How Islamic is Islamic State group? Not very, experts say

[webfact]

How Islamic is Islamic State group? Not very, experts say
By LEE KEATH and HAMZA HENDAWI

CAIRO (AP) — Three British schoolgirls believed to have gone to Syria to become "jihadi" brides. Three young men charged in New York with plotting to join the Islamic State group and carry out attacks on American soil. A masked, knife-wielding militant from London who is the face of terror in videos showing Western hostages beheaded.

They are among tens of thousands of Muslims eager to pledge allegiance to the Islamic State group. An estimated 20,000 have streamed into the territory in Iraq and Syria where the group has proclaimed what it calls a "caliphate" ruled by its often brutal version of Islamic law.

But how rooted in Islam is the ideology embraced by this group that has inspired so many to fight and die?

President Barack Obama has insisted the militants behind a brutal campaign of beheadings, kidnappings and enslavement are "not Islamic" and only use a veneer of Islam for their own ends. Obama's critics argue the extremists are intrinsically linked to Islam. Others insist their ideology has little connection to religion.

The group itself has assumed the mantle of Islam's earliest years, purporting to recreate the conquests and rule of the Prophet Muhammad and his successors. But in reality its ideology is a virulent vision all its own, one that its adherents have created by plucking selections from centuries of traditions.

The vast majority of Muslim clerics say the group cherry picks what it wants from Islam's holy book, the Quran, and from accounts of Muhammad's actions and sayings, known as the Hadith. It then misinterprets many of these, while ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say.

The group's claim to adhere to the prophecy and example of Muhammad helps explain its appeal among young Muslim radicals eager to join its ranks. Much like Nazi Germany evoked a Teutonic past to inspire its followers, Islamic State propaganda almost romantically depicts its holy warriors as re-establishing the caliphate, contending that ideal of Islamic rule can come only through blood and warfare.

It maintains its worst brutalities — beheading captives, taking women and girls as sex slaves and burning to death a captured Jordanian pilot — only prove its purity in following what it contends is the prophet's example, a claim that appalls the majority of the world's 1.6 billion Muslims.

Writings by the group's clerics and ideologues and its English-language online magazine, Dabiq, are full of citations from Quranic verses, the Hadith and centuries of interpreters, mostly hard-liners.

But these are often taken far out of context, said Joas Wagemakers, an assistant professor of Islamic Studies at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, who specializes in Islamic militant thought.

Muslim scholars throughout history have used texts in a "decontextualized way" to suit their purposes, Wagemakers said. But the Islamic State goes "further than any other scholars have done. They represent the extreme," he said.

It would be a mistake to conclude the Islamic State group's extremism is the "true Islam" that emerges from the Quran and Hadith, he added.

Despite its claim to the contrary, the Islamic State group is largely political, borne out of the conflicts in Syria and Iraq, said Khaled Abou El Fadl, an Islamic law scholar at the University of California, Los Angeles.

The group, he said, is trying to make God "a co-conspirator in a genocidal project."

Ahmed al-Dawoody, an assistant professor at the Institute for Islamic World Studies at Zayed University in Dubai, agreed.

The phenomenon of reading religious sources out of context "has existed throughout the ages," he said. "We should not grant any legitimacy to those who violate Islam, then hijack it and speak on its behalf."

"This is not Islamic terror, this is terror committed by Muslims," he said.

IS not only misreads the texts it cites, most clerics say, it also ignores Quranic verses and a long body of clerical scholarship requiring mercy, preservation of life and protection of innocents, and setting out rules of war — all of which are binding under Islamic Shariah law.

Many mainstream clerics compare the group to the Khawarij, an early sect that was so notorious for "takfir," or declaring other Muslims heretics for even simple sins, that it was rejected by the faith. The Islamic State group denies that, but it draws heavily from 20th-century theories of "takfir" developed by hard-liners.

Part of the problem in countering the group's ideology is that moderate clerics have struggled to come up with a cohesive, modern interpretation, especially of the Quranic verses connected to Muhammad's wars with his enemies.

Militants often point to the Quran's ninth sura, or chapter, which includes calls for Muslims to "fight polytheists wherever you find them" and to subdue Christians and Jews until they pay a tax. Moderate clerics counter that these verses are linked to specifics of the time and note other verses that say there is "no force in religion."

And while moderate clerics counter the Islamic State group's interpretation point-by-point, at times they accept the same tenets.

Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb — the grand imam of Egypt's Al-Azhar, one of Sunni Islam's most prestigious seats of learning — denounced the burning of the Jordanian pilot as a violation of Islam. But then he called for the perpetrators to be subjected to the same punishment that IS prescribes for those who "wage war on Islam" — crucifixion, death or the amputation of hands and legs.

This turns the debate into one over who has the authority to determine the "correct" interpretation of Islam's holy texts. Since many of the most prominent clerics in the Middle East are part of state-run institutions, militant supporters dismiss them as compromised and accommodating autocratic rulers.

The Islamic State group's segregation of the sexes, imposition of the veil on women, destruction of shrines it considers heretical, hatred of Shiites and condoning of punishments like lashings or worse are accepted by clerics in U.S.-allied Saudi Arabia, who follow the ultraconservative Wahhabi interpretation of Islam.

But IS goes further.

For example, most militaries in the era of Muhammad — the 7th century — beheaded enemies and enslaved populations they captured in war, including taking women as concubines. There are citations in the Hadith of Muhammad or his successors ordering beheadings, and verses in the Quran set out rules for dealing with slaves.

Pivoting off these, the Islamic State group contends that anyone who rejects beheadings or enslavement is not a real Muslim and has been corrupted by modern Western ideas.

One Islamic State cleric, Sheikh Hussein bin Mahmoud, wrote a vehement defense of beheadings after the killing of American journalist James Foley.

"Those who pervert Islam are not those who cut off the heads of disbelievers and terrorize them," he wrote, "but those who want (Islam) to be like Mandela or Gandhi, with no killing, no fighting, no blood or striking necks."

Islam, he wrote, is the religion "of battle, of cutting heads, of shedding blood."

To support beheadings, the group cites the Quran as calling on Muslims to "strike the necks" of their enemies. But other clerics counter the verse means Muslim fighters should swiftly kill enemies in the heat of battle, and is not a call to execute captives. Moreover, IS ignores the next part of the verse, which says Muslims should set prisoners of war free as an act of charity or for ransom.

The Islamic State group "appears to have adopted violent ideas first, then searched books of religious interpretation to find a cover for their actions," said Sheikh Hamadah Nassar, a cleric in the ultraconservative Salafi movement.

In June, the extremists declared a caliphate, or "khilafa" in Arabic, in the lands it controls in Iraq and Syria, with its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as the caliph — a declaration roundly ridiculed by Muslim clerics of all stripes. But here too, the group went further, saying that Islam requires the existence of a caliphate and anyone who refuses to recognize its declaration is not a true Muslim.

"The hopes of khilafa became an undeniable reality," the group proclaimed in its online magazine, Dabiq. Any Muslim who refuses IS authority will be "dealt with by the decisive law of Allah."

After that, the stream of IS recruits swelled by thousands.
___

AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2015-03-03

[Steely Dan]

Ever since the Atlantic became the first mainstream publication to break ranks and detail the Islamic nature of ISIS various taqiyya merchants and useful idiots have been running interference. Here is a thorough de-bunking of this.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/new-york-post-recommends-that-obama-tell-still-more-soothing-falsehoods-about-islam

[daveAustin]

Whatever. Whether real Islamic folk or not, they are the arse end of the barrel where humans are concerned and absolutely must be eradicated, girls 'n all.

[Grouse]

Totally agree.

They are ALL the same

I want ALL of them gone

[Ulysses G.]

They read the Qur'an LITERALLY. They are Islamic all right.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Ulysses G.

[klauskunkel]

It would be a mistake to conclude the Islamic State group's extremism is the "true Islam" that emerges from the Quran and Hadith, he add

It will be the "true Islam", if ISIS is not put down and wiped out

[Mosha]

I wonder how they would describe a certain bloke from 1400 years ago, if you just described his exploits without naming names?

[arjunadawn]

This OP, while making a few thoughtful though incorrect musings based on apologists, comes no where close to actually saying anything useful at all. Really. There is simply nothing useful in this post for which a person could chew on it all day, discuss it later with friends, or get a good night's sleep considering some astute point- there are none!

The list is pretty long on where the OP can be indicted in a bill of complaint but lets just look at a few:

The group itself, DAESH/IS has not assumed the mantle of Islam's earliest years. IS looks exactly like Islam has looked at nearly every other single time in history since 632. The insinuation that this is a throwback is a boldfaced lie.

If attempting to recreate the life, conquest, and vision of the prophet, whether successful in part of whole, is called virulent by this OP, this should offend all muslims as emulating the Doctrine of the Perfect Man is the goal of every single muslim. "In reality" is a concession that all of what you will read will be biased and half truth because no where by this portion of the essay has this OP demonstrated by what authority it's command of reality should be taken as real and others relegated to derision and mockery. When one sees such words, know you are being lied to.

"Plucking sections" from the Koran, as expressed in this pejorative, demonstrates how academically retarded the author really is. Any rationale manner in which the Koran can be read would have any person plucking sections. You see, the Koran is not in chronological order it is in the size of the Sura, and the size of the Suras do not necessarily reflect the three prime stages of nascent Islam, Mecca, Medina, Mecca, and the companions and prophet's life. Moreoever, sections which appear earlier in time, though not necessarily sooner in the Koran, may will be abrogated by later passages, which may or may not come sooner, that subsume the earlier passages and its authority. To suggest then that "plucking" from the Koran is vile or mischief work reveals the bankruptcy of the OP. Taking material from any one of centuries of traditions does not an argument make; under islamic jurisprudence once an issue is deliberated and done so rightly it cannot be revisited; the implication that IS cherry picks differing ages for conflicting references to buttress their fallacious claim to authority is a blatant lie!

It is assumed by the first paragraph that the author has evidence previous caliphates were less brutal, not brutal, and by that manner this caliphate is labeled brutal? This is the only reasonable inference, and if not true, the statement should be retracted.

Since the world is full of those like me who await this "vast majority" of moderates, and the OP seems to be citing them, I then respond "Who?" "Where/who are they?" I think only two people are mentioned. When two unwise or even learned men are gathered you have twice as much of whatever they mostly are, but you do not thus have a "vast majority." What vast majority says there is cherry picking? Since the topic at issue is so academic yet infinitely topical and accessible it cannot be too much to ask which suras are cherry picked? Which Ahadith are cherry picked? What do they really mean? Who says they really mean that? What does IS says it means? How has it been referenced and used historically? For each of these questions, should one take only one example each, it would have filled half the space of this silly OP and actually proved something; this OP does not do that nor does it achieve anything but further confirm that apologists are actually not even knowledgeable. "...ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say." What experts? We have been introduced to none. A few persons are mentioned later with regard to something very specific but the vast majority still remains elusive while the OP drivels down the chin.

The OP knows nothing about islam; it is patently obvious if not unintentionally conceded. Islamic youth are not drawn to IS because they look like... they are drawn to IS because IS is executing that which is incumbent upon all of muslims, al-insan al-kamil.

I will stop here. Nearly every line of this OP is garbage. The OP argument is simply not made to support first the lies that are told in intro, and later justified by slipping in a few scholars who then comment on other things, and to later conclude with no real logic that IS does not represent Islam. PS, there is no history of deconceptualized exegesis from koranic and ahadith lore in the previous eons- all who may have tried would have been put to death and the papers burned (so, here again, show me a source). The mere notion deconceptualizing is contemporary; Islam never needed reference or context. It was always patently clear and would forever remain so- the prophet, the 7th century, the desert, the sword, etc., shall always be the context- period! Whoever wrote this OP should return to logic 101, then take an islamic primer, and then English 102.

"The Islamic State is very Islamic..." The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Edited March 3, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Steely Dan]

^^

Excellent analysis. When you see such articles through the optic of 'what are they trying to hide?' everything becomes clear. One telling extract. Is that ISIS contends its brutal actions are merely following Muhammad's example, which appalls the majority off the world's 1.6 billion Muslims.

Now the why? Why does it appall the majority of Muslims? Because it's a lie perhaps, or because the truth is too horrifying to confront. Of course the question is easily answered as the life of Mohammad is well documented. I would suggest the answer should be more horrifying still to the world's 5 billion or so infidels.

As you stated the article accuses ISIS of cherry picking, well what is the phrase 'There is no compulsion in religion' other than cherry picking? Yet this is what the moderates feed us constantly.

You could get a room full of scientists debating the existence of Higgs bosons, quarks and various other sub-atomic particles. They would all be particle physicists just so long as their theories were constructed using existing laws of physics as a framework. Equally Islamic state theology is based on the Quran and Hadiths, it does not claim to do anything unislamic by making assertions outside scripture any more than a particle physicist makes hypotheses without reference to existing knowledge of physics.

One final thought based again on physics is the accumulation of evidence to support or disprove a hypothesis. If Islam is a moderate merciful religion there should be evidence to support this assertion, yet the brutality of Sharia is readily observed throughout the Islamic world completely outside sphere of ISIS control. Everything points to an ongoing turf war within Islam to decide who rules it rather than to decide what Islam is, or is not.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Steely Dan

[Bangkok Herps]

Ever since the Atlantic became the first mainstream publication to break ranks and detail the Islamic nature of ISIS various taqiyya merchants and useful idiots have been running interference. Here is a thorough de-bunking of this.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/new-york-post-recommends-that-obama-tell-still-more-soothing-falsehoods-about-islam

Are you aware that one of those supposed "useful idiots" is the exact "World's Greatest ISIS Expert" that The Atlantic author claimed to be basing his assertions off of? Bernard Haykel himself has stated that most of the strongest assertions made in the article about ISIS and Islam are completely false.

What The Atlantic Left Out About ISIS According To Their Own Expert

“No,” he said. “I think that ISIS is a product of very contingent, contextual, historical factors. There is nothing predetermined in Islam that would lead to ISIS.”

“I consider people … who have criticized ISIS to be fully within the Islamic tradition, and in no way ‘less Muslim’ than ISIS,” he said. “I mean, that’s absurd.”

“ISIS’s representation of Islam is ahistorical,” Haykel said. “It’s saying we have to go back to the seventh century. It’s denying the legal complexity of the [islamic] legal tradition over a thousand years....So ISIS’s view of Islam is … unhistorical. They’re revising history.”

Haykel does say that he considers ISIS to also be broadly within the Islamic tradition, but with caveats. There's a lot more in the article about the historical and political factors that led to ISIS that have nothing to do will Islam, and that will continue to cause problems like this even if ISIS is completely eliminated.

“ISIS draws inspiration from Islamic traditions and Islamic texts — a very particular reading of that tradition and those texts — and it should be described and labeled as an extremist Islamic movement, or an Islamist [political] movement,” he said.

[Bangkok Herps]

The idea "all Islamic countries are no better than ISIS" is just ridiculous. Indonesia's the biggest Muslim country out there, and it's government is nothing like this. Look at Turkey, Malaysia, Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, the Maldives, Kuwait, Dubai, Bangladesh, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, even Egypt...they don't look the least bit like Sharia law.

The factors that have led to violence and oppression in certain Muslim-majority countries have at least as much to do with their historical/political position as they do with anything about Islam. It's not coincidence that the most extreme incidents of violence or oppression also happen to be the same places where Western governments have a long history of invasion and manipulation for their own gains. We're the ones who colonized most of the Middle East and Africa, started the whole Pakistan/India mess as a colonial side effect, sent the Jews to other people's land in Israel because we refused to take them in ourselves, armed Afghanistan and fed war there for more than a decade, tried to set up our own rulers in Iran and Iraq, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, continuously bomb the all over the region (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, etc.), and keep manipulating the region regularly for our own oil control.

Again, Haykel, the expert you guys are trying to lean on, blames these factors for the emergence of ISIS at this period in history:

“The reason ISIS emerged clearly has to do with the chaos in Iraq, the disenfranchisement of the Sunnis of Iraq (which is the result of the American invasion-occupation), and the chaos in Syria (which is a regime that has also disenfranchised Sunni Muslims),” he said. “We have two big Arab countries, side-by-side, both in chaos, both with large Sunni populations that are disenfranchised … With a lot of young men who have no prospects for employment and feel marginalized. And who then identify their sense of humiliation and marginalization with the larger Muslim world, which they claim is also being marginalized and being humiliated.”

Edited March 3, 2015 by Bangkok Herps

[Jingthing]

They are definitely Islamic but that doesn't mean all Muslims should follow them. Of course if they win their won't be any choice (and still stay alive),

[Seastallion]

Ever since the Atlantic became the first mainstream publication to break ranks and detail the Islamic nature of ISIS various taqiyya merchants and useful idiots have been running interference. Here is a thorough de-bunking of this.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/new-york-post-recommends-that-obama-tell-still-more-soothing-falsehoods-about-islam

An AP report quoting experts is "thoroughly debunked" by a radical bigot propaganda site? You can't be serious.

[Bangkok Herps]

I'm interested what the response will be since the Atlantic article has been mentioned multiple times, but the assertions that you claim to be basing off that article are thoroughly debunked by the expert the article relies on.

Since the world is full of those like me who await this "vast majority" of moderates, and the OP seems to be citing them, I then respond "Who?" "Where/who are they?" I think only two people are mentioned. When two unwise or even learned men are gathered you have twice as much of whatever they mostly are, but you do not thus have a "vast majority." What vast majority says there is cherry picking? Since the topic at issue is so academic yet infinitely topical and accessible it cannot be too much to ask which suras are cherry picked? Which Ahadith are cherry picked? What do they really mean? Who says they really mean that? What does IS says it means? How has it been referenced and used historically? For each of these questions, should one take only one example each, it would have filled half the space of this silly OP and actually proved something; this OP does not do that nor does it achieve anything but further confirm that apologists are actually not even knowledgeable. "...ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say." What experts? We have been introduced to none. A few persons are mentioned later with regard to something very specific but the vast majority still remains elusive while the OP drivels down the chin

Moderate Muslims have critiqued ISIS so consistently and so often that if you haven't heard them, it's your own fault:

ThinkProgress challenged Haykel’s assertion that people who declare ISIS unIslamic are unschooled in Islam, pointing to a lengthy letter signed by over 120 prominent Muslim leaders and scholars that refers to the Islamic State only in quotation marks and repeatedly rebukes their beliefs as “forbidden in Islam.” Several of the signers have openly declared ISIS unIslamic...

It goes on to discuss Grand Mufti Shawqi and the Dar al-Ifta's campaign to stop referring to ISIS as Islamic. Those aren't fringe figures - Shawqi is the highest official of religious law among Sunnis in Egypt and Dar al-Ifta is the premiere school of Islamic law.

And again Haykel, the guy you think is proving your assertions via the Atlantic article, actually says that a body like ISIS is not the historical norm at all, but is a product of the oppression that Sunnis have been under across their entire territory for the last few decades.

“The Sunni Muslim community, under normal circumstances … [historically] had mechanisms for silencing or eliminating extremists who would emerge from among them,” Haykel said. “[but] Sunni Muslims feel really beleaguered today … It’s very hard for Sunnis to say, today, ‘Let’s go and fight ISIS militarily,’ when you also have, let’s say, the Assad regime killing hundreds of thousands of Sunni Muslims, or Iran and its forces in Iraq and Syria and Lebanon also attacking Sunnis at the same time. In a world where a lot of people are attacking Sunnis, it’s hard for Sunnis to say ‘ISIS is the only bad group.’”

[Seastallion]

This OP, while making a few thoughtful though incorrect musings based on apologists, comes no where close to actually saying anything useful at all. Really. There is simply nothing useful in this post for which a person could chew on it all day, discuss it later with friends, or get a good night's sleep considering some astute point- there are none!

The list is pretty long on where the OP can be indicted in a bill of complaint but lets just look at a few:

The group itself, DAESH/IS has not assumed the mantle of Islam's earliest years. IS looks exactly like Islam has looked at nearly every other single time in history since 632. The insinuation that this is a throwback is a boldfaced lie.

If attempting to recreate the life, conquest, and vision of the prophet, whether successful in part of whole, is called virulent by this OP, this should offend all muslims as emulating the Doctrine of the Perfect Man is the goal of every single muslim. "In reality" is a concession that all of what you will read will be biased and half truth because no where by this portion of the essay has this OP demonstrated by what authority it's command of reality should be taken as real and others relegated to derision and mockery. When one sees such words, know you are being lied to.

"Plucking sections" from the Koran, as expressed in this pejorative, demonstrates how academically retarded the author really is. Any rationale manner in which the Koran can be read would have any person plucking sections. You see, the Koran is not in chronological order it is in the size of the Sura, and the size of the Suras do not necessarily reflect the three prime stages of nascent Islam, Mecca, Medina, Mecca, and the companions and prophet's life. Moreoever, sections which appear earlier in time, though not necessarily sooner in the Koran, may will be abrogated by later passages, which may or may not come sooner, that subsume the earlier passages and its authority. To suggest then that "plucking" from the Koran is vile or mischief work reveals the bankruptcy of the OP. Taking material from any one of centuries of traditions does not an argument make; under islamic jurisprudence once an issue is deliberated and done so rightly it cannot be revisited; the implication that IS cherry picks differing ages for conflicting references to buttress their fallacious claim to authority is a blatant lie!

It is assumed by the first paragraph that the author has evidence previous caliphates were less brutal, not brutal, and by that manner this caliphate is labeled brutal? This is the only reasonable inference, and if not true, the statement should be retracted.

Since the world is full of those like me who await this "vast majority" of moderates, and the OP seems to be citing them, I then respond "Who?" "Where/who are they?" I think only two people are mentioned. When two unwise or even learned men are gathered you have twice as much of whatever they mostly are, but you do not thus have a "vast majority." What vast majority says there is cherry picking? Since the topic at issue is so academic yet infinitely topical and accessible it cannot be too much to ask which suras are cherry picked? Which Ahadith are cherry picked? What do they really mean? Who says they really mean that? What does IS says it means? How has it been referenced and used historically? For each of these questions, should one take only one example each, it would have filled half the space of this silly OP and actually proved something; this OP does not do that nor does it achieve anything but further confirm that apologists are actually not even knowledgeable. "...ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say." What experts? We have been introduced to none. A few persons are mentioned later with regard to something very specific but the vast majority still remains elusive while the OP drivels down the chin.

The OP knows nothing about islam; it is patently obvious if not unintentionally conceded. Islamic youth are not drawn to IS because they look like... they are drawn to IS because IS is executing that which is incumbent upon all of muslims, al-insan al-kamil.

I will stop here. Nearly every line of this OP is garbage. The OP argument is simply not made to support first the lies that are told in intro, and later justified by slipping in a few scholars who then comment on other things, and to later conclude with no real logic that IS does not represent Islam. PS, there is no history of deconceptualized exegesis from koranic and ahadith lore in the previous eons- all who may have tried would have been put to death and the papers burned (so, here again, show me a source). The mere notion deconceptualizing is contemporary; Islam never needed reference or context. It was always patently clear and would forever remain so- the prophet, the 7th century, the desert, the sword, etc., shall always be the context- period! Whoever wrote this OP should return to logic 101, then take an islamic primer, and then English 102.

"The Islamic State is very Islamic..." The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

If you were arguing against Obama's statements, I would have to say, well, maybe you do know better than his advisers. Possible.

But since you are also contradicting "most mainstream clerics", professors and assistant professors of Islamic studies and Islamic law, various sheiks et al, experts all, I would have to now think that everything that you have ever written on the subject must be in doubt.

Whereas you, alone amongst members here, seemed to actually know what you were talking about, albeit from a radical sensationalist POV, now that I see you reject the experts, I can't entertain your view as a valid opinion any more.

[Thorgal]

This OP, while making a few thoughtful though incorrect musings based on apologists, comes no where close to actually saying anything useful at all. Really. There is simply nothing useful in this post for which a person could chew on it all day, discuss it later with friends, or get a good night's sleep considering some astute point- there are none!

The list is pretty long on where the OP can be indicted in a bill of complaint but lets just look at a few:

The group itself, DAESH/IS has not assumed the mantle of Islam's earliest years. IS looks exactly like Islam has looked at nearly every other single time in history since 632. The insinuation that this is a throwback is a boldfaced lie.

If attempting to recreate the life, conquest, and vision of the prophet, whether successful in part of whole, is called virulent by this OP, this should offend all muslims as emulating the Doctrine of the Perfect Man is the goal of every single muslim. "In reality" is a concession that all of what you will read will be biased and half truth because no where by this portion of the essay has this OP demonstrated by what authority it's command of reality should be taken as real and others relegated to derision and mockery. When one sees such words, know you are being lied to.

"Plucking sections" from the Koran, as expressed in this pejorative, demonstrates how academically retarded the author really is. Any rationale manner in which the Koran can be read would have any person plucking sections. You see, the Koran is not in chronological order it is in the size of the Sura, and the size of the Suras do not necessarily reflect the three prime stages of nascent Islam, Mecca, Medina, Mecca, and the companions and prophet's life. Moreoever, sections which appear earlier in time, though not necessarily sooner in the Koran, may will be abrogated by later passages, which may or may not come sooner, that subsume the earlier passages and its authority. To suggest then that "plucking" from the Koran is vile or mischief work reveals the bankruptcy of the OP. Taking material from any one of centuries of traditions does not an argument make; under islamic jurisprudence once an issue is deliberated and done so rightly it cannot be revisited; the implication that IS cherry picks differing ages for conflicting references to buttress their fallacious claim to authority is a blatant lie!

It is assumed by the first paragraph that the author has evidence previous caliphates were less brutal, not brutal, and by that manner this caliphate is labeled brutal? This is the only reasonable inference, and if not true, the statement should be retracted.

Since the world is full of those like me who await this "vast majority" of moderates, and the OP seems to be citing them, I then respond "Who?" "Where/who are they?" I think only two people are mentioned. When two unwise or even learned men are gathered you have twice as much of whatever they mostly are, but you do not thus have a "vast majority." What vast majority says there is cherry picking? Since the topic at issue is so academic yet infinitely topical and accessible it cannot be too much to ask which suras are cherry picked? Which Ahadith are cherry picked? What do they really mean? Who says they really mean that? What does IS says it means? How has it been referenced and used historically? For each of these questions, should one take only one example each, it would have filled half the space of this silly OP and actually proved something; this OP does not do that nor does it achieve anything but further confirm that apologists are actually not even knowledgeable. "...ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say." What experts? We have been introduced to none. A few persons are mentioned later with regard to something very specific but the vast majority still remains elusive while the OP drivels down the chin.

The OP knows nothing about islam; it is patently obvious if not unintentionally conceded. Islamic youth are not drawn to IS because they look like... they are drawn to IS because IS is executing that which is incumbent upon all of muslims, al-insan al-kamil.

I will stop here. Nearly every line of this OP is garbage. The OP argument is simply not made to support first the lies that are told in intro, and later justified by slipping in a few scholars who then comment on other things, and to later conclude with no real logic that IS does not represent Islam. PS, there is no history of deconceptualized exegesis from koranic and ahadith lore in the previous eons- all who may have tried would have been put to death and the papers burned (so, here again, show me a source). The mere notion deconceptualizing is contemporary; Islam never needed reference or context. It was always patently clear and would forever remain so- the prophet, the 7th century, the desert, the sword, etc., shall always be the context- period! Whoever wrote this OP should return to logic 101, then take an islamic primer, and then English 102.

"The Islamic State is very Islamic..." The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

If you were arguing against Obama's statements, I would have to say, well, maybe you do know better than his advisers. Possible.

But since you are also contradicting "most mainstream clerics", professors and assistant professors of Islamic studies and Islamic law, various sheiks et al, experts all, I would have to now think that everything that you have ever written on the subject must be in doubt.

Whereas you, alone amongst members here, seemed to actually know what you were talking about, albeit from a radical sensationalist POV, now that I see you reject the experts, I can't entertain your view as a valid opinion any more.

+1

[H1w4yR1da]

"This is not Islamic terror, this is terror committed by Muslims," he said.

Yeah.

Islamic terror.

Usual liberal doublespeak and deflection.

[Grouse]

Intellectual masturbation.

Nothing worth debating

As I say, they're all the same and I, for one, want them out..............

[arjunadawn]

^^

Excellent analysis. When you see such articles through the optic of 'what are they trying to hide?' everything becomes clear. One telling extract. Is that ISIS contends its brutal actions are merely following Muhammad's example, which appalls the majority off the world's 1.6 billion Muslims.

Now the why? Why does it appall the majority of Muslims? Because it's a lie perhaps, or because the truth is too horrifying to confront. Of course the question is easily answered as the life of Mohammad is well documented. I would suggest the answer should be more horrifying still to the world's 5 billion or so infidels.

As you stated the article accuses ISIS of cherry picking, well what is the phrase 'There is no compulsion in religion' other than cherry picking? Yet this is what the moderates feed us constantly.

You could get a room full of scientists debating the existence of Higgs bosons, quarks and various other sub-atomic particles. They would all be particle physicists just so long as their theories were constructed using existing laws of physics as a framework. Equally Islamic state theology is based on the Quran and Hadiths, it does not claim to do anything unislamic by making assertions outside scripture any more than a particle physicist makes hypotheses without reference to existing knowledge of physics.

One final thought based again on physics is the accumulation of evidence to support or disprove a hypothesis. If Islam is a moderate merciful religion there should be evidence to support this assertion, yet the brutality of Sharia is readily observed throughout the Islamic world completely outside sphere of ISIS control. Everything points to an ongoing turf war within Islam to decide who rules it rather than to decide what Islam is, or is not.

Yet Islam is merciful, and clearly so... to muslims; it makes this distinction quite clearly while reserving somewhat less compassion for other people of the book, and none for pagans. You will never be able to produce one single coherent essay that both asserts islam is merciful and peaceful and sets forth the theological arguments and exegesis to support this position. I am not stating the argument cannot be made without detractors, those who object, and those who rally against this point. I am saying the argument cannot be made at all! There is no string of logic, contiguous tracts of verbiage, and injunctions that assert such a thing as peace and love and mercy (that has not been clearly abrogated by later conflicting admonishments). It cannot be construed nor found because it does not exist and was actually anathema to islam as it evolved following their stay in Medina. It cannot be done!

[Steely Dan]

The idea "all Islamic countries are no better than ISIS" is just ridiculous. Indonesia's the biggest Muslim country out there, and it's government is nothing like this. Look at Turkey, Malaysia, Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, the Maldives, Kuwait, Dubai, Bangladesh, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, even Egypt...they don't look the least bit like Sharia law.

The factors that have led to violence and oppression in certain Muslim-majority countries have at least as much to do with their historical/political position as they do with anything about Islam. It's not coincidence that the most extreme incidents of violence or oppression also happen to be the same places where Western governments have a long history of invasion and manipulation for their own gains. We're the ones who colonized most of the Middle East and Africa, started the whole Pakistan/India mess as a colonial side effect, sent the Jews to other people's land in Israel because we refused to take them in ourselves, armed Afghanistan and fed war there for more than a decade, tried to set up our own rulers in Iran and Iraq, invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, continuously bomb the all over the region (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya, Syria, etc.), and keep manipulating the region regularly for our own oil control.

Again, Haykel, the expert you guys are trying to lean on, blames these factors for the emergence of ISIS at this period in history:

“The reason ISIS emerged clearly has to do with the chaos in Iraq, the disenfranchisement of the Sunnis of Iraq (which is the result of the American invasion-occupation), and the chaos in Syria (which is a regime that has also disenfranchised Sunni Muslims),” he said. “We have two big Arab countries, side-by-side, both in chaos, both with large Sunni populations that are disenfranchised … With a lot of young men who have no prospects for employment and feel marginalized. And who then identify their sense of humiliation and marginalization with the larger Muslim world, which they claim is also being marginalized and being humiliated.”

The idea that all Islamic Countries are the same as ISIS is your constructed straw man. Saudi Arabia who flogs blasphemers to death, who beheads some criminals based on Sharia. Imprisons homosexuals, won't allow any other religion to exist in its land, where apostates are put to death. Incidentally your list of Islamic Countries are themselves host to countless Sharia horrors. That they don't all implement it all does not make Islamic law any more moderate.

As for the Western oppression canard, well that is sunk completely by the first two Jihads, which took place without any Western oppression, their source was their interpretation of Islam, just like ISIS interpret Islam. When you filter out the pretexts (Western wrongs, Palestine etc) from the true motives (Jihad) there is precious little difference between ISIS and the hard line

Wahabs and Salafis, who they are having a theological debate with, save for tactical differences that is.

This is not to say that a great many Muslims don't reject the literal implications of Islam, but most don't dare state this. There are a few notable exceptions, such as Al-Sisi of Egypt, who appealed directly to Al-Azhar university to modernize Islamic jurisprudence to stop interpretations of Islam used by ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

Edited March 3, 2015 by Steely Dan

[H1w4yR1da]

The idea "all Islamic countries are no better than ISIS" is just ridiculous. Indonesia's the biggest Muslim country out there, and it's government is nothing like this. Look at Turkey, Malaysia, Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, the Maldives, Kuwait, Dubai, Bangladesh, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, even Egypt...they don't look the least bit like Sharia law.

Are you joking?

You're just plain wrong.

Malaysia is turning increasingly radical. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/21/religion-islam

Bosnia is seeing a build up of Islamic extremism. http://serbianna.com/analysis/archives/2779

The Maldives and Qatar are under full Sharia law.

And radical Islam is on the rise in many of the countries you listed.

Egypt, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Morocco and Jordan use Sharia law in certain instances.

The 'stans' are a hotbed of terrorism.

Enough of the apologist crap. Trying to distance ISIS from Islam (or even in this case, from Sharia) just because it doesn't suit your liberal pro-Islam/Muslim sensibilities is fooling no one.

Of course not all Muslim countries are like ISIS, but many of them are not far off.

And having the cheek to dismiss jihadwatch as bigoted (race card will be next?) propaganda while quoting a far left site like thinkprogress is just hilarious.

Edited March 3, 2015 by H1w4yR1da

[arjunadawn]

Ever since the Atlantic became the first mainstream publication to break ranks and detail the Islamic nature of ISIS various taqiyya merchants and useful idiots have been running interference. Here is a thorough de-bunking of this.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/03/new-york-post-recommends-that-obama-tell-still-more-soothing-falsehoods-about-islam

Are you aware that one of those supposed "useful idiots" is the exact "World's Greatest ISIS Expert" that The Atlantic author claimed to be basing his assertions off of? Bernard Haykel himself has stated that most of the strongest assertions made in the article about ISIS and Islam are completely false.

What The Atlantic Left Out About ISIS According To Their Own Expert

Haykel does say that he considers ISIS to also be broadly within the Islamic tradition, but with caveats. There's a lot more in the article about the historical and political factors that led to ISIS that have nothing to do will Islam, and that will continue to cause problems like this even if ISIS is completely eliminated.

Why would I submit links that either mitigate or rail against a point I make. I tried to explain it once and got my ass chewed out privately by people who agree with me, but that I made us look compromised. Look, it does not matter what any says. If a person reads or avoids a link in a TV post and it was required to firmly seat him on one side of the fence or the other that is unfortunate. I think most of us have near formed thoughts about this. There are those on either side of this particular issue asserting Islam is this, that, and IS, this, that, and any can find another essay or link to argue any point. My position is not increased nor lessened by any other data brought to the battle space of ideas. IS is most definitely Islamic, yes; with caveats. Even I think some of the crap they do is near without precedent. When I include a link that is neutral or contrary to my point my point is not lessened; I place much more regard for my point of view than I do for any citation I could possibly link. My observations on such issues are born in the crucible of direct experience. I hardly give a crap what an essayist writes.

But one must ask why the race to argue IS et al is not islamic when IS and company argues it is? Why the race to argue all these are not islamic when they argue they are? Why the race to preserve this notion of of the moderate islamic muslim when for the most part society cannot produce them? Why the defining or withholding of defining labeling when that which we aver exists only in our mind- the "moderate muslims," the "muslim majority." (I have never seen anyone produce them with any authority or numbers). I know there are moderate muslims the same way I know there is a god- I dont really. I believe there is a moderate muslim majority the same way I know my individual soul will survive death- I dont really know, but I hope so. There is an awful lot of effort going on by people who should be on the same side of this issue but are stuck in language and definition and in many ways this is more concerning than the threat. Is some vital battle really won were folks like me to concede they are not islamic, islamic is a beneficient religion like Buddhism? Is there a victory or a tactical gain toward victory with this issue? (Of course my only obstacle in conceding this is I have actually read the islamic religious books a number of times and there is very little about love and compassion in them so...).

For me it is self evident that islam has waged war upon the world since its inception, with brief respites. The evidence of the islamic conquest and savagery is ubiquitous; it is at every level of archeology and anthropology. Yet today, now, while following the same exact road map as previous times, that resulted in hundreds of millions dead, we know better, we know islam enough to assert these people do not represent islam? How utterly contemptuous and what hubris? Fewer epochs in history have amassed so many brilliant, knowledgeable people to volunteer to wheel the shiny giant horsey into our city for homage.

[cooked]

There is no room for cherry picking in Islam. TheKoran is perfect, nothing more needs to be written, nothing needs to be changed. Saying 'I am a Muslim' means that you accept and obey everything in there, including the really outrageous calls for violence. The Koran is written in classical Arab, which only a minority of students understand. Whatever arguments you come up with about this ridiculous book, you will be told you read the wrong translation or that you have to read the original.

All that doesn't matter, the one thread that runs all the way through the book is that if you don't follow the edicts, commands and laws uttered by an outrageous paedophile and murderer, you are not a true Muslim. Which means you deserve death. I also picked up a statistic from the UK, 45% of Muslims there believe that the Charlie Hebdo killings were justified... other statistics about stoning (of women) for adultery was correct.

[arjunadawn]

This OP, while making a few thoughtful though incorrect musings based on apologists, comes no where close to actually saying anything useful at all. Really. There is simply nothing useful in this post for which a person could chew on it all day, discuss it later with friends, or get a good night's sleep considering some astute point- there are none!

The list is pretty long on where the OP can be indicted in a bill of complaint but lets just look at a few:

The group itself, DAESH/IS has not assumed the mantle of Islam's earliest years. IS looks exactly like Islam has looked at nearly every other single time in history since 632. The insinuation that this is a throwback is a boldfaced lie.

If attempting to recreate the life, conquest, and vision of the prophet, whether successful in part of whole, is called virulent by this OP, this should offend all muslims as emulating the Doctrine of the Perfect Man is the goal of every single muslim. "In reality" is a concession that all of what you will read will be biased and half truth because no where by this portion of the essay has this OP demonstrated by what authority it's command of reality should be taken as real and others relegated to derision and mockery. When one sees such words, know you are being lied to.

"Plucking sections" from the Koran, as expressed in this pejorative, demonstrates how academically retarded the author really is. Any rationale manner in which the Koran can be read would have any person plucking sections. You see, the Koran is not in chronological order it is in the size of the Sura, and the size of the Suras do not necessarily reflect the three prime stages of nascent Islam, Mecca, Medina, Mecca, and the companions and prophet's life. Moreoever, sections which appear earlier in time, though not necessarily sooner in the Koran, may will be abrogated by later passages, which may or may not come sooner, that subsume the earlier passages and its authority. To suggest then that "plucking" from the Koran is vile or mischief work reveals the bankruptcy of the OP. Taking material from any one of centuries of traditions does not an argument make; under islamic jurisprudence once an issue is deliberated and done so rightly it cannot be revisited; the implication that IS cherry picks differing ages for conflicting references to buttress their fallacious claim to authority is a blatant lie!

It is assumed by the first paragraph that the author has evidence previous caliphates were less brutal, not brutal, and by that manner this caliphate is labeled brutal? This is the only reasonable inference, and if not true, the statement should be retracted.

Since the world is full of those like me who await this "vast majority" of moderates, and the OP seems to be citing them, I then respond "Who?" "Where/who are they?" I think only two people are mentioned. When two unwise or even learned men are gathered you have twice as much of whatever they mostly are, but you do not thus have a "vast majority." What vast majority says there is cherry picking? Since the topic at issue is so academic yet infinitely topical and accessible it cannot be too much to ask which suras are cherry picked? Which Ahadith are cherry picked? What do they really mean? Who says they really mean that? What does IS says it means? How has it been referenced and used historically? For each of these questions, should one take only one example each, it would have filled half the space of this silly OP and actually proved something; this OP does not do that nor does it achieve anything but further confirm that apologists are actually not even knowledgeable. "...ignoring everything in the texts that contradicts those hand-picked selections, these experts say." What experts? We have been introduced to none. A few persons are mentioned later with regard to something very specific but the vast majority still remains elusive while the OP drivels down the chin.

The OP knows nothing about islam; it is patently obvious if not unintentionally conceded. Islamic youth are not drawn to IS because they look like... they are drawn to IS because IS is executing that which is incumbent upon all of muslims, al-insan al-kamil.

I will stop here. Nearly every line of this OP is garbage. The OP argument is simply not made to support first the lies that are told in intro, and later justified by slipping in a few scholars who then comment on other things, and to later conclude with no real logic that IS does not represent Islam. PS, there is no history of deconceptualized exegesis from koranic and ahadith lore in the previous eons- all who may have tried would have been put to death and the papers burned (so, here again, show me a source). The mere notion deconceptualizing is contemporary; Islam never needed reference or context. It was always patently clear and would forever remain so- the prophet, the 7th century, the desert, the sword, etc., shall always be the context- period! Whoever wrote this OP should return to logic 101, then take an islamic primer, and then English 102.

"The Islamic State is very Islamic..." The Atlantic

http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2015/02/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

If you were arguing against Obama's statements, I would have to say, well, maybe you do know better than his advisers. Possible.

But since you are also contradicting "most mainstream clerics", professors and assistant professors of Islamic studies and Islamic law, various sheiks et al, experts all, I would have to now think that everything that you have ever written on the subject must be in doubt.

Whereas you, alone amongst members here, seemed to actually know what you were talking about, albeit from a radical sensationalist POV, now that I see you reject the experts, I can't entertain your view as a valid opinion any more.

Seastallion, this is a well written, spot on nail in my head rebuttal; well done! Seriously. However, I stand strongly by my assertions irrespective of whatever dog pecker gnats are lined up stating the opposite. In a nutshell: IS/DAESH is quite Islamic. I know it as well as many other clerics and professors and mideast experts. I have studied this my entire life and instructed trends in international terrorism, later specializing in islamic terrorism. It is still very possible I have left the reservation and am now a dumb ass. But I am not.

The issue has a different lens I invite you to use when considering future protests and detractions of ostensible experts. The question as to who is islamic and who is not is a scarecrow. I assure you even having the discussion something is lost, in this case time and reason. There is no real issue present in the muslim world whether IS et al is islamic or not. Any fool who is familiar with the arabic text of the koran, and all are as the liturgy can only be in arabic, knows that IS cites koran and ahadith quite perfectly and while in a few instances really stretched exegesis, like the burning, even here they demonstrated profound theology by noting that the prophet reserved fire for al lah, but the companions asserted its sufficient for apostates. They are not inferior wannabees, they are quite adept at theological application and exegesis. So, what is the problem or the lens I refer to?

This entire issue is about usurpation. The Muslim Brotherhood has tirelessly been working for years to accomplish finally during Obama's watch tier one of islamic terror's goals, removal of illegitimate rulers- this admonishment actually is first cause, 7th century stuff. This goes right back to the authorities arising from the battle of Karbala and sooner. The illiegitmate rulers must go. And yet over night, under the cover of allied against Assad, IS was born and claimed, defined, and sustain a caliphate contrary to the Muslim Brotherhood. They agree 100% with each other and differ 100% on who should be running it. Such terms as not islamic are fodder for distraction, they mean nothing. They are both going the same direction and every single muslim on earth with more than a passing glance realizes what is going on.

So, dismiss me, ignore me, minimize me, I dont care. You and others have been kind enough to allow me my voice and I thank you. However, you are mistaken and since I assert things are moving so fast i will likely still be checking in when you can return later scratching your head and declare "I see your point." They are all going for the caliphate.

[arjunadawn]

I'm interested what the response will be since the Atlantic article has been mentioned multiple times, but the assertions that you claim to be basing off that article are thoroughly debunked by the expert the article relies on.

Moderate Muslims have critiqued ISIS so consistently and so often that if you haven't heard them, it's your own fault:

And again Haykel, the guy you think is proving your assertions via the Atlantic article, actually says that a body like ISIS is not the historical norm at all, but is a product of the oppression that Sunnis have been under across their entire territory for the last few decades.

Not sure I was clear. You will never find a single thing in any of my posts that are referencing another link or cite. Example, I only read the byline of the Atlantic piece. My post stands on its own merit and is not lessened or enhanced by whatever the Atlantic says. If it disagrees with me, see above. I still reserve the right to be correct!

[JockPieandBeans]

All these so called Muslim / Islamic experts ??

The clue is in the name.

Islamic State.

Experts can cite, wring their hands and get their pink panties in a right old twist. It makes no difference.

The ones that matter, the ones carrying out the atrocities call themselves '' Islamic State ''

Now let me see just one of these Islamic Scholars / Experts go and wave some Centuries old edict in the face of IS and see how long it takes for their head and shoulders to part company.

[Bangkok Herps]

The idea "all Islamic countries are no better than ISIS" is just ridiculous. Indonesia's the biggest Muslim country out there, and it's government is nothing like this. Look at Turkey, Malaysia, Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, the Maldives, Kuwait, Dubai, Bangladesh, Morocco, Jordan, Qatar, even Egypt...they don't look the least bit like Sharia law.

Are you joking?

You're just plain wrong.

Malaysia is turning increasingly radical. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/oct/21/religion-islam

Bosnia is seeing a build up of Islamic extremism. http://serbianna.com/analysis/archives/2779

The Maldives and Qatar are under full Sharia law.

And radical Islam is on the rise in many of the countries you listed.

Egypt, Bangladesh, Kuwait, Morocco and Jordan use Sharia law in certain instances.

The 'stans' are a hotbed of terrorism.

Enough of the apologist crap. Trying to distance ISIS from Islam (or even in this case, from Sharia) just because it doesn't suit your liberal pro-Islam/Muslim sensibilities is fooling no one.

Of course not all Muslim countries are like ISIS, but many of them are not far off.

And having the cheek to dismiss jihadwatch as bigoted (race card will be next?) propaganda while quoting a far left site like thinkprogress is just hilarious.

I didn't say anything about jihadwatch.

And saying, "there's stuff in some of those countries that I don't like" or "they use the word sharia!" has nothing to do with ISIS. You can't just conflate everything you don't like about Muslim people or Muslim nations together in one package. Those nations aren't anything like ISIS, which is what I said.

The United States has committed far more killing and atrocity in recent history than most of the nations I mentioned (all of them, in fact, with the possible exception of Egypt), and you could say the same thing for Australia and England in the fairly recent past. Plenty of denial of rights and atrocity committed to parts of their own populations and to other populations as well.

Christian Serbia was far more violent and genocidal than Muslim Bosnia in their recent war.

Atheist/Buddhist Burma is a much more repressive place to live than adjacent Muslim Bangladesh, Muslim Indonesia is more free than Atheist Vietnam, and I'd far rather live in Malaysia under Muslims than Laos under atheists.

The Muslim "stans" that have moved on from their USSR-era atheist leadership and now have moderate Muslim governments are more free than the "stans" that still have atheist holdovers leading the state.

The most horrifically oppressive countries in recent memory - North Korea and Pol Pot's Cambodia - weren't religious at all, and many of the most significant dictatorships responsible for the most deaths in recent history - such as Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, and Franco's Spain - all had Christian or Atheist backgrounds.

This isn't an anti-Christian or anti-Atheist post. I'm a devout Christian and a good number of my friends are very good atheists. All governments have some faults. I'm just pointing out that there's absolutely no validity to claiming that correlation equals causation, and even the claims of correlation are quite faulty.

That bears repeating. Correlation does not equal causation. The simplistic claims you are making would be rejected by a social or political scientist immediately because it is so ignorant of the wider reality of political, historical, and economic factors.

[laban]

The reality of IS is more simple than all above. They are a cult that uses some verses of the Quran and Hadith to justify their actions. They do not follow shariah law, and cannot be called Muslims.

They are quite a bit more extreme than the 'christian' Jimmy Jones cult or other cults that are headed by a megalomaniac and/or power hungry individuals. Their vision is obviously to conquer lands and people using the name of Islam and killing everyone who stands in their way. They are also very much a reaction to an islamophobic world, and also detest the so called Muslim nations and their leaderships. IS is a cult of heretics which should be destroyed.

[Bangkok Herps]

All these so called Muslim / Islamic experts ??

The clue is in the name.

Islamic State.

Experts can cite, wring their hands and get their pink panties in a right old twist. It makes no difference.

The ones that matter, the ones carrying out the atrocities call themselves '' Islamic State ''

Now let me see just one of these Islamic Scholars / Experts go and wave some Centuries old edict in the face of IS and see how long it takes for their head and shoulders to part company.

Joseph Kony is the head of the Lord's Resistance Army, purporting to fight in the name of their Christian Lord. Well, they must be fighting for the Lord, right?

"Christian Identity" is the main White supremacist hate movement...they must be the real Christians!

"Radical Traditional Catholicism" is composed solely of people who have been exiled by the Catholic church...but they must be the real Catholics because of their name, right?

The guy who tried to shoot up Austin, Texas in December was motivated by "Vigilantes of Christiendom", so he represented true Christiendom, right?

"Army of God", "The Covenant, the Arm, and the Sword of the Lord", "Ku Klux Klan" with "Jesus was the first klansman", "Phineas Priesthood", "Christian Patriot", "Lambs of Christ", "Children of God"....we could go on...

Edited March 3, 2015 by Bangkok Herps

[JockPieandBeans]

All these so called Muslim / Islamic experts ??

The clue is in the name.

Islamic State.

Experts can cite, wring their hands and get their pink panties in a right old twist. It makes no difference.

The ones that matter, the ones carrying out the atrocities call themselves '' Islamic State ''

Now let me see just one of these Islamic Scholars / Experts go and wave some Centuries old edict in the face of IS and see how long it takes for their head and shoulders to part company.

Joseph Kony is the head of the Lord's Resistance Army, purporting to fight in the name of their Christian Lord. Well, they must be fighting for the Lord, right?

"Christian Identity" is the main White supremacist hate movement...they must be the real Christians!

"Radical Traditional Catholicism" is composed solely of people who have been exiled by the Catholic church...but they must be the real Catholics because of their name, right?

The guy who tried to shoot up Austin, Texas in December was motivated by "Vigilantes of Christiendom", so he represented true Christiendom, right?

"Army of God", "The Covenant, the Arm, and the Sword of the Lord", "Ku Klux Klan" with "Jesus was the first klansman", "Phineas Priesthood", "Christian Patriot", "Lambs of Christ", "Children of God"....we could go on...

Yes of course, these idiots above are in the Worldwide Media on an almost daily basis for the barbarity that the carry out around the world.