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

[Bangkok Herps]

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.

And that's what we call a "red herring" argument. Has absolutely nothing to do with the logic of what I just said.

Though I hope you've heard of the Lord's Resistance Army, Christian Identity, and the Ku Klux Klan at the very least and aren't just feigning ignorance.

[JockPieandBeans]

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.

And that's what we call a "red herring" argument. Has absolutely nothing to do with the logic of what I just said.

Though I hope you've heard of the Lord's Resistance Army, Christian Identity, and the Ku Klux Klan at the very least and aren't just feigning ignorance.

And that is what is called '' Off topic '' Nonsense.

As are you last 3 posts.

Start a new thread if you feel so strongly about it.

[7by7]

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.

That you and other posters here and the various websites you love so much use the same cherry picked quotes from the Koran and Hadiths and history to justify your prejudice that IS use to justify their barbarity and aims does not mean that either of you are right nor that the vast majority of the Muslim world agree with you or IS.

They don't.

As has been shown many times before, Islamic scholars, Islamic clerics, Islamic leaders, Islamic governments, ordinary Muslims have regularly and consistently condemned IS as unIslamic.

Muslim forces are, as we speak, fighting IS on the ground.

As Bangkok Herps says, that this terrorist group use the word Islamic in their name and claim to be followers of Islam does not make them true Muslims; just as the organisations he lists who use variations of the word Christian in their name and claim to be followers of Christianity does not make those groups true Christians.

Of course, as is usual, as you cannot refute that argument you simply ignore it.

[Steely Dan]

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.

That you and other posters here and the various websites you love so much use the same cherry picked quotes from the Koran and Hadiths and history to justify your prejudice that IS use to justify their barbarity and aims does not mean that either of you are right nor that the vast majority of the Muslim world agree with you or IS.

They don't.

As has been shown many times before, Islamic scholars, Islamic clerics, Islamic leaders, Islamic governments, ordinary Muslims have regularly and consistently condemned IS as unIslamic.

Muslim forces are, as we speak, fighting IS on the ground.

As Bangkok Herps says, that this terrorist group use the word Islamic in their name and claim to be followers of Islam does not make them true Muslims; just as the organisations he lists who use variations of the word Christian in their name and claim to be followers of Christianity does not make those groups true Christians.

Of course, as is usual, as you cannot refute that argument you simply ignore it.

Muslim forces? If they were fighting under the banner of Islam it would be a turf war for the Caliphate, if not it is the national armies of middle eastern nations threatened by the declaration of a Caliphate, which by definition considers their regimes illegitimate.

As for the opinions of western pundits or English speaking western based authorities on Islam, well I'd sooner trust the opinion of Saudi citizens. When recently polled 92% considered ISIS were being true to Islamic values. Good luck spinning that one.

[Bangkok Herps]

Muslim forces? If they were fighting under the banner of Islam it would be a turf war for the Caliphate, if not it is the national armies of middle eastern nations threatened by the declaration of a Caliphate, which by definition considers their regimes illegitimate.

As for the opinions of western pundits or English speaking western based authorities on Islam, well I'd sooner trust the opinion of Saudi citizens. When recently polled 92% considered ISIS were being true to Islamic values. Good luck spinning that one.

Steely Dan, perhaps you shouldn't get your news about other countries from random numbers you hear on Twitter. Who conducted that supposed poll? Who did they interview?

Sorry to inform you...it was a made-up number, probably first sent on social media by an ISIS supporter.

The actual poll occurred several months later, a randomized national sample of 1000 Saudi citizens conducted by a real polling firm...and found that only 5% of Saudis supported ISIS. That's almost the exact polar opposite of your claim:

ISIS Has Almost No Popular Support in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon

You claimed that you would trust the opinion of Saudi citizens. Will you apologize, and change your views, now that you know you were wrong about what they believe?

Edited March 3, 2015 by Bangkok Herps

[uptheos]

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

That was very well thought out piece of writing, quite constructive,,,,,,,,still it's a quick way to build your post count.

[Thorgal]

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.

That you and other posters here and the various websites you love so much use the same cherry picked quotes from the Koran and Hadiths and history to justify your prejudice that IS use to justify their barbarity and aims does not mean that either of you are right nor that the vast majority of the Muslim world agree with you or IS.

They don't.

As has been shown many times before, Islamic scholars, Islamic clerics, Islamic leaders, Islamic governments, ordinary Muslims have regularly and consistently condemned IS as unIslamic.

Muslim forces are, as we speak, fighting IS on the ground.

As Bangkok Herps says, that this terrorist group use the word Islamic in their name and claim to be followers of Islam does not make them true Muslims; just as the organisations he lists who use variations of the word Christian in their name and claim to be followers of Christianity does not make those groups true Christians.

Of course, as is usual, as you cannot refute that argument you simply ignore it.

Muslim forces? If they were fighting under the banner of Islam it would be a turf war for the Caliphate, if not it is the national armies of middle eastern nations threatened by the declaration of a Caliphate, which by definition considers their regimes illegitimate.

As for the opinions of western pundits or English speaking western based authorities on Islam, well I'd sooner trust the opinion of Saudi citizens. When recently polled 92% considered ISIS were being true to Islamic values. Good luck spinning that one.

The poll of 92% has been done by an unliable, biased source, read newspaper. Edited March 3, 2015 by Thorgal

[NeverSure]

The poll of 92% has been done by an unliable, biased source, read newspaper.

I've been looking everywhere for an "unliable" source. Hard to find these days. Thanks for the tip.

[Thorgal]

The poll of 92% has been done by an unliable, biased source, read newspaper.

I've been looking everywhere for an "unliable" source. Hard to find these days. Thanks for the tip.

Well, the newspaper is linked with Bush administration, Assad regime and other 'unliable' persons and groups. I won't provide links, because they will be seen as off topic, but still reliable.

I'm not surprised that the newspaper is showing up with a 92% poll.

Just negative propaganda against the moderated, reliable Saudi's...

Like the good old Latins ever said :'Si una porta est aperta, totum urbem est' : means in English : 'if you can open one door, you can open the whole city'...

Edited March 3, 2015 by Thorgal

[Lissos]

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.

As do the ones nowadays called 'moderates', in all of the Abrahamic Religions.

When they cherry pick the 'sweet' stuff, the rest of us have an easier time of it - with them, and them with us.

When they cherry pick the 'nasty' / stubborn/ elitist' stuff, the rest of us simply find them obnoxious, and they us.

[Mosha]

The poll of 92% has been done by an unliable, biased source, read newspaper.

I've been looking everywhere for an "unliable" source. Hard to find these days. Thanks for the tip.

Well, the newspaper is linked with Bush administration, Assad regime and other 'unliable' persons and groups. I won't provide links, because they will be seen as off topic, but still reliable.

I'm not surprised that the newspaper is showing up with a 92% poll.

Just negative propaganda against the moderated, reliable Saudi's...

Like the good old Latins ever said :'Si una porta est aperta, totum urbem est' : means in English : 'if you can open one door, you can open the whole city'...

Would that be the Bush administration that had governments believing in WMD?

[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.

That you and other posters here and the various websites you love so much use the same cherry picked quotes from the Koran and Hadiths and history to justify your prejudice that IS use to justify their barbarity and aims does not mean that either of you are right nor that the vast majority of the Muslim world agree with you or IS.

They don't.

As has been shown many times before, Islamic scholars, Islamic clerics, Islamic leaders, Islamic governments, ordinary Muslims have regularly and consistently condemned IS as unIslamic.

Muslim forces are, as we speak, fighting IS on the ground.

As Bangkok Herps says, that this terrorist group use the word Islamic in their name and claim to be followers of Islam does not make them true Muslims; just as the organisations he lists who use variations of the word Christian in their name and claim to be followers of Christianity does not make those groups true Christians.

Of course, as is usual, as you cannot refute that argument you simply ignore it.

Serious question. Have you totally lost the plot ?

Would you like to point out in the post above that you replied to, where I even used a website let alone '' Cherry Picked '' any quotes ?

I did not refute anything, I called it for what it was, off topic tripe, and told said poster to start a new thread on that subject if he so desired.

And as for you last sentence. You would be the expert on that front.

[Seastallion]

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.

One of the most level-headed, direct, and accurate posts on this thread.

+1

[H1w4yR1da]

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.

Sorry but that's all just a total deflection from your comment I quoted.

You said..

they don't look the least bit like Sharia law.

That is your comment. I proved you were totally wrong and then you start to switch the onus onto historical Christian/atheist events.

The rest of your post was just the usual apologist BS. "Christian Serbia was far more violent and genocidal than Muslim Bosnia".

Okay. And how does that equate with IS?

One can say IS is more violent than, or as violent as Christian Serbia. But what's the point. Debating the level of violence used by different parties is off topic.

The fact that other non-Islsmic countries have commited atrocities in the past is undeniable but has no relevance to this thread. Feel free to start separate threads on the Nazis, Burmese military rule, Australia's treatment of Aborigines or the British empire.

The thread is on whether ISIS is Islamic.

Despite the protestations of pro-Islam posters here who continually try to deflect the importance of Islam to IS onto the actions of other states and failing that, chant the old chestnuts of 'bigot' and 'predudice', many belive ISIS to be a pure form of Islam.

One poster here even ridiculously blamed the rise of IS on 'Islamophobia'.

They are also very much a reaction to an islamophobic world

[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.

That you and other posters here and the various websites you love so much use the same cherry picked quotes from the Koran and Hadiths and history to justify your prejudice that IS use to justify their barbarity and aims does not mean that either of you are right nor that the vast majority of the Muslim world agree with you or IS.

They don't.

As has been shown many times before, Islamic scholars, Islamic clerics, Islamic leaders, Islamic governments, ordinary Muslims have regularly and consistently condemned IS as unIslamic.

Muslim forces are, as we speak, fighting IS on the ground.

As Bangkok Herps says, that this terrorist group use the word Islamic in their name and claim to be followers of Islam does not make them true Muslims; just as the organisations he lists who use variations of the word Christian in their name and claim to be followers of Christianity does not make those groups true Christians.

Of course, as is usual, as you cannot refute that argument you simply ignore it.

Serious question. Have you totally lost the plot ?

Would you like to point out in the post above that you replied to, where I even used a website let alone '' Cherry Picked '' any quotes ?

I did not refute anything, I called it for what it was, off topic tripe, and told said poster to start a new thread on that subject if he so desired.

And as for you last sentence. You would be the expert on that front.or

It wasn't "off-topic", it was an analogy that either you didn't understand or are purposely trying to ignore. So then she carefully explained it to you, and you're still pretending like you're too dense to get it. Either reread the thread and figure out why my post was exactly on topic, or ask someone else to explain it to you.

[Bangkok Herps]

The rest of your post was just the usual apologist BS. "Christian Serbia was far more violent and genocidal than Muslim Bosnia".

Okay. And how does that equate with IS?

One can say IS is more violent than, or as violent as Christian Serbia. But what's the point. Debating the level of violence used by different parties is off topic.

The fact that other non-Islsmic countries have commited atrocities in the past is undeniable but has no relevance to this thread. Feel free to start separate threads on the Nazis, Burmese military rule, Australia's treatment of Aborigines or the British empire.

The thread is on whether ISIS is Islamic.

Despite the protestations of pro-Islam posters here who continually try to deflect the importance of Islam to IS onto the actions of other states and failing that, chant the old chestnuts of 'bigot' and 'predudice', many belive ISIS to be a pure form of Islam.

Okay, let's try and take this real slow.

1) I was responding to the claim, that has been made at least twice now, that most of the Islamic world looks similar to or in the same direction as ISIS, which was put forward in implicit support of the idea that ISIS is therefore the norm for Islam.

2) First, I pointed out that the claim wasn't true. None of the countries I listed have Sharia law anything like what ISIS does. The fact that you can say the word "Sharia" doesn't make them at all like ISIS.

3) Then a poster tried to claim that as long as there was some sort of violence or repression or terrorism in a Muslim country, it was somehow evidence of something about Islam.

4) I pointed out first, that correlation is not causation, and second, even the supposed correlation between Islam and violence/oppression is largely false, because when you start comparing two countries that are actually comparable to each other (rather than comparing apples and oranges), you see that Muslim countries are often less violent/repressive than the Christian or Athiest governments right next door to them.

Now, you're trying to flip all that back to make the whole thread just about ISIS again. That's fine - and would be great for you particularly, since you haven't managed to say hardly anything about ISIS in the whole thread yet. I, on the other hand, posted extensively on ISIS specifically in quite some detail already on this thread - by showing that:

i) the ISIS expert that our "ISIS is Islamic!" posters were relying on doesn't even agree with the claims made in the Atlantic article that they are promoting

ii) numerous and significant figures within Islam, even within Sunni Islam, disagree with the claims

iii) The general populations of major countries with significant Sunni populations disagree with the claims

Since my evidence wasn't just strong on its own merits but has even directly shown the falsehood of some of their main lines of evidence (the Atlantic article, the 'only 1 or 2 experts' claim, and the '92% of Saudi citizens' claim), I think I'm doing pretty well on my case.

But now you're trying to make a new case, not based on one word of ISIS or the Islamic world at all and completely ignoring all the evidence I've posted, but simply reduced to a critique on my posting style.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Bangkok Herps

[zydeco]

So we're supposed to believe that a few guys with tenure in the Netherlands, California. and Dubai, whose closest encounter with what is going on in Syira, Iraq, and Libya is a textbook, know who is really a Muslim more than the 30,000 to 40,000 ISIS fighters and their millions of sympathizers. Right.

[Bangkok Herps]

So we're supposed to believe that a few guys with tenure in the Netherlands, California. and Dubai, whose closest encounter with what is going on in Syira, Iraq, and Libya is a textbook, know who is really a Muslim more than the 30,000 to 40,000 ISIS fighters and their millions of sympathizers. Right.

And we're supposed to believe that you know who really is a Sunni Muslim more than the Grand Mufti, the leading Sunni institute of Islamic law, or the vast majority of the populations of the largest Sunni countries?

From early in this thread, multiple posters tried to draw on an Atlantic opinion article by some random American guy to support their "ISIS is the natural product of Islam!" claim.

I refuted that with the very expert the Atlantic writer was supposedly relying on, a letter by 120 prominent Muslim figures, the Grand Mufti, the leading school of Islamic Sunni law, and a poll of the populations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Lebanon.

So why are you talking about "Netherlands, California, and Dubai" right now, when far, far more than that has already been offered? Why not critique the guys who were basing their whole argument on some American journalist and a poll someone made up on social media?

Edited March 4, 2015 by Bangkok Herps

[Bangkok Herps]

One poster here even ridiculously blamed the rise of IS on 'Islamophobia'.

They are also very much a reaction to an islamophobic world

Did you not read the quote by the exact same source that the "ISIS is very Islamic" article was relying on?

“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.”

I wouldn't have said, "ISIS is a reaction to an islamophobic world", because that's too easily misinterpreted, but it's quite clear that ISIS is a reaction to a world in which Sunni Muslims were being persecuted and marginalized. And the very guy being propped up by the "ISIS is Islamic" crowd as the world's greatest expert on ISIS is the one that is making that claim.

[zydeco]

So we're supposed to believe that a few guys with tenure in the Netherlands, California. and Dubai, whose closest encounter with what is going on in Syira, Iraq, and Libya is a textbook, know who is really a Muslim more than the 30,000 to 40,000 ISIS fighters and their millions of sympathizers. Right.

And we're supposed to believe that you know who really is a Sunni Muslim more than the Grand Mufti, the leading Sunni institute of Islamic law, or the vast majority of the populations of the largest Sunni countries?

From early in this thread, multiple posters tried to draw on an Atlantic opinion article by some random American guy to support their "ISIS is the natural product of Islam!" claim.

I refuted that with the very expert the Atlantic writer was supposedly relying on, a letter by 120 prominent Muslim figures, the Grand Mufti, the leading school of Islamic Sunni law, and a poll of the populations of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Lebanon.

So why are you talking about "Netherlands, California, and Dubai" right now, when far, far more than that has already been offered? Why not critique the guys who were basing their whole argument on some American journalist and a poll someone made up on social media?

Looks like you didn't read the entire OP.

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.

[Bangkok Herps]

Looks like you didn't read the entire OP.

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.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but did he not call the ISIS actions "a violation of Islam"? And did he not say that the perpetrators must be subjected to those punishments?

How do you believe that that supports your case?

[NeverSure]

The poll of 92% has been done by an unliable, biased source, read newspaper.

I've been looking everywhere for an "unliable" source. Hard to find these days. Thanks for the tip.

Well, the newspaper is linked with Bush administration, Assad regime and other 'unliable' persons and groups. I won't provide links, because they will be seen as off topic, but still reliable.

I'm not surprised that the newspaper is showing up with a 92% poll.

Just negative propaganda against the moderated, reliable Saudi's...

Like the good old Latins ever said :'Si una porta est aperta, totum urbem est' : means in English : 'if you can open one door, you can open the whole city'...

Would that be the Bush administration that had governments believing in WMD?

No, it was Tony Blair.

[zydeco]

Looks like you didn't read the entire OP.

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.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but did he not call the ISIS actions "a violation of Islam"? And did he not say that the perpetrators must be subjected to those punishments?

How do you believe that that supports your case?

What it says pretty clearly to me is that the so-called moderates themselves accept the same radical tenets of Islam when it suits their agenda. Punishing ISIS with the same barbarity it uses because it is barbarous.

[Bangkok Herps]

In fact, just a bit of research shows that it is this very Sheikh Ahmed el-Tayeb who has called for a reform in Islamic teaching to ensure that extremists like ISIS can gain no ground.

http://www.newsweek.com/senior-muslim-cleric-calls-islamic-teaching-overhaul-curb-extremism-308918



And:

The Grand Imam of Egypt's Al-Azhar Mosque, Ahmed al-Tayeb, has accused Islamic State (IS) of "barbarity" and said the Sunni extremist group's ideology is incompatible with the teachings of Islamic law.

"[These] militants operate under the guise of religion and gave themselves the name "Islamic State" in an attempt to export a false impression about Islam," Tayeb said.

[chuckd]

Let's kick the Ku Klux Klan around some more. The Klan has been very strong in the South.

Oh, Wait! That was 50 years ago.

[Bangkok Herps]

Looks like you didn't read the entire OP.

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.

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but did he not call the ISIS actions "a violation of Islam"? And did he not say that the perpetrators must be subjected to those punishments?

How do you believe that that supports your case?

What it says pretty clearly to me is that the so-called moderates themselves accept the same radical tenets of Islam when it suits their agenda. Punishing ISIS with the same barbarity it uses because it is barbarous.

Wait, are you not reading the same thread I'm reading? What he said is hardly any worse than what most of the anti-ISIS posters said on the very first page.

"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."

"They are ALL the same. I want ALL of them gone."

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

So I assume that those guys all want to use non-barbaric, nice and clean violence and death to wipe out ISIS (and more than just them, apparently), but that the Muslim guy is barbaric for wanted the same thing for the specific perpetrators of torture and murder.

Western posters call for wiping out an entire group of people, that's cool.

Muslim cleric calls for death for specific torturers/murderers, and that makes him "just like them".

Go to the comments of any right-wing website, and you'll see thousands of good Christian/athiest folk from the West calling for far more barbarian punishments for ISIS perpetrators than what this cleric just offered. Go to the US House of Reps or the British Parliment, and you'll hear conservatives who are calling for the same thing as the posters here.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Bangkok Herps

[zydeco]

Maybe I'm reading that wrong, but did he not call the ISIS actions "a violation of Islam"? And did he not say that the perpetrators must be subjected to those punishments?

How do you believe that that supports your case?

What it says pretty clearly to me is that the so-called moderates themselves accept the same radical tenets of Islam when it suits their agenda. Punishing ISIS with the same barbarity it uses because it is barbarous.

Wait, are you not reading the same thread I'm reading? What he said is hardly any worse than what most of the anti-ISIS posters said on the very first page.

"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."

"They are ALL the same. I want ALL of them gone."

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

So I assume that those guys all want to use non-barbaric, nice and clean violence and death to wipe out ISIS (and more than just them, apparently), but that the Muslim guy is barbaric for wanted the same thing for the specific perpetrators of tortue and murder.

Western posters call for wiping out an entire group of people, that's cool.

Muslim cleric calls for death for specific torturers/murderers, and that makes him "just like them".

Oh, dear. Just forget it.

[Thorgal]

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.

Sorry but that's all just a total deflection from your comment I quoted.

You said..

they don't look the least bit like Sharia law.

That is your comment. I proved you were totally wrong and then you start to switch the onus onto historical Christian/atheist events.

The rest of your post was just the usual apologist BS. "Christian Serbia was far more violent and genocidal than Muslim Bosnia".

Okay. And how does that equate with IS?

One can say IS is more violent than, or as violent as Christian Serbia. But what's the point. Debating the level of violence used by different parties is off topic.

The fact that other non-Islsmic countries have commited atrocities in the past is undeniable but has no relevance to this thread. Feel free to start separate threads on the Nazis, Burmese military rule, Australia's treatment of Aborigines or the British empire.

The thread is on whether ISIS is Islamic.

Despite the protestations of pro-Islam posters here who continually try to deflect the importance of Islam to IS onto the actions of other states and failing that, chant the old chestnuts of 'bigot' and 'predudice', many belive ISIS to be a pure form of Islam.

One poster here even ridiculously blamed the rise of IS on 'Islamophobia'.

They are also very much a reaction to an islamophobic world

ISIS is Islamic fundamentalism. It has nothing to do with traditional Islam.

Islamic fundamentalism is a response to the evolution in modernity and the ties with the West. It's historically a recent phenomenom. For some others a trend and/or a cult image.

They reject their modern evolution and the Western ties by applying strict Sharia Law.

Furthermore they equalize wrongly their radical perspective of Islam to their political ideology.

Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Lybia, Egypt, Mali, Syria and other traditional Islamic governments are fighting for decades against Islamic Fundamentalism. That's for me the best point I can give you that traditional Islam and fundamentalism are not the same.

You can't ignore the revolt, struggle of traditional Islamic population, even if the fundamentalists win democratically the elections in their countries.

OP comments are correct.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[Steely Dan]

Muslim forces? If they were fighting under the banner of Islam it would be a turf war for the Caliphate, if not it is the national armies of middle eastern nations threatened by the declaration of a Caliphate, which by definition considers their regimes illegitimate.

As for the opinions of western pundits or English speaking western based authorities on Islam, well I'd sooner trust the opinion of Saudi citizens. When recently polled 92% considered ISIS were being true to Islamic values. Good luck spinning that one.

Steely Dan, perhaps you shouldn't get your news about other countries from random numbers you hear on Twitter. Who conducted that supposed poll? Who did they interview?

Sorry to inform you...it was a made-up number, probably first sent on social media by an ISIS supporter.

The actual poll occurred several months later, a randomized national sample of 1000 Saudi citizens conducted by a real polling firm...and found that only 5% of Saudis supported ISIS. That's almost the exact polar opposite of your claim:

ISIS Has Almost No Popular Support in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or Lebanon

You claimed that you would trust the opinion of Saudi citizens. Will you apologize, and change your views, now that you know you were wrong about what they believe?

The poll was quite real,

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/poll-92-of-saudis-believe-isis-conforms-to-the-values-of-islam-islamic-law/

as was this one showing 16% of the French population sympathized with ISIS.

http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

As for your poll, just a case of damage limitation by liberals playing whack a mole with the truth, a bit like the article in the OP, infact. do you really believe that the French population are three times as radicalized as the Saudi population? As it is those figures are shocking as they imply large numbers of commie fifth columnists must also be infesting France as well as their Muslim invaders. The support level for ISIS in Egypt of 3% is explained by the decades in which the Muslim Brotherhood built their power base there, it is not a sign of moderation. Indeed from the OP an Al-Azhar Imam pronounced Takffir on ISIS stating they should be crucified or have opposing hands and feet cut off. This is the epitome of a religious turf war, which is a common occurrence in Islam, when they take time off from slaughtering Kuffar.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Steely Dan

[dragonfly94]

If there is an Allah he is one sick mother f ucker! as was his so called prophet. Apologies to the apologists.

Edited March 4, 2015 by dragonfly94