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

[7by7]

(Quotes removed to comply with forum software)

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

Where in my post did I say that you did in that particular post?

I didn't. What I said was "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."

No mention there of any specific post!

Yet again you claim I have posted something I have not. Maybe you should enrol in a remedial English course?

[JockPieandBeans]

Here is my post in its entirety.

JockPieandBeans, on 03 Mar 2015 - 17:46, said:

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.

Here is your response to my post in its entirety.

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.

I will ask you again, highlight the relevant websites and cherry picked quotes in my post above.

As I previously suggested, I think you need a lie down in a darkened room.

[7by7]

Read my last post and the one you have quoted again.

If you still fail to comprehend them, find someone to explain it to you in very simple terms which even you can understand.

Edited March 5, 2015 by 7by7

[Steely Dan]

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?

It Is you who is running away with unsubstantiated conclusions based not on what I wrote but on a straw man you are intent on burning. In case it escaped you the Muslim brotherhood, with the aid of the Salafists won enough votes to form the post Mubarak government. Of course after a dose of the ruin the MB brought their star has fallen somewhat. Still with the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists well established in Egypt there is little room left for a new group of extremists on the block. Your comment is so asinine it pains me to be bothered replying to it, but obviously all the remaining Egyptians who are either Copts or less religious Muslims will have nothing to do with ISIS. Therefore the 97% you mentioned is clearly pulled from your rectum.

Whilst we are on the subject of Egypt Al-Sisi courageously called on Al-Azhar to urgently address areas of scripture which were being used by Islamists to destabilize the Muslim world whilst antagonizing everyone else. Now if ISIS are nothing to do with Islam then such a plea would be a non sequitur. It isn't because of cause ISIS are Islamic through and through. Only liberals trying to cloud the waters argue otherwise, this is more than a pity because beating an enemy you don't understand is a fools errand.

Edit here is an interview with Sam Harris discussing the Atlantic article which caused frantic liberals to attempt to bury it.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-true-believers

Edited March 5, 2015 by Steely Dan

[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?

It Is you who is running away with unsubstantiated conclusions based not on what I wrote but on a straw man you are intent on burning. In case it escaped you the Muslim brotherhood, with the aid of the Salafists won enough votes to form the post Mubarak government. Of course after a dose of the ruin the MB brought their star has fallen somewhat. Still with the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists well established in Egypt there is little room left for a new group of extremists on the block. Your comment is so asinine it pains me to be bothered replying to it, but obviously all the remaining Egyptians who are either Copts or less religious Muslims will have nothing to do with ISIS. Therefore the 97% you mentioned is clearly pulled from your rectum.

Whilst we are on the subject of Egypt Al-Sisi courageously called on Al-Azhar to urgently address areas of scripture which were being used by Islamists to destabilize the Muslim world whilst antagonizing everyone else. Now if ISIS are nothing to do with Islam then such a plea would be a non sequitur. It isn't because of cause ISIS are Islamic through and through. Only liberals trying to cloud the waters argue otherwise, this is more than a pity because beating an enemy you don't understand is a fools errand.

Edit here is an interview with Sam Harris discussing the Atlantic article which caused frantic liberals to attempt to bury it.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-true-believers

You trying to lecture me on Egypt is really remarkable.

A few quick points before getting back to the Muslim brotherhood:

1) The 97% number was taken directly from the poll I already linked to, not "pulled from your rectum".

2) I've read Harris's books, and he was ridiculously biased against Muslims long before he'd ever heard of SIS. If you read his bio, pretty much his entire career is due to his personal emotional reaction to 9/11 and immediate desire to blame the event on all religion in general and all Muslims in particular.

3) From the first page of this discussion, I showed that major points of the Atlantic article were debunked, not by 'frantic liberals', but by the very ISIS expert that the Atlantic article relied on. Virtually everything that expert said in the follow-up, including the fact that ISIS was not inevitable in Islam, that their interpretation of Islamic law is an attempt to rewrite history, and that their emergence was due to the US actions in Iraq and the government's actions in Syria, has been ignored by you and the others.

Now, to try to slowly explain the specifics of Egypt's lack of general ISIS support (or ISIS-style extremism) once again:

In the initial election, the MB got a little less than 10% of eligible voters to vote for them. However, because they were by far the most organized group, because turnout was low (only 40%), and because the liberals split their half of the vote between three different candidates, that effort was enough to get the MB in a runoff with the only candidate as odious as them...the same dictatorial government that had just been run out of office. They barely won that runoff with 20% of the voters voting eagerly and 80% voting for the least of two evils.

From the fact that the MB initially got 10% of the eligible public to vote for them, and assuming that they had some support among the 60% that initially didn't vote (though not too much, because the MB organization was very good at getting out their vote and their supporters were highly motivated), I estimated that they had about 15% support before the election.

Suffice it to say, they'd campaigned for decades but never governed, their time in office was a failure, and they were run out themselves. However, during that entire year when the MB had power in office, not once did they do anything remotely like ISIS. Did they have beheadings? Crucify people? Did they arrest all the Christians? Rape sex slaves? If this stuff is just what Muslims do, and the MB is full of extremists who are just like ISIS, then why wasn't any of this happening in the year that they had power over Egypt?

In fact, by far the worst violence happened after the MB were kicked out of power, when the military instigated a brutal crackdown on all MB supporters and the MB responded by lashing out on everyone they could. Still, the violence never began to look anything like what's happening in Iraq.

Now, for you argument to hold, two things have to be true:

1) None of those Muslim Brotherhood supporters, even though the MB has been completely embarrassed, marginalized, and rendered impotent, have the desire to switch to a different radical group instead.

2) That 15% of the population includes all the relevant extremists already...therefore suggesting that the other 85% of the population wouldn't be supporting ISIS whether or not the MB was there.

3) Those extremists in the MB are ISIS material..even though the evidence for that isn't actually there.

[Steely Dan]

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Here is an excellent piece detailing some of the strategies used by some of our esteemed members in order to pretend the Islamic state is not Islamic. The KKK is mentioned, along with Zionist terrorists of yesteryear and not forgetting of course it's the west's fault for absolutely everything bad that ever came out of the world of Islam.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/02/28/how-the-western-intelligentsia-denies-islams-history-of-war-and-crime/

[Bangkok Herps]

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Translation:

"My claim that Saudi Arabian citizens support the ISIS has shown to be false, as the real poll showed 5% support when my 92% claim was nothing more than what some guy posted on Twitter. Therefore, I need to ignore my own previous assertion that 'I will trust what the Saudi citizens say about what Islam is' and move on to a different argument."

"Also, my suggestion that the Muslim Brotherhood is only reason Egyptians don't support the ISIS is looking suspect, because the MB is a relatively small proportion of the Egyptian population and its fortunes are looking quite down at the moment, suggesting that most Egyptians wouldn't support ISIS no matter what the MB is doing. Better move on from that."

"And I better find a different source than that Atlantic article, since the very expert who the whole article leaned on has already come out as opposing most of our strongest claims. Let's try something else."

"I know, I'll call everyone's replies to my own assertions about Saudi Arabia and Egypt 'off-topic' and I'll link a right-wing blog post instead!"

[7by7]

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Fair enough; but how about responding to the on topic refutations by Bangkok Herps of the points by raised by you and your fellows?

Such as those in the post above yours?

You can't, so you first make the absurd excuse for not responding quoted, and then you present an article on a blog site written by a director of Jihad Watch as your evidence.

Jihad Watch is one of the sites which made the ludicrous claim that the death a few of months ago of two pedestrians in a road traffic collision in England must have been a jihadist attack because one (just one) of the four (yes, four) drivers arrested was Muslim!

That is a source you present to us as being informed and neutral!

[Thorgal]

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Here is an excellent piece detailing some of the strategies used by some of our esteemed members in order to pretend the Islamic state is not Islamic. The KKK is mentioned, along with Zionist terrorists of yesteryear and not forgetting of course it's the west's fault for absolutely everything bad that ever came out of the world of Islam.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/02/28/how-the-western-intelligentsia-denies-islams-history-of-war-and-crime/

Your video source comes from MEMRI TV: Middle Eastern Media Research Institute.

The Instute was co-founded in 1989 by Yigal Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser. Yigal Carmon was a former Israeli intelligence officer in counter-terrorism advisor to Shamir and Rabin.

Meyrav Wurmser is an Israeli born American political scientist.

MEMRI TV is known in the middle east to be the Israeli 'voice' for Arab speakers. There's a part that has been snipped out of the video in your link...

Why providing such a subjective source in this thread ?

Edited March 7, 2015 by Thorgal

[Steely Dan]

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Here is an excellent piece detailing some of the strategies used by some of our esteemed members in order to pretend the Islamic state is not Islamic. The KKK is mentioned, along with Zionist terrorists of yesteryear and not forgetting of course it's the west's fault for absolutely everything bad that ever came out of the world of Islam.

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2015/02/28/how-the-western-intelligentsia-denies-islams-history-of-war-and-crime/

Your video source comes from MEMRI TV: Middle Eastern Media Research Institute.

The Instute was co-founded in 1989 by Yigal Carmon and Meyrav Wurmser. Yigal Carmon was a former Israeli intelligence officer in counter-terrorism advisor to Shamir and Rabin.

Meyrav Wurmser is an Israeli born American political scientist.

MEMRI TV is known in the middle east to be the Israeli 'voice' for Arab speakers. There's a part that has been snipped out of the video in your link...

Why providing such a subjective source in this thread ?

I guess Mossad must have broken into the Jordanian television station and staged the whole thing. It's either factual or it isn't. As for being subjective, I guess the MSM are always objective and never exercise editorial control as to what's shown and what's omitted.

[Steely Dan]

^^

I won't respond directly to argumentative off topic trolling, which deliberately misrepresents in order to deflect the topic.

Fair enough; but how about responding to the on topic refutations by Bangkok Herps of the points by raised by you and your fellows?

Such as those in the post above yours?

You can't, so you first make the absurd excuse for not responding quoted, and then you present an article on a blog site written by a director of Jihad Watch as your evidence.

Jihad Watch is one of the sites which made the ludicrous claim that the death a few of months ago of two pedestrians in a road traffic collision in England must have been a jihadist attack because one (just one) of the four (yes, four) drivers arrested was Muslim!

That is a source you present to us as being informed and neutral!

Sorry, can't do. I refuse to get bogged down with straw man arguments and deliberate misrepresentation. I would observe that even if ISIS were a direct result of Western policy mistakes and even if their emergence was not inevitable this is totally irrelevant to the central question as to whether they are Islamic or not. There have been previous flare ups of extreme Islamic ideology long before any Western interference. Though there is nothing inevitable about this shall we just say Islam is somewhat accident prone with similar extremes throughout history. Tamerlan was responsible for deaths of 5% of the world's then population and fifty million Hindus were slaughtered, bringing a total death toll of 270 million down to Islam by some estimates. Just how this could happen with clear 'proofs' that the violent stuff no longer applies. Indeed the proofs are so elusive that in a 300 page open letter to ISIS by Muslim scholars none were mentioned. Despite smug condescending and erroneous bluster from some of our esteemed members there is no clear cut theological refutation for ISIS, or indeed other Islamic terrorists, if there were they wouldn't be clocking up murders based on scripture at a rate of over 5000 a month.

Now we have Boko Haram pledging allegiance to ISIS, I wonder where the western interference is there, aside from half Nigeria being born Christian. I guess the apologists will be busy working on more dishonest claptrap to declare Boko Haram aren't Isiamic either. Indeed why not go the whole hog and declare all Muslim terrorist groups as nothing to do with Islam..., Hang on, the POTUS has already done that.

Edited March 8, 2015 by Steely Dan

[7by7]

<snip>

I refuse to get bogged down with straw man arguments and deliberate misrepresentation......

Translation: "I cannot refute the evidence which shows my arguments are built on the sand of prejudice rather then the rock of facts; so I'll ignore it."

IS and other terrorist groups may claim to represent Islam and Muslims; but as has been repeatedly shown, the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide do not agree!

[phrodan]

<snip>

I refuse to get bogged down with straw man arguments and deliberate misrepresentation......

Translation: "I cannot refute the evidence which shows my arguments are built on the sand of prejudice rather then the rock of facts; so I'll ignore it."

IS and other terrorist groups may claim to represent Islam and Muslims; but as has been repeatedly shown, the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide do not agree!

Yup - it's the equivalent of saying that the IRA represented the World's Catholics.

[KunMatt]

<snip>

I refuse to get bogged down with straw man arguments and deliberate misrepresentation......

Translation: "I cannot refute the evidence which shows my arguments are built on the sand of prejudice rather then the rock of facts; so I'll ignore it."

IS and other terrorist groups may claim to represent Islam and Muslims; but as has been repeatedly shown, the overwhelming majority of Muslims worldwide do not agree!

Except that ALL Muslims all agree on the same barbaric principals which are clearly laid out in the Koran, it's just that groups like the ISIS are the ones actually doing it. I know you always try to argue that 99.99% are peaceful, merciful West loving people with the same values as the rest of us but the fact is they all agree and want to live by a fundamentally pre-medieval system of law and culture, which in no way can co-exist in a modern Western civilisation. It is not just a handful of confused Muslims in the world that are responsible for all of the atrocities done in the name of Islam, the blatant truth is that they are all taught from the exact same book and they are all on the same side.

As if any proof is needed, watch this for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYAcLudBbhg&feature=youtu.be

There's a massive room full of those "moderate Muslims" that you are always talking about, and they all have extreme views that people should be stoned to death for blasphemy, apostasy, adultery and just about anything else. Every one of them. Does that really seem moderate to you? These people are the "moderate Muslims" for the religion of mercy and peace that you are always always talking about and using as examples to counter the extreme views of ISIS and they all agree on exactly the same principals as ISIS.

So what so you think the end game is here? Do you think that all of these Muslims who have moved into Europe will change their beliefs and religion? Do you think they will have a modern day re-writing of the Koran so that they can peacefully co-exist in a Western culture? Or do you think that they will push their way onto their host countries using threats, violence and terrorism until the country buckles and Islam eventually takes over?