jour of various hate groups and how they play from the same handbook.

The 'millions of terrorists' is however an example of the hysteria which you seem to have bought into hook line and sinker. They want you to believe it, and you clearly have (nb I've been to the Middle East and other muslim countries for work too). They want nothing more than a riled up islamaphobe opposition to act as their defacto recruitment and PR and propaganda arms which a few people on TV seem to be playing the part of well. I mean really 'millions' is over doing it and reminds me of the propaganda that North Korea sends out on its dominance jn be world.

Now, let's be clear, cause I feel like I've got an 'aplologist' name call coming my way, along with I'm guessing one of your favourite Google links to a crackpot website - is there a serious threat? Yes.

But where am I going to take my advice from?

- security agencies and the intelligence service?

- crackpots on the Internet and hysterical politicians and media organisations?

I'll let you guess.

[simple1]

"if radical Muslims didn't make up hundreds of millions of terrorist from all countries in the world who are currently participated in an Islamic crusade"

From the US State Department, not known for under estimation, as of 2012, even with uprounding approx 200,000 members of known Islamic terrorist organisations. Allowing for a dramatic increase with the rise of Islamic State, let's guesstimate 300,000.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209989.htm

A review of the numbers at:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140506/14033627137/how-many-terrorists-are-there-not-as-many-as-you-might-think.shtml

Got any content that empirically refutes the above?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

I know the website itself has an agenda but they have a list of links to reputable sources who point out the percentage of Muslims who support radicals. It seems to range from 10% to 50% of Muslims worldwide depending on region, so let's just go with the figure of 20% I've always been using in this thread. There are between 1.2 to 1.8 billion Muslims globally, let's use the lowest figure again, so 20% of 1.2 billion Muslims = 240 million Muslims who are radical Muslims and that is the most conservative figure, I believe that it would be more like 40% to 60% of Muslims are in support of offensive Jihad. Even in the UK 25% of British Muslims supported the 7/7 bombings which killed 52 innocent civilians who were just going about their daily life, so in a civilised Western country 25% of Muslims supported offensive Jihad against Brits, and that was nearly 10 years ago, we have had a lot more radicalising and division since then.

Polls are not empirical evidence. However, I selected one at random and when you actually review the detail the headline doesn’t support the supposed reality. One example from the poll below; there is other contradictions within the same poll.

Meanwhile, despite the archipelago’s seeming commitment to religion in all spheres of life, the Pew survey reported that 78 percent of Indonesian Muslims communicated a fear of religious extremist groups having a presence in their country, though only 19 percent of those surveyed said that strains between more and less devout Muslims are an issue for the country.

http://thejakartaglobe.beritasatu.com/news/seventy-two-percent-of-indonesians-favor-shariah-law-pew-forum/

Does the site you utilise also include polls that show a decrease in support for Islamic extremism in a number of Islamic majority countries & non majority in recent years?

[KunMatt]

Um, I'm deflecting nothing. Simply making an analysis of the marketing strategies de jour of various hate groups and how they play from the same handbook.

The 'millions of terrorists' is however an example of the hysteria which you seem to have bought into hook line and sinker. They want you to believe it, and you clearly have (nb I've been to the Middle East and other muslim countries for work too). They want nothing more than a riled up islamaphobe opposition to act as their defacto recruitment and PR and propaganda arms which a few people on TV seem to be playing the part of well. I mean really 'millions' is over doing it and reminds me of the propaganda that North Korea sends out on its dominance jn be world.

Now, let's be clear, cause I feel like I've got an 'aplologist' name call coming my way, along with I'm guessing one of your favourite Google links to a crackpot website - is there a serious threat? Yes.

But where am I going to take my advice from?

- security agencies and the intelligence service?

- crackpots on the Internet and hysterical politicians and media organisations?

I'll let you guess.

I don't think you're an apologist, you have your opinion and you are able to express it in a rational way without twisting the truth and I respect that.

Here's the sort of thing that is happening in the UK and will increase in line with the population of Muslims in each UK City.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psZBaJU_Cvo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

My kids will grow up in the UK and this is the sort of thing they have to look forward to.

So am I being hysterical or do I have a founded worry of what is really happening? Just look at every other country throughout history which Islam has conquered, it is always their way or no way i.e. riots and terror to achieve their way, and they always get their way in the end.

40% of British Muslims want Sharia law for the UK and the birth rate of UK Muslims is double that of non-Mulsims http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3971041.ece

It doesn't take much to realise what the future holds for my country, it's probably already too late to stop what has already been put into motion.

Edited October 19, 2014 by KunMatt

[arjunadawn]

Is there such thing as an "outdated" verse in the Koran? I thought that the Koran today is exactly the same, word for word, as it was when it was written, and that the whole book is tied together by a mathematical code than means you cannot change or remove any words because the code and pattern will be broken, and this is why the Koran will never and can never be changed.

IMO, your correct... and not! No prophet can come again, thus the word of God is sealed. It's an error to assign some mystery of revelation and math to the Koran. Don't buy it; the exegesis of such math alone would constitute blasphemy. It's not there. The bible code? Just as likely not. In any event, the Koran is actually only supposed to exist as liturgy in Arabic alone. Thus the only reason this back desert langauGe became ubiquitous throughout the Muslim world. There's no other linguistic reason for this language to have survive- though it's speakers do declare its richness for poetry and imagination; I'm unconvinced.

The Koran was not contemporaneous with the prophet though arguably close. Indeed, after the prophets death the faithful started departing and IMO, after Abu Bekr's efforts, and the 2nd caliph, the assembly of the liturgy helped hold the fledgling faith together. Divinely inspired? I don't know, but assembled by man and no indication mathematicians were involved. The same applies to the Septuagint/Torah/Bible- oral-Greek-Latin-vernacular... Not a lot of room for mathematicians here.

Lastly, there are no outdated verses in Koranic scripture and the prophet spoke directly to this when asked regarding apparent inconsistencies with, for example, earlier peaceful mandates and later warlike mandates, the sword verse, for example.The prophet made it clear that God may see fit to revise a previous command and when done the later superceds the former. This is called abrogation in Islamic exegesis, which a few here argue does not exist. Pull any lovely peaceful passages from the Koran and I will likely be able to prove they came form the earlier, passive, tolerant days in Mecca before they were stregthened in Medina, only to later return to Mecca savages, with most previous admonishments now superseded by aggressive war commands.

Remember when considering the Koran the lower numbers do not reflect an eRlier time, necessarily. The suras of the Koran are organized by size. So, a few overlapping templates exist through which to view the Koran: I've noted a few points but also the Koran is roughly, and fairly, divided into three periods (and three states of action)- Mecca, Medina, Mecca. Reflecting three states of development of Islam toward the dar al Salam (house of peace) 1. Tolerance, as early Islam claimed "Islamophobia!" Really! Nothing new here. 2. Defensive jihad, as re consolidating Islam made migration to Medina where they immediately set up regrouping forces and power and 3., Offensive jihad, reflecting the return to Mecca and the earth shattering debauchery and rivers of blood that flowed from the now significant Muslim hoards (Indeed a river here is called River of Blood after the prophet swore it would be. So many people were be headed that an advisor told the prophet he wasn't sure that it would technically be a "river of blood." Therefore, they improvised a dam which added some water and after many other souls were butchered the river was indeed of blood- still named so).

The graduation of revelations follow the life of the prophet and his push to war and savagery. Thus the later admonishments to war, closer to the passing, are the revisions of God- and thus the impetus to war for 1,400 years. Don't agree? Ok; but I'm correct.

So that would mean that any "outdated verses" would be the more peaceful variety and the verses which apply are the more aggressive "offensive Jihad" verses, which is what the IS are using, right?

So, as discussed before, the IS are the true representation of what Islam is because they are quoting from the 2nd and 3rd periods of the Koran, any Muslim that is not doing defensive or offensive jihad is subscribing to the earlier and outdated texts, is this correct?

Lost whole post. On road. Earlier versus in conflict are abrogated and take secondary value in context of the mission of the prophets life. The prophet died at a time of injunctions to great savagery and war, barbarism and indeed torture. After having gained great power in Medina some earlier mandates were replaced by warlike ones. When he marched on Mecca in return, brutality and destruction accompanied the forces. The behavior of brutality, beheadings, and debauchery were the norm, the practice, the commands until the prophet died. Therefore, the perfect man left as his final product a map or sorts, a formula leading from patience/tolerance, to seething, percolating aggression, to overt warring. This then is the blueprint in pursuit of the house of peace on earth. When one actually realizes what they are dealing with here it should take on a more pressing concern. You will not see me ever comment on the issue of faith, their god, or even moral judgments on the prophet (mostly); this is not because I refrain. It is because it is irrelevant. I do not indict islam or the prophet, per se. My only effort is to reveal the underlying formula of an ideology that also exists within this liturgy.

Jihad is conducted relative to the believer. It is enough for many to conduct jihad by quietly abhorring their pagan neighbors (frequently evident when fundamentalism enters an area and suddenly neighbors begin killing others). Jihad is conducted by migration and throughout the world numerous imams extol western social nets as the tax due muslims and their right to claim it, and to therefore make as many babies as possible. Others wage law-fare jihad plaguing western legal systems either by protest lawsuits or in pursuit of what they declare as "equality" or "claims of persecution;" more or less exactly as demonstrated the first time in Mecca, before the migration. All these observations are related and defy credulity to be seen as separate, observable, discontinuous practices. If ever unsure, listen to what they are telling us. Just listen! They are telling us quite clearly! Moreover, the silence of others declares the same exact proclamation even more loudly.

[arjunadawn]

"if radical Muslims didn't make up hundreds of millions of terrorist from all countries in the world who are currently participated in an Islamic crusade"

From the US State Department, not known for under estimation, as of 2012, even with uprounding approx 200,000 members of known Islamic terrorist organisations. Allowing for a dramatic increase with the rise of Islamic State, let's guesstimate 300,000.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2012/209989.htm

A review of the numbers at:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140506/14033627137/how-many-terrorists-are-there-not-as-many-as-you-might-think.shtml

Got any content that empirically refutes the above?

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm

I know the website itself has an agenda but they have a list of links to reputable sources who point out the percentage of Muslims who support radicals. It seems to range from 10% to 50% of Muslims worldwide depending on region, so let's just go with the figure of 20% I've always been using in this thread. There are between 1.2 to 1.8 billion Muslims globally, let's use the lowest figure again, so 20% of 1.2 billion Muslims = 240 million Muslims who are radical Muslims and that is the most conservative figure, I believe that it would be more like 40% to 60% of Muslims are in support of offensive Jihad. Even in the UK 25% of British Muslims supported the 7/7 bombings which killed 52 innocent civilians who were just going about their daily life, so in a civilised Western country 25% of Muslims supported offensive Jihad against Brits, and that was nearly 10 years ago, we have had a lot more radicalising and division since then.

"The website itself has an agenda" should not be something you need to defend, or excuse. Every single web site in the world has an agenda; every single one. Indeed, if the agenda is a perspective on islam contrary to popular impression, or contrary to apology, this does not mean it is not objective. I review this website constantly and when you realize the majority or links link to various publications throughout the planet earth, you realize the only agenda is a clearinghouse collating data. Even if this site were rabid, which it is not, it still offers valuable access to shocking data.

From desiring shar'ia, to approving suicide bombings, to supporting jihad, etc., the numbers are well above 500,000,000, from polls taken over the past ten years throughout much of the islamic world, of those qualified for the label "radical."