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

[KunMatt]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

[Thorgal]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[KunMatt]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

[JockPieandBeans]

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

There is only one Islam.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran

You could not have made the point better if you tried.

Only one Islam and only one Qu'ran.

Well done. Take yesterday off.

[Steely Dan]

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.

You are correct in the sense that fundamentalism is a recent phenomena. The Wahabbi sect was born out of the rejection of modernity and Western influence. The Wahhabi sect became insinuated into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia when it formed after the demise of Ottoman power. The Wahabbi sect itself has little or no tolerance for other forms of Islam, let alone infidels. This has led over time to the decrease in diversity within Sunni Islam, with the Wahabbi sect increasing greatly. Alas they have exported their doctrine to Muslims living in the West, approximately 50% of the Mosques in the UK are now run by radicals, according to a recent Telegraph article.

Here is a great article showing how the willingness of Wahabbis to declare other Muslims Takfir has in effect resulted in a self-destruct gene within the Saudi Kimgdom. ISIS not only use the Quran literally, but they use original Wahabbi language too. By declaring the Saudi leaders Takfir they are setting themselves up as a great danger to the Saudi Monarchy, who have always to a degree done the Wests bidding, thus cementing some validity to the claims of ISIS.

That the birth of Wahabbism is a result of contact with Western civilization is beyond question. However it should be pointed out that the rationale behind it was that the diminishing of Muslim influence and the Caliphate was due to a departure from the original Islamic texts, ergo a return to them would lead to a restoration in fortune for the Ummah. These texts are as old as Islam and undeniably Islamic. I would indeed suggest that many of the moderate Islamic societies are actually less Islamic than the Wahabbis or indeed ISIS itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/isis-aim-saudi-arabia_b_5748744.html

[Thorgal]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

Surah 8:12 was written during the Battle of Badr, the first great battle against pagans.

In that time beheading on a battlefield was usual, even so the fingers were removed from prisoners if they were captured to be slaves and be unable to use a sword anymore.

Some prisoners were left intact and became slave soldiers and could have rights according to Shariah law.

That's how battles were fought back then.

There are more than 100 others like this. Please don't ask me to explain them all in radical and non radical context.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[arjunadawn]

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?

Its actually quite simple, and requires subterfuge to be unclear. The prophet mandated that fire is reserved for al lah. The prophet indicated that the pronouncements of his companions should be the supreme law after he is gone. The prophet made clear that at any time when there appears to be a conflict with a pronouncement and an earlier injunction, the later injunction will supersede. He went so far as declaring surely Al Lah knows all things can can change his mind. So, there appears to be a conflict regarding the use of fire for apostasy because the prophet said it is reserved for god, yet he also created, described, and reinforced the then and later central doctrine of Islam called abrogation.

Later, when the companions variously had apostates and others burned and tortured alive for this or that there was even discussion then regarding the core issue- fire for god or fire for man. Insofar as the injunction of the prophet was to follow the guidance of the caliphs/companions, it becomes quite clear the rule of abrogation applies here as well and the injunction/example of the companion must be followed. IS/DAESH is not incorrect in this highly evolved theological deliberation. It is also nonsense so suggest this is a new issue that has not been deliberated previously. Surely the grand mufti knows legitimately deliberated jurisprudence does not get a second look because the context of the times lived in have changed; they exist forever unchanged once reasoned.

Why then does there seem to be this protest from such an esteemed school of islamic jurisprudence? They appear to be protesting IS but on closer inspection that are actually not protesting anything at all, are they. This is the central core of the problem; the problem the west is sterilizing and re-framing as moderates versus not moderates. Obama and company benefit greatly from the smokey confusion of framing this about moderates and not moderates because Obama falls squarely in the camp of the Grand Mufti. There is a civil war being waged within islam and it is not between moderates and not moderates- there are no moderates in islam, period! You will never find a single moderate that satisfactorily follows the injunctions of his faith- it is not possible. The war is for whom will control that caliphate, and in this regard demonizing your opponent as not legitimate is a very good first step, a required step, indeed, the only first steps.

[KunMatt]

Surah 8:12 was written during the Battle of Badr, the first great battle against pagans.

In that time beheading on a battlefield was usual, even so the fingers were removed from prisoners if they were captured to be slaves.

That's how battles were fought back then.

There are more than 100 others like this. Please don't ask me to explain them all.

You didn't explain it, you just confirmed my point. It is literally instructing Muslims to cut off non-believers heads. It doesn't say that this practice is limited to any time, it just says to cut the heads off of all non-believers so this instruction is still valid for Muslims today.

So the Koran is not being misunderstood or twisted in any way like you apologists want to make out, there are not several interpretations of verses, they are literal and they are calling for the murder of anyone who stands in the way of Islam, which is exactly what ISIS are doing. They are being true Muslims and following the Koran as instructed as it is written. Any other Muslim who does not cut off the heads of non-Muslims or go to Jihad like instructed in the Koran are not being good Muslims or following the Koran properly.

[Bangkok Herps]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

Why do people who dislike Fundamentalists then proceed to try to imitate them? You quoted a piece of the verse, not the whole verse, and then proceed to take it completely out of context in addition to that.

The actual verse starts with "God said to the angels", which makes it sound a bit ambiguous...is he speaking to men or to angels? It also puts it in the past tense, which raises questions. These ambiguities mean that extreme Islamists and Islamophobes alike will steer clear from actually quoting the whole verse.

But if you actually read the whole chapter, the ambiguities are resolved. It does appear that Mohammed was intending men to be the target (or at least angels carrying out the actions of men), however:

1) The chapter is in the context of battle.

2) It is talking about a specific event that happened in a specific battle, not some general command for all time.

3) It is referring to something that happened already in a PAST battle, explaining why they won and did what they did, not giving any sort of command for what should proceed in general life in the future.

So no, the verse doesn't remotely suggest that its followers should cut off the heads of all non-Muslims. He's talking about specific actions of war that occurred in a specific situation, and it's already said and done with.

I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I don't follow Islam, and I don't believe it is a very good way to try to get to God. I disagree with a lot in the Koran. But when I was younger and tried to tell people how awful the Koran was, I actually looked up the proof-verses I wanted to use...and found that in context most of my arguments kind of sucked. Nearly all of the violence is in the context of battles, as often started by the Muslims opponents as themselves, and differs little from the justifications for violence given by most of the world until very recent memory (actually, probably by most of the world even now).

[KunMatt]

Why do people who dislike Fundamentalists then proceed to try to imitate them? You quoted a piece of the verse, not the whole verse, and then proceed to take it completely out of context in addition to that.

The actual verse starts with "God said to the angels", which makes it sound a bit ambiguous...is he speaking to men or to angels? It also puts it in the past tense, which raises questions. These ambiguities mean that extreme Islamists and Islamophobes alike will steer clear from actually quoting the whole verse.

But if you actually read the whole chapter, the ambiguities are resolved. It does appear that Mohammed was intending men to be the target (or at least angels carrying out the actions of men), however:

1) The chapter is in the context of battle.

2) It is talking about a specific event that happened in a specific battle, not some general command for all time.

3) It is referring to something that happened already in a PAST battle, explaining why they won and did what they did, not giving any sort of command for what should proceed in general life in the future.

So no, the verse doesn't remotely suggest that its followers should cut off the heads of all non-Muslims. He's talking about specific actions of war that occurred in a specific situation, and it's already said and done with.

I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I don't follow Islam, and I don't believe it is a very good way to try to get to God. I disagree with a lot in the Koran. But when I was younger and tried to tell people how awful the Koran was, I actually looked up the proof-verses I wanted to use...and found that in context most of my arguments kind of sucked. Nearly all of the violence is in the context of battles, as often started by the Muslims opponents as themselves, and differs little from the justifications for violence given by most of the world until very recent memory (actually, probably by most of the world even now).

It is a factual account of a real battle that Mohammed fought in, so it is of course to be used as a guidance for how to act in a battle against non-believers.

[Thorgal]

Surah 8:12 was written during the Battle of Badr, the first great battle against pagans.

In that time beheading on a battlefield was usual, even so the fingers were removed from prisoners if they were captured to be slaves.

That's how battles were fought back then.

There are more than 100 others like this. Please don't ask me to explain them all.

You didn't explain it, you just confirmed my point. It is literally instructing Muslims to cut off non-believers heads. It doesn't say that this practice is limited to any time, it just says to cut the heads off of all non-believers so this instruction is still valid for Muslims today.

So the Koran is not being misunderstood or twisted in any way like you apologists want to make out, there are not several interpretations of verses, they are literal and they are calling for the murder of anyone who stands in the way of Islam, which is exactly what ISIS are doing. They are being true Muslims and following the Koran as instructed as it is written. Any other Muslim who does not cut off the heads of non-Muslims or go to Jihad like instructed in the Koran are not being good Muslims or following the Koran properly.

I like your post.

You've just confirmed and applied a literally radical interpretation of the Surah. Even more, you try to convince me that there's no other interpretation possible.

Read your words again and try to figure out who's more radical between you and me.

That's the difference between radical and traditional interpretation. Even if we're talking about the same text without changing a single word in order to displace the context.

You just proved what the OP says.

Nice paradigma by the way.

Cheers.

[arjunadawn]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

Yea.... no! No. There are actually very few places where their are multiple interpretations. Numerous really smart people who did not have to work, get the mail, shop, or listen to their kids making noise dedicated countless lifetimes to working out the theosophy and theological foundations to comport what the Koran and hadith actually say, and then also the framework for explicit and implied framing based on... the original intention and explicit nature framed in the hadith, the koran, and the lives of the companions. So, these over lapping sources for reference or context are actually fairly limited and insomuch as most roughly agree with each other, there is little room for injecting room for 21st century mores as allowances. (One example of a confounding modern issue is in fact addressed long ago and that involves whether man or al lah should burn humans. The prophet said al lah, the prophet also said follow the companions explicitly; later the companions burned apostates- there it is. A seeming paradox but one that has inherent in it the keys for resolution). Indeed, the theory of abrogation was not a framework applied to koranic exegesis to make a square argument fit into a round dilemma.

If one would venture to topically grasp why the koran has the appearance of confusing topics they should realize that revelation through their prophet was transcribed over a period of time. Over this period of time nascent islam experiences a series of profound issues- rejection in Mecca, expulsion from Mecca, solicitation of jews in Medina, rejection by jews in Medina, the rise of their power through caravan armed robbery in Medina= the rise of power in Medina, the slaughter and subjugation of the jews from Medina who earlier rejected his hybrid religion to merge with Judaism, and then the return march upon Mecca to slaughter everyone. These three primary phases are remarkable in clarity and context when one chronologically lays out the "so sayeth God" injunctions that occurred to the prophet during these times.

In the begining, when islam was pretty much begging for an ear, an equal place for the little stone god around the kaba, and understanding, the injunctions were peaceful, loving, and tolerant. This phase is thus called the Tolerant phase. Later, when expelled, they went to Medina and licked their wounds and argued that any actions they took irrespective of how war like they appeared, were only defensive- this became known as Defensive Jihad. Later, when their fortunes increased and armies amassed, they marched upon Mecca in Offensive Jihad. These three phases are the defining phases and blueprints used to this day. Not occasionally, not be some, but by all muslims for 1,400 years. Even the notion of migration jihad is highly developed and worked in here during the prophets first migration to Medina to escape the Meccans. These highly evolved rules of behavior and not taking friends, etc, are designed to elevate supremacy and devalue all others. Thus phrases such as Sura 8:12 easily are seen to have come later and like others, when in conflict with some peace loving tree hugging injunction, simply nullify it. This is not historiography, this is the mandate of the prophet himself. Elsewhere on these forums one spoke of deconceptualizing data from the koran as relative to time and place; clearly this is an inferior argument as the prophet has made it clear by his life that what he revealed, as is, applies in all times and places, and cannot be added to, nor detracted. He also made clear abrogation. Thus as his power grew, his patience decreased, his injunctions from god to love, embrace, and be tolerant, grew solely into a vehicle and blueprint for war.

Had the prophet lived to an old seasoned age he made have mellowed out but as it is he died leaving a framework for conquest, a cult like polity for slaughter and non dissent, and very little room for interpretation and exegesis. I have no issue with such theories just show the data; dont just muse about the possibility or cite vague non existent entities who object show us exactly how the Koran is taken out of context; show us how IS/DAESH is wrong. A child could do this research. Show us, please.

[Bangkok Herps]

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

Please tell me that you just didn't read that blog your linked, and that you and the three people who liked your post are simply lazy and not stupid.

The best "proof" you could find of your 92% number was a blog....that quoted a blog....that quoted a number some anonymous people were posting on social networking sites.

This comes after the results of an opinion poll of Saudis were released on social networking sites, claiming that 92% of the target group believes that “IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law.”

So who did this poll again? And who did they poll? Where are the numbers? And what legitimate polling organization chooses to release their data on social networking sites alone? And why is the best proof you can come up with this happening from...some guy's blog quoting some other guy's blog?

There you go - ISIS sympathizers can make ridiculous claims about their support base on Twitter, the wacko-media picks it up, and the haters believe them with all their heart.

As far as your question of whether French Muslims are more radicalized than Saudi Muslims - I honestly don't know anything about French Muslims outside of what I read in the news, but it wouldn't particularly surprise me. French Muslims seem to be some of the most disillusioned and marginalized Muslims out there, and feel completely impotent in their society. So if they were more radical than Saudis, I would believe it. However, I didn't have to read more than one paragraph into your link to get serious doubts about the "16%" claim.

The poll of European attitudes towards the group, carried out by ICM for Russian news agency Rossiya Segodnya, revealed that 16% of French citizens have a positive opinion of ISIS.

Wait a second? A poll in France is being commissioned by Rossiya Segodnya? You know, the Russian state news agency that Putin started up just last year specifically to spread pro-Russia propaganda to the international community?

And you believe that number on its face? I'm not going to automatically say it's not legitimate, but I tend to have suspicions about polls that are designed to please Russian State Propaganda.

Either way, the # of French people who sympathize with ISIS has nothing to do with the number of Saudis who do so. It's not like beheading and torture are very unfamiliar to French nation-building in the not-so-distant past.

[Bangkok Herps]

Why do people who dislike Fundamentalists then proceed to try to imitate them? You quoted a piece of the verse, not the whole verse, and then proceed to take it completely out of context in addition to that.

The actual verse starts with "God said to the angels", which makes it sound a bit ambiguous...is he speaking to men or to angels? It also puts it in the past tense, which raises questions. These ambiguities mean that extreme Islamists and Islamophobes alike will steer clear from actually quoting the whole verse.

But if you actually read the whole chapter, the ambiguities are resolved. It does appear that Mohammed was intending men to be the target (or at least angels carrying out the actions of men), however:

1) The chapter is in the context of battle.

2) It is talking about a specific event that happened in a specific battle, not some general command for all time.

3) It is referring to something that happened already in a PAST battle, explaining why they won and did what they did, not giving any sort of command for what should proceed in general life in the future.

So no, the verse doesn't remotely suggest that its followers should cut off the heads of all non-Muslims. He's talking about specific actions of war that occurred in a specific situation, and it's already said and done with.

I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I don't follow Islam, and I don't believe it is a very good way to try to get to God. I disagree with a lot in the Koran. But when I was younger and tried to tell people how awful the Koran was, I actually looked up the proof-verses I wanted to use...and found that in context most of my arguments kind of sucked. Nearly all of the violence is in the context of battles, as often started by the Muslims opponents as themselves, and differs little from the justifications for violence given by most of the world until very recent memory (actually, probably by most of the world even now).

It is a factual account of a real battle that Mohammed fought in, so it is of course to be used as a guidance for how to act in a battle against non-believers.

Interesting certainty of interpretation. Where did you study Islamic law?

[Thorgal]

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

There is only one Islam.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran

You could not have made the point better if you tried.

Only one Islam and only one Qu'ran.

Well done. Take yesterday off.

According to Wahabbi and Salafi school you're right.

But there are multiple Islamic schools, read branches.

But there's only one Koran, read Divine Script.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[hhinhh]

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

What is true Islam? What is true Christian? That does not exist because it is all about believe and every believer thinks he has eaten the truth with big spoons and all others are wrong. That is the hugh problem with all religions and turns out to be the worst with Islam!

Imagine there's no heaven

It's easy if you try

....

You may say I'm a dreamer

But I'm not the only one

I hope someday you'll join us

And the world will live as one

Never more actual than today what John Lennon wrote

[Steely Dan]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

Why do people who dislike Fundamentalists then proceed to try to imitate them? You quoted a piece of the verse, not the whole verse, and then proceed to take it completely out of context in addition to that.

The actual verse starts with "God said to the angels", which makes it sound a bit ambiguous...is he speaking to men or to angels? It also puts it in the past tense, which raises questions. These ambiguities mean that extreme Islamists and Islamophobes alike will steer clear from actually quoting the whole verse.

But if you actually read the whole chapter, the ambiguities are resolved. It does appear that Mohammed was intending men to be the target (or at least angels carrying out the actions of men), however:

1) The chapter is in the context of battle.
2) It is talking about a specific event that happened in a specific battle, not some general command for all time.
3) It is referring to something that happened already in a PAST battle, explaining why they won and did what they did, not giving any sort of command for what should proceed in general life in the future.

So no, the verse doesn't remotely suggest that its followers should cut off the heads of all non-Muslims. He's talking about specific actions of war that occurred in a specific situation, and it's already said and done with.

I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I don't follow Islam, and I don't believe it is a very good way to try to get to God. I disagree with a lot in the Koran. But when I was younger and tried to tell people how awful the Koran was, I actually looked up the proof-verses I wanted to use...and found that in context most of my arguments kind of sucked. Nearly all of the violence is in the context of battles, as often started by the Muslims opponents as themselves, and differs little from the justifications for violence given by most of the world until very recent memory (actually, probably by most of the world even now).

If as you claim most violent verses were confined to a historical context then how is it that so many Imams use them today in justification of violence? Not only this but the verses instructing Muslims to behave when weak in number are evidently being used today. Explicit calls not to integrate are so numerous, but to list two, Erdogan called on Turks in Germany to not assimilate, as did a Moroccan Imam to Spanish Muslims. And where are the examples of Muslims demonstrating proofs that the verses quoted by ISIS are taken out of context - a bald assertion without evidence doesn't count.

This all begs the question, what is the ultimate authority on Islamic jurisprudence? If it believed in the peaceful coexisting Islam sold to gullible westerners there would be no problem. The overwhelming evidence shows it does not. The Caliph is recognized as the ultimate arbiter of interpretation of Islamic texts. ISIS have called Caliph and assumed Al-baghdadi to be ultimate arbiter of scripture for all Muslims who accept his authority. Thus far around 20,000 have done so in Iraq, with an unknown number elsewhere doing likewise. Those not recognizing ISIS have to either put up a rival religious authority or attempt to eradicate ISIS as a collection of nation states with no authority under Islam. Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott

[Thorgal]

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.

Could you please differentiate which version of the Koran ISIS are following and which version the "moderate Muslims" are abiding by?

Are ISIS using an outdated version or a wrongly translated version of the Koran and this explains why they are living like a 7th century mob of brutal genocidal bandits?

The fact is ISIS are following the only version of the Koran and they do it page by page and word by word the same as every other Muslim in the world reads. Everything that they use to justify their actions is taken from the Koran verbatim so the only excuse apologists have to fall back on is that ISIS are "taking things out of context" and to that I would say that it's pretty difficult to take something like "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12) as anything other than the Koran instructing all Muslims to kill anybody who does not believe? I'm sure you know there are dozens more examples of quotes just like this.

Apologists will always have an excuse for the inexcusable. On a daily basis we are seeing horrific crimes against humanity being done in every country where there is a large percentage of Muslims and I'm tired of being told how merciful Islam is when all it does is kill anyone in it's way.

There's no differentiation applicable to explain the interpretation because there's only one Koran.

The philosophical context however it's different. In terms of essentialism and dualism you will observe clear, major differences between the fundamentalists and the tranditional Muslims.

Both layers of interpretation are essential to make difference between both coming from one devine script.

Again, comments in OP are correct.

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

Why do people who dislike Fundamentalists then proceed to try to imitate them? You quoted a piece of the verse, not the whole verse, and then proceed to take it completely out of context in addition to that.

The actual verse starts with "God said to the angels", which makes it sound a bit ambiguous...is he speaking to men or to angels? It also puts it in the past tense, which raises questions. These ambiguities mean that extreme Islamists and Islamophobes alike will steer clear from actually quoting the whole verse.

But if you actually read the whole chapter, the ambiguities are resolved. It does appear that Mohammed was intending men to be the target (or at least angels carrying out the actions of men), however:

1) The chapter is in the context of battle.
2) It is talking about a specific event that happened in a specific battle, not some general command for all time.
3) It is referring to something that happened already in a PAST battle, explaining why they won and did what they did, not giving any sort of command for what should proceed in general life in the future.

So no, the verse doesn't remotely suggest that its followers should cut off the heads of all non-Muslims. He's talking about specific actions of war that occurred in a specific situation, and it's already said and done with.

I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I don't follow Islam, and I don't believe it is a very good way to try to get to God. I disagree with a lot in the Koran. But when I was younger and tried to tell people how awful the Koran was, I actually looked up the proof-verses I wanted to use...and found that in context most of my arguments kind of sucked. Nearly all of the violence is in the context of battles, as often started by the Muslims opponents as themselves, and differs little from the justifications for violence given by most of the world until very recent memory (actually, probably by most of the world even now).

If as you claim most violent verses were confined to a historical context then how is it that so many Imams use them today in justification of violence? Not only this but the verses instructing Muslims to behave when weak in number are evidently being used today. Explicit calls not to integrate are so numerous, but to list two, Erdogan called on Turks in Germany to not assimilate, as did a Moroccan Imam to Spanish Muslims. And where are the examples of Muslims demonstrating proofs that the verses quoted by ISIS are taken out of context - a bald assertion without evidence doesn't count.

This all begs the question, what is the ultimate authority on Islamic jurisprudence? If it believed in the peaceful coexisting Islam sold to gullible westerners there would be no problem. The overwhelming evidence shows it does not. The Caliph is recognized as the ultimate arbiter of interpretation of Islamic texts. ISIS have called Caliph and assumed Al-baghdadi to be ultimate arbiter of scripture for all Muslims who accept his authority. Thus far around 20,000 have done so in Iraq, with an unknown number elsewhere doing likewise. Those not recognizing ISIS have to either put up a rival religious authority or attempt to eradicate ISIS as a collection of nation states with no authority under Islam.

Perhaps you should consider 'Tafsir' from Quranic hermeneutics.

A part in Islam that can only be dealt with a Mufassir. Not a Caliph.

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

Another fact that contradicts literal interpretation to the word in traditional Islam. Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott

[laban]

Several posters should be working for IS and would probably do well recruiting the young European Muslims to go and fight for IS.

Interpretations can be very useful to convince young disaffected minds and show them that the IS way is real Islam, particularly when they are living in a western country where islamophobia is rife.

As I said in my earlier post, IS is a cult using quotes from the Quran and Hadith to appeal to new recruits, and operate in the power vacuum of Syria and Iraq to establish themselves as the rightful guardians of Islam. They are not Muslims, only pretenders.

Edited March 4, 2015 by laban

[tartempion]

Who cares?

Any one who follows the Koran is an Islamist and Obama is an idiot.

[H1w4yR1da]

Interpretations can be very useful to convince young disaffected minds and show them that the IS way is real Islam, particularly when they are living in a western country where islamophobia is rife.

Still blaming Islamophobia. CAGE laughably blamed heavy questioning by the security services for Jihadi John turning to serial beheading.

If Western countries are Islamophobic, they have good reason to be.

Would you like a list of the reasons?

It's rather lengthy.

[laban]

I am not looking for the reasons for islamophobia Mr H1w4riddle, all I am saying it is a contributing factor to enticing young western Muslims to join IS.

[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.

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.

Yet again I find myself wondering whether you are deliberately choosing to misinterpret and ignore what has been posted, or whether you have a real problem with understanding simple English.

I suspect the former.

[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.

Yet again I find myself wondering whether you are deliberately choosing to misinterpret and ignore what has been posted, or whether you have a real problem with understanding simple English.

I suspect the former.

Read the imbedded links.

There is only one person that has a problem with reading and comprehension. You.

I am not misinterpreting anything or ignoring anything. It is there in black and white.

So I will ask you again. Where, in my above post have I used a website or '' Cherry picked '' any quotes ?

[Thorgal]

Interpretations can be very useful to convince young disaffected minds and show them that the IS way is real Islam, particularly when they are living in a western country where islamophobia is rife.

Still blaming Islamophobia. CAGE laughably blamed heavy questioning by the security services for Jihadi John turning to serial beheading.

If Western countries are Islamophobic, they have good reason to be.

Would you like a list of the reasons?

It's rather lengthy.

You should have a better look on the socio psychological and individual psychological effects of mass mediatization of pain and horror.

IS is using this in order to spread their messages and to justify wrongly their deeds. Jihadi John is a serial killer and one of the examples that attracts people.

Just have a look what the psychological drift is doing. Some people get triggered wrongly in their unconsciousness.

Another example of a mediatized serial killer :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brazil-serial-killer-watch-dramatic-4745649

Go on with your islamophobia...

Again, the comments from OP are correct.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[JockPieandBeans]

Interpretations can be very useful to convince young disaffected minds and show them that the IS way is real Islam, particularly when they are living in a western country where islamophobia is rife.

Still blaming Islamophobia. CAGE laughably blamed heavy questioning by the security services for Jihadi John turning to serial beheading.

If Western countries are Islamophobic, they have good reason to be.

Would you like a list of the reasons?

It's rather lengthy.

You should have a better look on the socio psychological and individual psychological effects of mass mediatization of pain and horror.

IS is using this in order to spread their messages and to justify wrongly their deeds. Jihadi John is a serial killer and one of the examples that attracts people.

Just have a look what the psychological drift is doing. Some people get triggered wrongly in their unconsciousness.

Another example of a mediatized serial killer :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brazil-serial-killer-watch-dramatic-4745649

Go on with your islamophobia...

Again, the comments from OP are correct.

The Mirror !!

Oh dear. What can I say.

[Bangkok Herps]

So please explain to me the dual nature and many interpretations possible of this verse;

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" (Koran 8:12)

Does that not clearly incite it's followers to cut off the heads of all non-Muslims?

Why do people who dislike Fundamentalists then proceed to try to imitate them? You quoted a piece of the verse, not the whole verse, and then proceed to take it completely out of context in addition to that.

The actual verse starts with "God said to the angels", which makes it sound a bit ambiguous...is he speaking to men or to angels? It also puts it in the past tense, which raises questions. These ambiguities mean that extreme Islamists and Islamophobes alike will steer clear from actually quoting the whole verse.

But if you actually read the whole chapter, the ambiguities are resolved. It does appear that Mohammed was intending men to be the target (or at least angels carrying out the actions of men), however:

1) The chapter is in the context of battle.

2) It is talking about a specific event that happened in a specific battle, not some general command for all time.

3) It is referring to something that happened already in a PAST battle, explaining why they won and did what they did, not giving any sort of command for what should proceed in general life in the future.

So no, the verse doesn't remotely suggest that its followers should cut off the heads of all non-Muslims. He's talking about specific actions of war that occurred in a specific situation, and it's already said and done with.

I'm no Muslim sympathizer. I don't follow Islam, and I don't believe it is a very good way to try to get to God. I disagree with a lot in the Koran. But when I was younger and tried to tell people how awful the Koran was, I actually looked up the proof-verses I wanted to use...and found that in context most of my arguments kind of sucked. Nearly all of the violence is in the context of battles, as often started by the Muslims opponents as themselves, and differs little from the justifications for violence given by most of the world until very recent memory (actually, probably by most of the world even now).

If as you claim most violent verses were confined to a historical context then how is it that so many Imams use them today in justification of violence? Not only this but the verses instructing Muslims to behave when weak in number are evidently being used today. Explicit calls not to integrate are so numerous, but to list two, Erdogan called on Turks in Germany to not assimilate, as did a Moroccan Imam to Spanish Muslims. And where are the examples of Muslims demonstrating proofs that the verses quoted by ISIS are taken out of context - a bald assertion without evidence doesn't count.

This all begs the question, what is the ultimate authority on Islamic jurisprudence? If it believed in the peaceful coexisting Islam sold to gullible westerners there would be no problem. The overwhelming evidence shows it does not. The Caliph is recognized as the ultimate arbiter of interpretation of Islamic texts. ISIS have called Caliph and assumed Al-baghdadi to be ultimate arbiter of scripture for all Muslims who accept his authority. Thus far around 20,000 have done so in Iraq, with an unknown number elsewhere doing likewise. Those not recognizing ISIS have to either put up a rival religious authority or attempt to eradicate ISIS as a collection of nation states with no authority under Islam.

Have you not been reading the whole thread?

20,000 out of 1,000,000,000 Muslims worldwide. Polls showing that even among Sunnis only a tiny minority are supporting the movement, and of course the Shiites and others are openly fighting them.

Why do some Imams use them today in justification of violence? Because they're fundamentalists! Ignoring context and the historical body of interpretation in order to push your own agenda is what fundamentalists of all stripes do. The obnoxious thing is seeing so many Thaivisa posters jump right on board with the ignorant fundamentalist interpretation and try to claim that this is 'true' Islam or the 'right' interpretation of Islamic scripture. As someone just commented, you make fantastic recruiters for ISIS - why don't you just go around the world telling Muslims everywhere that ISIS are the ones who really know how to follow the Koran? What's your actual, attainable goal here?

There is numerous examples of Muslims showing that the ISIS is interpreting Islam incorrectly. They've already been stated here (see the extensive letter signed by 120 leaders that I linked earlier), and if you really wanted to research it you could do a lot more. Thaivisa isn't exactly the place to come to get your detailed exegis of religious texts my Muslim leaders. But I can just google the verses, or pick up a Koran, and see the context for myself. To know how Muslims interpret it, you have to ask them, but they are clearly not interpreting it the way ISIS is. How would we have become so horrified so quickly by such a small group of fighters if they hadn't been doing these far outside the bounds of what we had been accostombed to Muslims doing?

And there are places where Muslims have assililated much better than others. The 200,000,000 strong Muslim minority in India is integrated into society far better than in, say, China. The USA, for instance, seems to have assimilated Muslims in a much more positive manner than France has. And considering general US attitudes towards Muslims and some difficulties towards racial minorities in general, that's really embarrassing for France and other European countries that have been openly hostile to anything different.

[Bangkok Herps]

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.

Once again, your logic has gigantic holes. The Muslim Brotherhood has less than 25% support in Egypt (I would estimate around 15% before the recent turn of events made it drop even further), so how does that explain 97% of the Egyptian population being against ISIS? Or course, the 15% or so that supports the Muslim Brotherhood is probably among the most radical part of the population, so perhaps they could steal the ISIS support base in that way...but that would only be true if the radical base was less than 15% to begin with.

The truth is, the large majority of the Egyptian population hates the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the most obvious thing about Egypt's current political situation that anyone with any awareness of Egyptian politics knows, so to claim that MB support is the thing keeping 97% of Egyptians from supportng ISIS is completely ridiculous.

And you must have missed it, but we already discussed the Al-Azhar Imam - according to the article, he specifically said that the "perpetrators" of the Jordanian pilot's torture and death deserved to be tortured and killed themselves. A murderer should be murdered, and a lot of people are hoping that they suffer in the process. That's not the least bit different than what millions of Western commentators have said. Have you seen the poll numbers in favor of torturing terrorists? Did you not see the comments on this very thread saying that they should all be killed, even their women? Do you expect to that surgically, or with lots of bombs and dismemberments and suffering?

[Thorgal]

Interpretations can be very useful to convince young disaffected minds and show them that the IS way is real Islam, particularly when they are living in a western country where islamophobia is rife.

Still blaming Islamophobia. CAGE laughably blamed heavy questioning by the security services for Jihadi John turning to serial beheading.

If Western countries are Islamophobic, they have good reason to be.

Would you like a list of the reasons?

It's rather lengthy.

You should have a better look on the socio psychological and individual psychological effects of mass mediatization of pain and horror.

IS is using this in order to spread their messages and to justify wrongly their deeds. Jihadi John is a serial killer and one of the examples that attracts people.

Just have a look what the psychological drift is doing. Some people get triggered wrongly in their unconsciousness.

Another example of a mediatized serial killer :

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/brazil-serial-killer-watch-dramatic-4745649

Go on with your islamophobia...

Again, the comments from OP are correct.

The Mirror !!

Oh dear. What can I say.

Say what you want and read what you don't want, like usual.

Similar psychological triggers in Japan, the US, France and Oz

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2971587/Japan-police-arrest-teen-IS-inspired-killing.html

http://www.thahop.com/articles/10722/inspired-by-isis-video-willie-bee-turner-places-caged-dog-on-si

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article4351985.ece

http://zeenews.india.com/news/world/lindt-cafe-attacker-inspired-by-isis-death-cult-says-aus-pm_1543787.html

Again, the comments in the OP are correct.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Thorgal

[JockPieandBeans]

Your 1st 2 links

http://www.thahop.co...caged-dog-on-si

Nothing more than media speculation. It seems that those who committed the crimes did not mention IS in either of the articles.

The 3rd and 4th Links

http://zeenews.india...pm_1543787.html

Relate to 2 Muslim terrorists, who no doubt carried out their atrocities on the name of IS or Islam, take your pick.

Have you ever watched a porn movie ? Did it make you want to go out and abuse women / men, whatever is applicable ?

Have you ever watched a war movie ? Did it make you want to go out and mow people down with a machine gun or lob grenades at people ?

What about any particularly violent movies ? Ever watch any of them ? Did the make you feel like you were compelled to go out and inflict violence on anyone ?

What about video games ? Ever play any nasty video games ? Did they give you the urge to go out and commit atrocities ?

If you answer yes, I suggest that you seek help immediately.

If you answer no, that would be because non of these things cause reactions. They are merely used as excuses for mutants who do not have the brain cells to distinguish between reality and fantasy.