Is America at war with radical Islam?

[Credo]

I think your exaggerating and going off-topic. I doubt that America has killed a million Iraqis.

It's a British independent research organization who reported these numbers, not me.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

And all of those deaths are due to America?

[Petchou]

These numbers are exactly when bush and his cons were in war in irak before things get civil war encouraged by bush supporting one side against another. I hope you have been reading the news, otherwise you may be telling us bush brought peace and chocolate to Iraqis kids and families. Lol

[Credo]

Not only did I read the news, I lived there.

[BKKBobby]

I think your exaggerating and going off-topic. I doubt that America has killed a million Iraqis.

He just stated that Bush Jr had announced it to be a holy war. He was communicating with heaven while walking in the garden trying to decide what to do.

Not sure if I missed the earlier context, if any, but lets consider this: Did bush really announce this was a holy war? Ok, he used the world "crusade;" seems pretty clear, right? But how is that clear evidence of anything when the general perceptive today is that the crusades themselves were acts of aggression, an unprovoked holy war. Of course, the crusades were no such thing. The crusades were a final response to many hundreds of years of nonstop murder, mayhem, butchery, slaughter, raids, ambushes, rape, slavery, and conquest. From Jerusalem to Europe proper, Islam launched a HOLY WAR upon everyone on earth even while the prophet lived. So, if the jihad djinnie left the bottle again 20 years or more ago and declared a holy war/jihad upon the west, and later Bush uses the term "crusade," why is the same incorrect, broken, fallacious standard used?

IMO, the choice of crusade was poor. I am not a christian and I dont give a rat's ass for fighting for god. But this is a holy war long before Bush opened his mouth, as equally as there was a holy war before the end of the 11th century. Lastly, a man taking a walk in the garden to ponder the stupendous is hardly evidence of incompetence, it is suggestive of humanity. (PS- I dont even like Bush).

Consider this:

http://www.politicalislam.com/jihad-lead-crusades/

I was just in a sarcastic mood when i wrote that.

Didnt some of his religious supporters see some sort of relevance in the fact that Baghdad is very close to the site were Babylon existed?

Crazies exist among followers of every religion.

Edited February 13, 2015 by BKKBobby

[i claudius]

Just seems there are far more that worship Islam

[chuckd]

These numbers are exactly when bush and his cons were in war in irak before things get civil war encouraged by bush supporting one side against another. I hope you have been reading the news, otherwise you may be telling us bush brought peace and chocolate to Iraqis kids and families. Lol

You need to read your link in its entirety. Your link even disputes your numbers.

The link has this to say about the poll you used:

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

"The ORB poll estimate has come under criticism in a peer reviewed paper entitled "Conflict Deaths in Iraq: A Methodological Critique of the ORB Survey Estimate", published in the journal Survey Research Methods. This paper "describes in detail how the ORB poll is riddled with critical inconsistencies and methodological shortcomings", and concludes that the ORB poll is "too flawed, exaggerated and ill-founded to contribute to discussion of the human costs of the Iraq war".[8][9]

Epidemiologist Francisco Checci recently[when?] echoed these conclusions in a BBC interview, stating that he thinks the ORB estimate was "too high" and "implausible". Checci, like the paper above, says that a “major weakness” of the poll was a failure to adequately distinguish between households and extended family.[10]"

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORB_survey_of_Iraq_War_casualties

[canman]

"You have used similar calculus elsewhere within this topic that would include every man, woman and child in the local country Muslim population, this is a patently absurd methodology that is used by many."

And that, kind sir, is exactly why I chose to use the one in a thousand number.

My comment also applies to 'one in a thousand' that to my knowledge is plucked out of the air without any data to justify.

Indo has a population of around 250 million; how many actual islamic radicals reside in Indo or travel to conflict zones? At the moment an estimated 200 / 300 Indos are with ISIS; population wise a tiny number. Again my thoughts are the worldwide numbers of violent islamic extremists who have the West in mind are vastly exagerated.

If the percentages are estimated to be in the 20-30% arena, then I agree with you. They are too high.

My guesstimate that one in a thousand are candidates for suicide vests is NOT over the top. If anything it is too low.

Your reference to INDOnesia is somewhat off target. In the first place Indonesia is around 90% Islamic and operates under Sharia. It is also largely Shiite.

If Indonesia already has everything Muslims seem to want, why should they go fight an enemy they don't have?

In addition, ISIS is Sunni.

In 2003 I went to work in Indo after Bali Bombings. I met a woman and became close. First week she invites me to dinner. I say yes, Her driver takes us into Bogor. In Raffles restaurant a line of tables were set up with women on one end and men on the other. Ahhhh, this is not happening I thought. It was an islamic scholar meeting. I was sat on the left with a number of muslim imans, with the chief imam of Indo in the center. Down the other end was my girlfriend sitting with the woman, occasionally smiling. We were not married of course but...

I spoke no Bahasa at the time. At one point a man asked me, "where are you from my friend?" I said America. Hrmm, he paused and thought then added "I do not think you belong here, no?" Ah, No! I also think I do not belong here, I told him but it was so absurd I nearly laughed. NO! I did not belong there- what the F was she thinking? It was frighteningly hilarious. Her dad was the number one imam in Indo and she brought a white bulle American to dinner- and every one of them was kind and gracious. Later, my team said to me "you did what?" But also, later in time, the imam accepted me with compassion and food into his own home and Madras and never once tried to convert, impress, or alienate me. The man was simply pious.

This laid the foundation for my impressions of islamic Indonesia. While there are various issues with the sunni majority nation, I never had an unkind word, or injury, or danger to my person. All Indonesians treated me/us respectfully and with kindness. Indo may be shifting further toward the Shar'ia but it is not yet sharia. I know the Aceh sharia is spreading and intolerance is growing but Jamiah Islamiya had been there for some time seeding sharia. But still, it is not yet so disagreeable. IMO

I was in Aceh when the Aussies and UN went into Timor. I saw then the real face behind the Indo smile and it was not pleasant. I was literally lucky to get out alive.

[Steely Dan]

I hate the term radical Islam, does it allude to core attitudes per se, or the willingness to back said ideas with violence? There are many surveys that demonstrate that the core values adhered to by many western Muslims do not sit happily with those of a liberal democracy.

http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/obama-thinks-99-9-of-muslims-moderate-think-again.html/

[Publicus]

Sorry don't know about radical Islam but from what I see and have seen in the last 30 years or so we are being taken over by Islam full stop,or at least thats how it seems,

Time then to check the closets and under the bed...

[i claudius]

Sorry don't know about radical Islam but from what I see and have seen in the last 30 years or so we are being taken over by Islam full stop,or at least thats how it seems,

Time then to check the closets and under the bed...

No need they are out in the open ,not hiding , unlike many left wing leaning people who hide their heads in the sand.

[arjunadawn]

I hate the term radical Islam, does it allude to core attitudes per se, or the willingness to back said ideas with violence? There are many surveys that demonstrate that the core values adhered to by many western Muslims do not sit happily with those of a liberal democracy.

http://pamelageller.com/2015/02/obama-thinks-99-9-of-muslims-moderate-think-again.html/

I am unsure I totally got your point... but I think so. Each day when I hear or read the term "radical islam" my mind immediately images the world of "moderate" islam now- I no longer have a mental file that calls to mind a bearded one in a cave; now my mind calls to imagine the silent group of all others that the west argues are the good guys, the "moderates." The more I learn about islam, the text, the authorities, the history, and the incremental manner authority for jihad has built upon layers and layers of exhaustive jurisprudence for over 1400 years, I realize the only radical islamists are the ones who do not follow their faith. I am pleased by this, no doubt. But this obfuscating of reason betrays the real dangers. Remember, in Islamic jurisprudence theological exegesis that has been deliberated and decided cannot be revisited- ever; it is... a done deal! It is upon this monolith of 7th century tribal savagery we try to impose or marry modern mores and expectations- not gonna happen. This rock will not move.

[Ulysses G.]

Personally, I use the term "radical Islam" to differentiate from Muslims who just want to go to work, raise their families, live their lives and not force their religion om anyone. I realize that they are actually ignoring what the Qur'an tells them to do, but that is fine with me.

[arjunadawn]

I have frequently discussed a few things about Islam for which I have gotten some flak, or silence. You see, there is something very unknown, not unknowable, about Islam and because the Arabic and indeed the religion itself is so alien many people take for granted the mainstream information they are being provided accurately portrays Islam, and therefore the problems we see everywhere must necessarily be extremists, or people on the fringe. But there is for many of us a disconnect; I call it "cognitive dissonance" (I did not invent this term). It is where are sensory data input is in stark contrast to what we are being told on the TV. For the purposes of this post I will cite the president of the USA or his sycophants where they admonish us "lest we get on our high horse" that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore [these] people are "extremists." When he says such things it is unclear if he is talking about IS, Boko Haram, Hizbellohah, Hamas, PLO, PFLP, al Nursa, Al Queda, Abu Sayef, Jamiah Islamiyah, Afghan Taliban, Urighers, Shia, Pakistani Taliban, Sunni militias, Muslim Brotherhood, or any dozens or so others. (See the short list of those who misrepresent "The Religion of Peace" in attached PDF).

His point is Islam means Peace and therefore these renegades grossly distort the values and meanings of their prophet and the faith handed down for millennia. But is this true? Do these relatively few representatives of "Islam" really betray the core tenets?

I have always asserted there is a language abuse with Islam. It does not stem etymologically from salam, for peace. Rather it literally means Submission. So, as Islam has the world divided up into two parts, the dar al Harb (house of war) and the dar al islam (House of Peace) we need to realize this is fallacious. Dar al Islam means House of Submission. All places not IAW Shar'ia are the House of War. When someone becomes muslim they Submit. When Islam finally conquers the world the world will be in the House of Submission. Yet the realities of the 24/7 news feeds of numbing horrors and wars and bombings and amputations, and burning and raping and pillaging and plunder and mayhem and beheading and acid attacks and honor killing and assaults on other faiths and slavery and church burnings do not comport with the steady stream of Orwellian Speak "Islam is a religion of Peace." "[These] people do not represent Islam." Well, who does represent Islam?

Muslims do not stand up and protest in one or even a cacophony of fractured voices because they dont have a leg to stand on with regard to scripture. IS, AQ, and all these other groups actually do represent Islam. We may not want to accept this. It may be unpalatable. Indeed, its downright terrifying, but it is also 100% true. Gaslighting is when a political or other commentary is repeated over and over and over again until the premise, however wrong, sinks into the collective psyche and is taken as fact. This is the goal with the 24/7 cycle that "islam is a peaceful religion." Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam has never been a peaceful religion. Muslims have never asserted Islam is a peaceful religion. There has never been in the history of the world one single group of people for whom Islam has pressed its advantage that would later declare "Islam is a religion of Peace." Indeed, approximately 270,000,000 million dead later there is no support for such nonsense.

So, what exactly does IS say? What are the Koranic rationales for such atrocities? The authorization for the acts we see worldwide today are overwhelming scriptural authority, even for the burning- among the most contested acts (While the prophet said fire is for Al Lah alone, the companions did use fire- as did the prophet himself. So, 1/2 dozen or 6- there is authority for this as well. Lets look, shall we?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/12/isis-upset-with-obama-kerry-heretics-for-slogan-that-islam-is-religion-of-peace/

If there is a concern that this is translated poorly, lets consider what IS has to say in its own English magazine, #4:

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-isis-magazine-Issue-4-the-failed-crusade.pdf

My point above as elsewhere is to get at least one person a day to please see the possibility that this issue is far more grave then you are being led to believe. If those who read this agree, great. But I want at least one person who does not think this way to reconsider and please do some homework,

Terror Org.pdf

[BKKBobby]

Sorry don't know about radical Islam but from what I see and have seen in the last 30 years or so we are being taken over by Islam full stop,or at least thats how it seems,

Time then to check the closets and under the bed...

No need they are out in the open ,not hiding , unlike many left wing leaning people who hide their heads in the sand.

Dont forget to buy some more Heinz brown bean cans to stock in your home-made bunker.

[BKKBobby]

I have frequently discussed a few things about Islam for which I have gotten some flak, or silence. You see, there is something very unknown, not unknowable, about Islam and because the Arabic and indeed the religion itself is so alien many people take for granted the mainstream information they are being provided accurately portrays Islam, and therefore the problems we see everywhere must necessarily be extremists, or people on the fringe. But there is for many of us a disconnect; I call it "cognitive dissonance" (I did not invent this term). It is where are sensory data input is in stark contrast to what we are being told on the TV. For the purposes of this post I will cite the president of the USA or his sycophants where they admonish us "lest we get on our high horse" that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore [these] people are "extremists." When he says such things it is unclear if he is talking about IS, Boko Haram, Hizbellohah, Hamas, PLO, PFLP, al Nursa, Al Queda, Abu Sayef, Jamiah Islamiyah, Afghan Taliban, Urighers, Shia, Pakistani Taliban, Sunni militias, Muslim Brotherhood, or any dozens or so others. (See the short list of those who misrepresent "The Religion of Peace" in attached PDF).

His point is Islam means Peace and therefore these renegades grossly distort the values and meanings of their prophet and the faith handed down for millennia. But is this true? Do these relatively few representatives of "Islam" really betray the core tenets?

I have always asserted there is a language abuse with Islam. It does not stem etymologically from salam, for peace. Rather it literally means Submission. So, as Islam has the world divided up into two parts, the dar al Harb (house of war) and the dar al islam (House of Peace) we need to realize this is fallacious. Dar al Islam means House of Submission. All places not IAW Shar'ia are the House of War. When someone becomes muslim they Submit. When Islam finally conquers the world the world will be in the House of Submission. Yet the realities of the 24/7 news feeds of numbing horrors and wars and bombings and amputations, and burning and raping and pillaging and plunder and mayhem and beheading and acid attacks and honor killing and assaults on other faiths and slavery and church burnings do not comport with the steady stream of Orwellian Speak "Islam is a religion of Peace." "[These] people do not represent Islam." Well, who does represent Islam?

Muslims do not stand up and protest in one or even a cacophony of fractured voices because they dont have a leg to stand on with regard to scripture. IS, AQ, and all these other groups actually do represent Islam. We may not want to accept this. It may be unpalatable. Indeed, its downright terrifying, but it is also 100% true. Gaslighting is when a political or other commentary is repeated over and over and over again until the premise, however wrong, sinks into the collective psyche and is taken as fact. This is the goal with the 24/7 cycle that "islam is a peaceful religion." Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam has never been a peaceful religion. Muslims have never asserted Islam is a peaceful religion. There has never been in the history of the world one single group of people for whom Islam has pressed its advantage that would later declare "Islam is a religion of Peace." Indeed, approximately 270,000,000 million dead later there is no support for such nonsense.

So, what exactly does IS say? What are the Koranic rationales for such atrocities? The authorization for the acts we see worldwide today are overwhelming scriptural authority, even for the burning- among the most contested acts (While the prophet said fire is for Al Lah alone, the companions did use fire- as did the prophet himself. So, 1/2 dozen or 6- there is authority for this as well. Lets look, shall we?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/12/isis-upset-with-obama-kerry-heretics-for-slogan-that-islam-is-religion-of-peace/

If there is a concern that this is translated poorly, lets consider what IS has to say in its own English magazine, #4:

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-isis-magazine-Issue-4-the-failed-crusade.pdf

My point above as elsewhere is to get at least one person a day to please see the possibility that this issue is far more grave then you are being led to believe. If those who read this agree, great. But I want at least one person who does not think this way to reconsider and please do some homework,

Lets say you give the Torah or Bible to a 14 year old that never knew about religion previously. Tell him that hundreds of million people believes these books are for real. He will probably get a bit uncomfortable, maybe even scared.

He will of course also see a lot of peaceful stuff and nice rules to live by.

Maybe not relevant but, christianity was mainly a religion of fear, war and persecution in Europe for some hundred years until the end of the inquisition.

Edited February 14, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe not relevant but, christianity was mainly a religion of fear, war and persecution in Europe for some hundred years until the end of the inquisition.

That is ancient history. Most religions have evolved considerably for the better since then. The Olden Days are long gone.

[canuckamuck]

I have frequently discussed a few things about Islam for which I have gotten some flak, or silence. You see, there is something very unknown, not unknowable, about Islam and because the Arabic and indeed the religion itself is so alien many people take for granted the mainstream information they are being provided accurately portrays Islam, and therefore the problems we see everywhere must necessarily be extremists, or people on the fringe. But there is for many of us a disconnect; I call it "cognitive dissonance" (I did not invent this term). It is where are sensory data input is in stark contrast to what we are being told on the TV. For the purposes of this post I will cite the president of the USA or his sycophants where they admonish us "lest we get on our high horse" that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore [these] people are "extremists." When he says such things it is unclear if he is talking about IS, Boko Haram, Hizbellohah, Hamas, PLO, PFLP, al Nursa, Al Queda, Abu Sayef, Jamiah Islamiyah, Afghan Taliban, Urighers, Shia, Pakistani Taliban, Sunni militias, Muslim Brotherhood, or any dozens or so others. (See the short list of those who misrepresent "The Religion of Peace" in attached PDF).

His point is Islam means Peace and therefore these renegades grossly distort the values and meanings of their prophet and the faith handed down for millennia. But is this true? Do these relatively few representatives of "Islam" really betray the core tenets?

I have always asserted there is a language abuse with Islam. It does not stem etymologically from salam, for peace. Rather it literally means Submission. So, as Islam has the world divided up into two parts, the dar al Harb (house of war) and the dar al islam (House of Peace) we need to realize this is fallacious. Dar al Islam means House of Submission. All places not IAW Shar'ia are the House of War. When someone becomes muslim they Submit. When Islam finally conquers the world the world will be in the House of Submission. Yet the realities of the 24/7 news feeds of numbing horrors and wars and bombings and amputations, and burning and raping and pillaging and plunder and mayhem and beheading and acid attacks and honor killing and assaults on other faiths and slavery and church burnings do not comport with the steady stream of Orwellian Speak "Islam is a religion of Peace." "[These] people do not represent Islam." Well, who does represent Islam?

Muslims do not stand up and protest in one or even a cacophony of fractured voices because they dont have a leg to stand on with regard to scripture. IS, AQ, and all these other groups actually do represent Islam. We may not want to accept this. It may be unpalatable. Indeed, its downright terrifying, but it is also 100% true. Gaslighting is when a political or other commentary is repeated over and over and over again until the premise, however wrong, sinks into the collective psyche and is taken as fact. This is the goal with the 24/7 cycle that "islam is a peaceful religion." Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam has never been a peaceful religion. Muslims have never asserted Islam is a peaceful religion. There has never been in the history of the world one single group of people for whom Islam has pressed its advantage that would later declare "Islam is a religion of Peace." Indeed, approximately 270,000,000 million dead later there is no support for such nonsense.

So, what exactly does IS say? What are the Koranic rationales for such atrocities? The authorization for the acts we see worldwide today are overwhelming scriptural authority, even for the burning- among the most contested acts (While the prophet said fire is for Al Lah alone, the companions did use fire- as did the prophet himself. So, 1/2 dozen or 6- there is authority for this as well. Lets look, shall we?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/12/isis-upset-with-obama-kerry-heretics-for-slogan-that-islam-is-religion-of-peace/

If there is a concern that this is translated poorly, lets consider what IS has to say in its own English magazine, #4:

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-isis-magazine-Issue-4-the-failed-crusade.pdf

My point above as elsewhere is to get at least one person a day to please see the possibility that this issue is far more grave then you are being led to believe. If those who read this agree, great. But I want at least one person who does not think this way to reconsider and please do some homework,

Lets say you give the Torah or Bible to a 14 year old that never knew about religion previously. Tell him that hundreds of million people believes these books are for real. He will probably get a bit uncomfortable, maybe even scared.

He will of course also see a lot of peaceful stuff and nice rules to live by.

Maybe not relevant but, christianity was mainly a religion of fear, war and persecution in Europe for some hundred years until the end of the inquisition.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Christians and Jews are behaving a little better than they did in the 1400's. But the Muslims are still trying to rock that conversion by the sword thing.

[BKKBobby]

I have frequently discussed a few things about Islam for which I have gotten some flak, or silence. You see, there is something very unknown, not unknowable, about Islam and because the Arabic and indeed the religion itself is so alien many people take for granted the mainstream information they are being provided accurately portrays Islam, and therefore the problems we see everywhere must necessarily be extremists, or people on the fringe. But there is for many of us a disconnect; I call it "cognitive dissonance" (I did not invent this term). It is where are sensory data input is in stark contrast to what we are being told on the TV. For the purposes of this post I will cite the president of the USA or his sycophants where they admonish us "lest we get on our high horse" that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore [these] people are "extremists." When he says such things it is unclear if he is talking about IS, Boko Haram, Hizbellohah, Hamas, PLO, PFLP, al Nursa, Al Queda, Abu Sayef, Jamiah Islamiyah, Afghan Taliban, Urighers, Shia, Pakistani Taliban, Sunni militias, Muslim Brotherhood, or any dozens or so others. (See the short list of those who misrepresent "The Religion of Peace" in attached PDF).

His point is Islam means Peace and therefore these renegades grossly distort the values and meanings of their prophet and the faith handed down for millennia. But is this true? Do these relatively few representatives of "Islam" really betray the core tenets?

I have always asserted there is a language abuse with Islam. It does not stem etymologically from salam, for peace. Rather it literally means Submission. So, as Islam has the world divided up into two parts, the dar al Harb (house of war) and the dar al islam (House of Peace) we need to realize this is fallacious. Dar al Islam means House of Submission. All places not IAW Shar'ia are the House of War. When someone becomes muslim they Submit. When Islam finally conquers the world the world will be in the House of Submission. Yet the realities of the 24/7 news feeds of numbing horrors and wars and bombings and amputations, and burning and raping and pillaging and plunder and mayhem and beheading and acid attacks and honor killing and assaults on other faiths and slavery and church burnings do not comport with the steady stream of Orwellian Speak "Islam is a religion of Peace." "[These] people do not represent Islam." Well, who does represent Islam?

Muslims do not stand up and protest in one or even a cacophony of fractured voices because they dont have a leg to stand on with regard to scripture. IS, AQ, and all these other groups actually do represent Islam. We may not want to accept this. It may be unpalatable. Indeed, its downright terrifying, but it is also 100% true. Gaslighting is when a political or other commentary is repeated over and over and over again until the premise, however wrong, sinks into the collective psyche and is taken as fact. This is the goal with the 24/7 cycle that "islam is a peaceful religion." Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam has never been a peaceful religion. Muslims have never asserted Islam is a peaceful religion. There has never been in the history of the world one single group of people for whom Islam has pressed its advantage that would later declare "Islam is a religion of Peace." Indeed, approximately 270,000,000 million dead later there is no support for such nonsense.

So, what exactly does IS say? What are the Koranic rationales for such atrocities? The authorization for the acts we see worldwide today are overwhelming scriptural authority, even for the burning- among the most contested acts (While the prophet said fire is for Al Lah alone, the companions did use fire- as did the prophet himself. So, 1/2 dozen or 6- there is authority for this as well. Lets look, shall we?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/12/isis-upset-with-obama-kerry-heretics-for-slogan-that-islam-is-religion-of-peace/

If there is a concern that this is translated poorly, lets consider what IS has to say in its own English magazine, #4:

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-isis-magazine-Issue-4-the-failed-crusade.pdf

My point above as elsewhere is to get at least one person a day to please see the possibility that this issue is far more grave then you are being led to believe. If those who read this agree, great. But I want at least one person who does not think this way to reconsider and please do some homework,

Lets say you give the Torah or Bible to a 14 year old that never knew about religion previously. Tell him that hundreds of million people believes these books are for real. He will probably get a bit uncomfortable, maybe even scared.

He will of course also see a lot of peaceful stuff and nice rules to live by.

Maybe not relevant but, christianity was mainly a religion of fear, war and persecution in Europe for some hundred years until the end of the inquisition.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Christians and Jews are behaving a little better than they did in the 1400's. But the Muslims are still trying to rock that conversion by the sword thing.

Yes, correct.

My point was that Islam (the Koran) is not the cause of war itself.

Its just that theres a lot more muslims that currently use different interpretations of the Koran that is considered wrong by the modern universal standard thinking of the 21th century.

Yes, and I agree that theres too many muslims that use different interpretations of the Koran that should stop being used. Some passages should be totally ignored like most christians and jews do with the Bible and the Torah

If your religion is worth killing for then start with yourself.

Edited February 14, 2015 by BKKBobby

[Lissos]

Most religions have evolved considerably for the better since then. The Olden Days are long gone.

I'm not sure if it is a case of evolution within the religions, but a case of evolution within people themselves who went on a major cherry picking exercise, along with representatives of the religions who knew that if their sales were to continue then they couldn't continue to push a failed model onto the marketplace.

It is largely people themselves who no longer subscribe to archaic dictates, and the formal institutions knew it was futile to continue underlining those archaic dictates when they no longer had the power of state and all its legal and violent apparatus to 'insist' on the masses observing those dictates.

It is, in my view, the people which the narrative refers to as 'moderates' (cherry pickers), who grew up, now not afraid to disobey. On the whole, much of the Abrahamic Religious narrative is a nasty bit of fundamentalist work that thrives on manipulation of base fears with its myths, an angry inflexible punishing system with a few redeeming features within the ruff that can be cherry picked in this current age.

[boomerangutang]

Most people need and want a code to live by. When we're young, we have mommy (and if lucky, a dad at home) who's telling us what's right and wrong. Later there are teachers, then government, and if you join the military or a corporation or whatever, there are always people telling you how to be and how to think. Religions and their Gods have proven to be the most successful sales gigs on the planet. Some of us get to a point where we think for ourselves. I was brought up Christian, immersed myself in Hinduism from 20 to 25, then embraced Buddhism (Tibetan/Mahayana) for the ensuing 30 years. After living in Thailand for awhile, I got jaded on how Buddhism manifests here, so now I'm 'none-of-the-above.' It's liberating to not feel compelled, like religionists, to adhere to a belief system. Indeed, it can be scary for most people - like walking through town in the nude in the middle of a busy day. Atheism has been defined, by religionists, as 'not believing in God' and, by inference, 'not believing in anything.' Yet not being a deist opens up a renewed appreciation for what's really real (instead of myths and demands). Nature is what's real. From stings to mega-clusters of galaxies and beyond. Deists will tell you, "oh, that's God also!" ...but when they describe God, it involves too much shape-shifting. If God is everything AND has a will (which is a key character of all Gods), then it dilutes God down to an emotion-wracked controller.

I have a Buddhist friend who thinks, as/if Mankind keeps going over the next centuries, that religion will fall by the wayside. I'd like to think that's true, but frankly, it's doubtful. Hard core Religionists will try to propagate their belief systems as far and wide as they can. If that probe which dropped on a comet last year, had been developed by the Saudis or Iranians, it would probably have had Muslim preaching playing over a loudspeaker for all the Comet-people to get converted. I wonder if the message would mention these little disclaimers: 'You must look down on all those who are not Muslims as inferior infidels." "If you leave the religious fold, we kill you.'

[Lissos]

I have a Buddhist friend who thinks, as/if Mankind keeps going over the next centuries, that religion will fall by the wayside. I'd like to think that's true, but frankly, it's doubtful. Hard core Religionists will try to propagate their belief systems as far and wide as they can.

If an ideological system promises to reward with something (salvation, power, prestidge, superiority) it will always sell, no matter how old.

Hence the reason why teachings that bit by bit undermine all our goodies / crutches and leave us unremarkable, raw but free, don't.

[Publicus]

I have frequently discussed a few things about Islam for which I have gotten some flak, or silence. You see, there is something very unknown, not unknowable, about Islam and because the Arabic and indeed the religion itself is so alien many people take for granted the mainstream information they are being provided accurately portrays Islam, and therefore the problems we see everywhere must necessarily be extremists, or people on the fringe. But there is for many of us a disconnect; I call it "cognitive dissonance" (I did not invent this term). It is where are sensory data input is in stark contrast to what we are being told on the TV. For the purposes of this post I will cite the president of the USA or his sycophants where they admonish us "lest we get on our high horse" that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore [these] people are "extremists." When he says such things it is unclear if he is talking about IS, Boko Haram, Hizbellohah, Hamas, PLO, PFLP, al Nursa, Al Queda, Abu Sayef, Jamiah Islamiyah, Afghan Taliban, Urighers, Shia, Pakistani Taliban, Sunni militias, Muslim Brotherhood, or any dozens or so others. (See the short list of those who misrepresent "The Religion of Peace" in attached PDF).

His point is Islam means Peace and therefore these renegades grossly distort the values and meanings of their prophet and the faith handed down for millennia. But is this true? Do these relatively few representatives of "Islam" really betray the core tenets?

I have always asserted there is a language abuse with Islam. It does not stem etymologically from salam, for peace. Rather it literally means Submission. So, as Islam has the world divided up into two parts, the dar al Harb (house of war) and the dar al islam (House of Peace) we need to realize this is fallacious. Dar al Islam means House of Submission. All places not IAW Shar'ia are the House of War. When someone becomes muslim they Submit. When Islam finally conquers the world the world will be in the House of Submission. Yet the realities of the 24/7 news feeds of numbing horrors and wars and bombings and amputations, and burning and raping and pillaging and plunder and mayhem and beheading and acid attacks and honor killing and assaults on other faiths and slavery and church burnings do not comport with the steady stream of Orwellian Speak "Islam is a religion of Peace." "[These] people do not represent Islam." Well, who does represent Islam?

Muslims do not stand up and protest in one or even a cacophony of fractured voices because they dont have a leg to stand on with regard to scripture. IS, AQ, and all these other groups actually do represent Islam. We may not want to accept this. It may be unpalatable. Indeed, its downright terrifying, but it is also 100% true. Gaslighting is when a political or other commentary is repeated over and over and over again until the premise, however wrong, sinks into the collective psyche and is taken as fact. This is the goal with the 24/7 cycle that "islam is a peaceful religion." Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam has never been a peaceful religion. Muslims have never asserted Islam is a peaceful religion. There has never been in the history of the world one single group of people for whom Islam has pressed its advantage that would later declare "Islam is a religion of Peace." Indeed, approximately 270,000,000 million dead later there is no support for such nonsense.

So, what exactly does IS say? What are the Koranic rationales for such atrocities? The authorization for the acts we see worldwide today are overwhelming scriptural authority, even for the burning- among the most contested acts (While the prophet said fire is for Al Lah alone, the companions did use fire- as did the prophet himself. So, 1/2 dozen or 6- there is authority for this as well. Lets look, shall we?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/12/isis-upset-with-obama-kerry-heretics-for-slogan-that-islam-is-religion-of-peace/

If there is a concern that this is translated poorly, lets consider what IS has to say in its own English magazine, #4:

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-isis-magazine-Issue-4-the-failed-crusade.pdf

My point above as elsewhere is to get at least one person a day to please see the possibility that this issue is far more grave then you are being led to believe. If those who read this agree, great. But I want at least one person who does not think this way to reconsider and please do some homework,

The vast majority of Muslims throughout the world read their Koran and attend religious services then go about their secular everyday lives of raising a family, earning an income, maintaining a household. They are practical and pragmatic as they live their lives in the trenches of everyday reality, so they do what they need to do to survive economically and personally each and every day.

It was probably inevitable that once Al Qaeda rose to prominence during the 1990s then mounted 9/11 that different people's Dark Side Diaries would emerge and begin to gain adherents while seeking more followers. The initial reaction of populations across the globe to 9/11 was after all to choose up sides en masse for the new war of civilizations that had set itself upon all of us.

During the time and developments since Sept. 11, 2001 however, the peoples of the world have gained perspective and have calmed down, from somewhat to considerably.

It's been a bumpy ride from Sept 11, 2001 to the present date as more countries have become targets of the fiercely militant extremists that must be eradicated, annihilated, without delay or hesitation everywhere every time. France and Europe continue to experience their own crucible in this respect and, with some reason to be concerned about the European far right, it can be expected the country and the continent will endure and prosper

My point is that the religious mindset of an inevitable US vs THEM civilizational conflict that in 2001 seemed to seize on a good part of the global population and to divide it has now eased among the general populations of countries and continents. The fact is the general populations of the high profile countries where the major theistic religions are observed and practiced want peaceful coexistence and constructive cooperation.

It is only the hard liners on every continent who want the hell's ablazing conflict Bin Laden and his successors have sought to provoke. You can read it in their diaries simply by turning on your pc.

[Steely Dan]

Brilliant! There is little more that I can add, save for a few words on gaslighting.

So successful have US politicians been at selling the ridiculous religion of peace meme that a recent poll in Iowa found 53% of Republicans and 81% of Democrats considered Islam to be an inherently peaceful religion. Now what were you saying a bout cognitive dissonance? It makes me wonder how many more beheadings, bombings , shootings etc will it take for a majority to consider Islam not to be inherently peaceful. It's a sobering thought, but not only would it likely such a majority before any meaningful action would be undertaken by politicians, and that's if the issue was furthermore deemed important enough to voters viz other issues.

[NickJ]

Welcome back to the Crusades. .....lets start with getting France back.....end all immigration into the EU. ......

No Im not a racist. .........but its time to look at what Khadaffi said in regards to a islamanization of the west

[arjunadawn]

I have frequently discussed a few things about Islam for which I have gotten some flak, or silence. You see, there is something very unknown, not unknowable, about Islam and because the Arabic and indeed the religion itself is so alien many people take for granted the mainstream information they are being provided accurately portrays Islam, and therefore the problems we see everywhere must necessarily be extremists, or people on the fringe. But there is for many of us a disconnect; I call it "cognitive dissonance" (I did not invent this term). It is where are sensory data input is in stark contrast to what we are being told on the TV. For the purposes of this post I will cite the president of the USA or his sycophants where they admonish us "lest we get on our high horse" that Islam is a religion of peace, and therefore [these] people are "extremists." When he says such things it is unclear if he is talking about IS, Boko Haram, Hizbellohah, Hamas, PLO, PFLP, al Nursa, Al Queda, Abu Sayef, Jamiah Islamiyah, Afghan Taliban, Urighers, Shia, Pakistani Taliban, Sunni militias, Muslim Brotherhood, or any dozens or so others. (See the short list of those who misrepresent "The Religion of Peace" in attached PDF).

His point is Islam means Peace and therefore these renegades grossly distort the values and meanings of their prophet and the faith handed down for millennia. But is this true? Do these relatively few representatives of "Islam" really betray the core tenets?

I have always asserted there is a language abuse with Islam. It does not stem etymologically from salam, for peace. Rather it literally means Submission. So, as Islam has the world divided up into two parts, the dar al Harb (house of war) and the dar al islam (House of Peace) we need to realize this is fallacious. Dar al Islam means House of Submission. All places not IAW Shar'ia are the House of War. When someone becomes muslim they Submit. When Islam finally conquers the world the world will be in the House of Submission. Yet the realities of the 24/7 news feeds of numbing horrors and wars and bombings and amputations, and burning and raping and pillaging and plunder and mayhem and beheading and acid attacks and honor killing and assaults on other faiths and slavery and church burnings do not comport with the steady stream of Orwellian Speak "Islam is a religion of Peace." "[These] people do not represent Islam." Well, who does represent Islam?

Muslims do not stand up and protest in one or even a cacophony of fractured voices because they dont have a leg to stand on with regard to scripture. IS, AQ, and all these other groups actually do represent Islam. We may not want to accept this. It may be unpalatable. Indeed, its downright terrifying, but it is also 100% true. Gaslighting is when a political or other commentary is repeated over and over and over again until the premise, however wrong, sinks into the collective psyche and is taken as fact. This is the goal with the 24/7 cycle that "islam is a peaceful religion." Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam has never been a peaceful religion. Muslims have never asserted Islam is a peaceful religion. There has never been in the history of the world one single group of people for whom Islam has pressed its advantage that would later declare "Islam is a religion of Peace." Indeed, approximately 270,000,000 million dead later there is no support for such nonsense.

So, what exactly does IS say? What are the Koranic rationales for such atrocities? The authorization for the acts we see worldwide today are overwhelming scriptural authority, even for the burning- among the most contested acts (While the prophet said fire is for Al Lah alone, the companions did use fire- as did the prophet himself. So, 1/2 dozen or 6- there is authority for this as well. Lets look, shall we?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/02/12/isis-upset-with-obama-kerry-heretics-for-slogan-that-islam-is-religion-of-peace/

If there is a concern that this is translated poorly, lets consider what IS has to say in its own English magazine, #4:

http://media.clarionproject.org/files/islamic-state/islamic-state-isis-magazine-Issue-4-the-failed-crusade.pdf

My point above as elsewhere is to get at least one person a day to please see the possibility that this issue is far more grave then you are being led to believe. If those who read this agree, great. But I want at least one person who does not think this way to reconsider and please do some homework,

Lets say you give the Torah or Bible to a 14 year old that never knew about religion previously. Tell him that hundreds of million people believes these books are for real. He will probably get a bit uncomfortable, maybe even scared.

He will of course also see a lot of peaceful stuff and nice rules to live by.

Maybe not relevant but, christianity was mainly a religion of fear, war and persecution in Europe for some hundred years until the end of the inquisition.

Invariably, an apple falling from a tree will hit the ground. It may not always, but we believe it will based on observation and repetition. What does this have to do with modern day islamic jihad? Nothing. Nothing at all. Likewise, the moral equivalency notion that Islam differs little from prehistoric or pre enlightenment era aggression serves no purpose other than to mitigate those from our "high horse" today, according to Obama (Truly among the most outrageous things any president has ever said- to a christian audience, no less). This analogy has nothing to do with the modern Third Islamic Jihad. Mind you, and others, the call to remember the crusades is a strawman; it is fallacious. The crusades were a response to savagery and barbarism. The crusades were a response to the slaughter and subjugation of Jerusalem by muslims and nearly every other contiguous landmass associated with the arab peninsula, nonstop, year after year, for hundreds of years beginning with their prophet and ending only with a a_s kicking at Vienna in 1683 by the Polish king. Now its on again; the notion that today's issues are a product of today's issues... is nonsense.

While it is true that there were excesses in christianity, as elsewhere, the actions of [those] christians were a decided repudiation of the teachings of their Christ, who would have been loathe to see such butchery in His name, regardless of the reason; whereas muslims actually honor and emulate the most perfect among men, and in who's names IS et al actions are actually consistent with their prophet's admonishments of behavior toward others- al isan al kamil (The Doctrine of the Perfect Man). There is no christian equivalent to war upon others nonstop until the end of time just because they are the "others," whereas in islam that is the entire fabric of the faith- a House of War until a House of Submission is achieved globally. Furthermore, besides the crusades, for example, being a direct response to islamic aggression we do not live 1,000 years ago- we live today. Who gives a crap what any did yesterday? Why would egregious acts of horror be minimized in pursuit of other examples in history? This is the hat the Obama president inadvertently tipped when trying lately to minimize the burning of a Jordanian pilot (Yes, this is really quite shocking- the choice to reprimand, lest we judge IS too hard). Lets be clear, Islam is not being twisted or distorted by IS and others, irrespective of what this president asserts. Indeed, even IS responds to the president laughing, and once more citing the overwhelming authority for their actions. Others can produce no intelligible data to support these groups do not represent Islam; they do!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFNDIl42E20

[Publicus]

Apples and diaries.

One billion Muslims, almost all of which live in underdeveloped countries don't care what Christ or Mohammed said or did. Neither is in the trenches of every day life struggling to survive, to develop, to gain a reasonably secure existence in every respect possible, as the one billion Muslims are doing.

No general population of any country on any continent wants to wage "war upon others nonstop until the end of time just because they are the "others,". Giving some off the wall imam respect once a week does not mean one has himself taken up the sword....quite to the contrary when one looks at the every day reality of the huge number of the Muslims across the globe.

Only the political and cultural hard liners with religious extremists in Western countries see or want to see the legendary apocalypse or perhaps even armageddon on the horizon. The rest of us reject the dark side.

[NickJ]

Good night John Boy....good night maryellen......good night Momma......

[arjunadawn]

Lets say you give the Torah or Bible to a 14 year old that never knew about religion previously. Tell him that hundreds of million people believes these books are for real. He will probably get a bit uncomfortable, maybe even scared.

He will of course also see a lot of peaceful stuff and nice rules to live by.

Maybe not relevant but, christianity was mainly a religion of fear, war and persecution in Europe for some hundred years until the end of the inquisition.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Christians and Jews are behaving a little better than they did in the 1400's. But the Muslims are still trying to rock that conversion by the sword thing.

Yes, correct.

My point was that Islam (the Koran) is not the cause of war itself.

Its just that theres a lot more muslims that currently use different interpretations of the Koran that is considered wrong by the modern universal standard thinking of the 21th century.

Yes, and I agree that theres too many muslims that use different interpretations of the Koran that should stop being used. Some passages should be totally ignored like most christians and jews do with the Bible and the Torah

If your religion is worth killing for then start with yourself.

I beg to disagree; the koran is most definitely the cause of war itself. The Koran is a blueprint for war; I say it is a blueprint for war, IS and others say it is, and 1,400 years of jurisprudence say it is. Indeed, all shar'ia is predicated upon this. Where it was not specifically designed for war its implementation and exegesis established a military blueprint that has been exhaustively documented, deliberated, and reinforced over the centuries to clarify all the acts that today we stand aghast and announce "it must be an erroneous interpretation of the koran;" it is not nor can any person alive show me where I am mistaken.

The three phases of the nascent islamic religion follow the same three stages as a template for waging insidious war upon others when not in open conflict. The prophet was ran out of Mecca because the people tired of him maligning their gods and offending their sensibilities. They had no problem with Mohammed worshiping as he saw fit they just wanted the new muslims to be tolerant of their gods. Thus, Intolerance. The Hirjah (migration) to Medina would also become a mechanism widely used later to execute the three phases of non open warfare. In Medina they slowly established power, robbed caravans and practiced what they called Defensive Jihad. Basically, they argued, we have no choice- you dont like us. We must defend ourselves. Those in Mecca remained alarmed and still tried to dissuade this upstart religion because it was remarkably brutal and intolerant. Sadly, as the sura data which would be the koran later continues to grow so did the power of Islam. At the point of its then pinnacle it waged war upon Mecca in now Offensive Jihad and slew all; rivers literally ran with blood. Hundreds were beheaded by the prophet himself and the jews in Medina who refused to accept his offer to have the qibla (direction of prayer) point to Jerusalem where brutally suppressed, wives raped, all enslaved or killed. This ascendent power toward invincibility increasingly revealed mandates from Al Lah that were in opposition to earlier, lovely and peaceful mandates when they were young, vulnerable, in the Tolerant phase.

The Prophet made it clear the doctrine of Abrogation. Even Al Lah has a right to change his mind and at any time you find an earlier passage in conflict with a later passage the later passage will take precedence. Since these were the nonstop days of endless battle and success, the worldwide jihad phenomena became birthed and the authorities for such clearly superseded any earlier lovey dovey injunctions. Thus, the prophet himself began in earnest nonstop war upon... everyone, everywhere. The blueprint was laid for outright conquest and migration jihad. Regarding migration jihad, among other mandates, is that no muslims take others as friends, nor insinuate into society unless it is to deceive and further islam, and to only live amongst each other as islands. Thus when the prophet died the Perfect Man to Emulate was a murderer, torturer, rapist, and ostensibly by today's standards, a pedophile. He was a man of his day but he was brutal and he granted no quarter. It is his death, having abrogated any earlier peaceful suras, which set in stone forever the blueprint for global jihad.

It was clear then. It was clear later. It has always been clear- Islam is not a religion of peace nor was it ever intended toward such nonsensical aims. It was a religion of final revelation expressing both the chosen among god and those with whom Al Lah had displeasure and his dispensation upon the chosen to act in accordance with the plan and smite those people of the book and pagans as required.

Islamic jurisprudence is far more exhaustive then any modern country's legal system. It is plain and unequivocal- Islam must wage jihad to achieve global submission. Those who war follow Islam. Those who passively sit and watch, pledge allegiance with host nations, support democracy or women's rights, etc., are simply not orthodox muslims. But most definitely, there are not different interpretations of Islam. If there are, show me. Show me any short list of IS or other citations and the refutations demonstrating their absurdity. London imams tried this recently and they made a fool of themselves. Indeed, even al-Ashar islamic university has trouble rebuking IS et al.

[NickJ]

Muslims......are our friends........thats why they want.........TO TAKE OVER EUROPE.........ITS HAPPENING NOW....and sad to say its the whaka do's holding the only banner that makes sense

[BKKBobby]

Lets say you give the Torah or Bible to a 14 year old that never knew about religion previously. Tell him that hundreds of million people believes these books are for real. He will probably get a bit uncomfortable, maybe even scared.

He will of course also see a lot of peaceful stuff and nice rules to live by.

Maybe not relevant but, christianity was mainly a religion of fear, war and persecution in Europe for some hundred years until the end of the inquisition.

Perhaps you have noticed that the Christians and Jews are behaving a little better than they did in the 1400's. But the Muslims are still trying to rock that conversion by the sword thing.

Yes, correct.

My point was that Islam (the Koran) is not the cause of war itself.

Its just that theres a lot more muslims that currently use different interpretations of the Koran that is considered wrong by the modern universal standard thinking of the 21th century.

Yes, and I agree that theres too many muslims that use different interpretations of the Koran that should stop being used. Some passages should be totally ignored like most christians and jews do with the Bible and the Torah

If your religion is worth killing for then start with yourself.

I beg to disagree; the koran is most definitely the cause of war itself. The Koran is a blueprint for war; I say it is a blueprint for war, IS and others say it is, and 1,400 years of jurisprudence say it is. Indeed, all shar'ia is predicated upon this. Where it was not specifically designed for war its implementation and exegesis established a military blueprint that has been exhaustively documented, deliberated, and reinforced over the centuries to clarify all the acts that today we stand aghast and announce "it must be an erroneous interpretation of the koran;" it is not nor can any person alive show me where I am mistaken.

The three phases of the nascent islamic religion follow the same three stages as a template for waging insidious war upon others when not in open conflict. The prophet was ran out of Mecca because the people tired of him maligning their gods and offending their sensibilities. They had no problem with Mohammed worshiping as he saw fit they just wanted the new muslims to be tolerant of their gods. Thus, Intolerance. The Hirjah (migration) to Medina would also become a mechanism widely used later to execute the three phases of non open warfare. In Medina they slowly established power, robbed caravans and practiced what they called Defensive Jihad. Basically, they argued, we have no choice- you dont like us. We must defend ourselves. Those in Mecca remained alarmed and still tried to dissuade this upstart religion because it was remarkably brutal and intolerant. Sadly, as the sura data which would be the koran later continues to grow so did the power of Islam. At the point of its then pinnacle it waged war upon Mecca in now Offensive Jihad and slew all; rivers literally ran with blood. Hundreds were beheaded by the prophet himself and the jews in Medina who refused to accept his offer to have the qibla (direction of prayer) point to Jerusalem where brutally suppressed, wives raped, all enslaved or killed. This ascendent power toward invincibility increasingly revealed mandates from Al Lah that were in opposition to earlier, lovely and peaceful mandates when they were young, vulnerable, in the Tolerant phase.

The Prophet made it clear the doctrine of Abrogation. Even Al Lah has a right to change his mind and at any time you find an earlier passage in conflict with a later passage the later passage will take precedence. Since these were the nonstop days of endless battle and success, the worldwide jihad phenomena became birthed and the authorities for such clearly superseded any earlier lovey dovey injunctions. Thus, the prophet himself began in earnest nonstop war upon... everyone, everywhere. The blueprint was laid for outright conquest and migration jihad. Regarding migration jihad, among other mandates, is that no muslims take others as friends, nor insinuate into society unless it is to deceive and further islam, and to only live amongst each other as islands. Thus when the prophet died the Perfect Man to Emulate was a murderer, torturer, rapist, and ostensibly by today's standards, a pedophile. He was a man of his day but he was brutal and he granted no quarter. It is his death, having abrogated any earlier peaceful suras, which set in stone forever the blueprint for global jihad.

It was clear then. It was clear later. It has always been clear- Islam is not a religion of peace nor was it ever intended toward such nonsensical aims. It was a religion of final revelation expressing both the chosen among god and those with whom Al Lah had displeasure and his dispensation upon the chosen to act in accordance with the plan and smite those people of the book and pagans as required.

Islamic jurisprudence is far more exhaustive then any modern country's legal system. It is plain and unequivocal- Islam must wage jihad to achieve global submission. Those who war follow Islam. Those who passively sit and watch, pledge allegiance with host nations, support democracy or women's rights, etc., are simply not orthodox muslims. But most definitely, there are not different interpretations of Islam. If there are, show me. Show me any short list of IS or other citations and the refutations demonstrating their absurdity. London imams tried this recently and they made a fool of themselves. Indeed, even al-Ashar islamic university has trouble rebuking IS et al.

Did i say IS, al qaida or the nigerian whackos have any saying at all?

My grandfather was a religious muslim. He didnt give a sh×t about his kids beliefs. He didnt force anything on anyone and kept it to himself. He spent a lot of time praying for his kids since all his kids were secular though. Im drunk on valentines and revealing a little bit more than i should about my heritage.

Im mixed west asian/south east european mixed ethnicity. Baphtised protestant. Dont believe in religion.

Edited February 14, 2015 by BKKBobby