ISIS 'Did Not Invent A New Islam' by Zaid Nabulsi

originally posted by: tothetenthpower


Much like nobody really cares when the Pope says something, a lot of people don't care when religious scholars say things. It has to come from the people.

It's gotta be 50 thousand Muslims marching in some city somewhere, showing solidarity between all races, religions etc.

That's a wonderful thought, and I'm all for it - but in reality, it's going to be very difficult to get that many people motivated enough. Heck, we had a small group of peaceful patriotic American Muslims gathering at the Texas state capitol, and there were hecklers protesting them. Had I known about the gathering ahead of time, I would have gathered as many people as I could to go and show solidarity with the Muslims.

I'm torn.

One the one hand, I'd gladly like to see the destruction of ISIS. They are not nice people.

On the other hand, we don't meddle with civil wars (Syria), we didn't carpet bomb Libya when 4 Americans were killed.

So why the tattoo of war drums for ISIS?

Because Oceania needs Eurasia. (see 1984)

a reply to: kaylaluv

That's a wonderful thought, and I'm all for it - but in reality, it's going to be very difficult to get that many people motivated enough.

Isn't it ironic? The same problem that plague them in religious sense, are the ones that plague us politically. Civil Apathy.

~Tenth

a reply to: beezzer

i heard a report all this could have been stopped in 2012, but obama refused to act.

a reply to: beezzer

So why the tattoo of war drums for ISIS?

Unlike Libya and Syria, their explicit goal is world domination. Nevertheless, this is a problem we must leave to the Muslim world to solve. American or European involvement would only de-legitimize the result in the eyes of the umma.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

We need another Martin Luther King Jr. He wasn't a perfect human, but he could draw people together... like a boss!

No, Christians just like to blow up medical clinics, murder doctors, and then congratulate and venerate those who do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

See how irritating a statement like that is? Absolutely asinine to assign the actions of a few whack-jobs to all Christians.

Although the statement is absolutely true, in itself, there is more to the story.

Estimates vary, but let's say there are 100,000 active "Islamist" terrorists worldwide. There are 1.6 billion Muslims.

That means that terrorists comprise 1/16,000 of the Muslim population.

This is not a religious problem, it is political and economic.

Western foreign policy in the last 70 years has created or contributed to the overall environment that has generated political and social unrest in these countries, that has enabled things like ISIS-IL to exist.

The unemployment rate in Syria is 48% or higher. We have helped to destroy their economies, or place the wealth of these countries in the hands of a few (*cough* Saudi Arabia *cough*).

Until we own that, and quit blaming religion, the process is only going to get worse, in my opinion.

a reply to: DJW001

USSR wanted world domination.

I don't remember the west sitting idly by as they took over.

a reply to: Gryphon66

See how irritating a statement like that is? Absolutely asinine to assign the actions of a few whack-jobs to all Christians.

But Christians do not claim to be killing in the name of their religion. Muslim terrorists do. There is poverty and squalor in Latin America, but the radicals there take up Communism, not Radical Christianity. It has become a political problem because the religious establishment refuses to take a strong stand against it.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: DJW001

USSR wanted world domination.

I don't remember the west sitting idly by as they took over.

It didn't resort to direct confrontation, either. It mostly relied on projecting "soft power," while practicing "containment." Ultimately the West won by the power of sheer economics, and its reward? Being blamed for all the woes of the world that refuses to embrace liberal democracy and the rule of law. Crushing IS will win the West no good will in the Arab world.

a reply to: DJW001

On the contrary, Christians who kill doctors and blow up medical clinics in the US DO claim they are acting in the name of their religion and on behalf of God.

References available (in the millions) at Army of God on Google.

There is no universal "religious establishment" in Islam as I'm sure you know. Hundreds of Imams have repeatedly condemned these activities.

It's as ludicrous to blame Muslims in Jordan for terrorists beheading Copts in Libya as it would be to blame Lithuanian Orthodox for the Army of God's actions in the US.

Why haven't more Christians condemned murder and mayhem committed in the name of the Christian God?

It's asinine, in my opinion.

originally posted by: DJW001
But Christians do not claim to be killing in the name of their religion.

Yes, they most certainly do!

After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[93][94][95] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[96] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven".[97][98]

The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on 31 May 2009 was the belief that abortion is not only immoral, but also a form of murder under "God's law", irrespective of "man's law" in any country, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[99][100] The group supporting Roeder proclaimed that any force is "legitimate to protect the life of an unborn child", and called on all Christians to "rise up" and "take action" against threats to Christianity and to unborn life.

Christian Terrorism

ISIS didn't invent a new Islam any more than these guys invented a new Christianity. Killing the infidels can be found in both religions' books. One is not better, holier or more justified than the other. And people who think one is are fooling themselves. Both religions are filled with hatred, intolerance and violence.

Are most people like that? No! Not in EITHER religion. But there's no shortage of people who will draw on the darkest and most evil sections of their books to justify their own hatred, fear and need to control.

a reply to: Gryphon66

On the contrary, Christians who kill doctors and blow up medical clinics in the US DO claim they are acting in the name of their religion and on behalf of God.

And they are roundly condemned by mainstream religious figures and organizations, and depicted as criminals in the media.

References available (in the millions) at Army of God on Google.

How many members does this "Army of God" have do you suppose? Enough to control thousands of square miles of territory, like IS?

There is no universal "religious establishment" in Islam as I'm sure you know. Hundreds of Imams have repeatedly condemned these activities.

But there are Imams in Iran issuing lethal fatwas.

It's as ludicrous to blame Muslims in Jordan for terrorists beheading Copts in Libya as it would be to blame Lithuanian Orthodox for the Army of God's actions in the US.

No-one blames Muslims in Jordan for beheading Copts in Libya, except, of course, those who covertly and even overtly provide financial aid. All religions can either promote peace and understanding or support violence. Irish-Americans gave aid to the IRA, often through allegedly religious organizations. Well intending Jews may unwittingly be supporting Israeli imperialism through opaque charities.

Why haven't more Christians condemned murder and mayhem committed in the name of the Christian God?

Except for members of groups that are essentially neo-Nazi in nature, I cannot think of any Christian who has not condemned murder and mayhem in the name of the Christian God. In fact:

Pope John Paul II made many apologies. During his long reign as Pope, he apologized to Jews, Galileo, women, people convicted by the Inquisition, Muslims killed by the Crusaders and almost everyone who had allegedly suffered at the hands of the Catholic Church over the years.[1] Even before he became the Pope, he was a prominent editor and supporter of initiatives like the Letter of Reconciliation of the Polish Bishops to the German Bishops from 1965. As Pope, he officially made public apologies for over 100 of these wrongdoings, including:[2][3][4][5][6]

The conquest of Mesoamerica by Spain in the name of the Church[3][4][5][6]
The legal process on the Italian scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei, himself a devout Catholic, around 1633 (31 October 1992).[3][4][5][6]
Catholics' involvement with the African slave trade (9 August 1993).[3][4][5][6]
The Church's role in burnings at the stake and the religious wars that followed the Protestant Reformation (May 1995, in the Czech Republic).[3][4][5][6]
The injustices committed against women, the violation of women's rights and for the historical denigration of women (29 May 1995, in a "letter to women").[2][3][4][5][6]
The inactivity and silence of many Catholics during the Holocaust (16 March 1998)[3][4][5][6]
For the execution of Jan Hus in 1415 (18 December 1999 in Prague). When John Paul II visited Prague in 1990s, he requested experts in this matter "to define with greater clarity the position held by Jan Hus among the Church's reformers, and acknowledged that "independently of the theological convictions he defended, Hus cannot be denied integrity in his personal life and commitment to the nation's moral education." It was another step in building a bridge between Catholics and Protestants.[3][4][5][6]
For the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating "the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and [for showing] contempt for their cultures and religious traditions". (12 March 2000, during a public Mass of Pardons).[3][4][5][6]
For the actions of the Crusader attack on Constantinople in 1204. To the Patriarch of Constantinople he said "Some memories are especially painful, and some events of the distant past have left deep wounds in the minds and hearts of people to this day. I am thinking of the disastrous sack of the imperial city of Constantinople, which was for so long the bastion of Christianity in the East. It is tragic that the assailants, who had set out to secure free access for Christians to the Holy Land, turned against their own brothers in the faith. The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret. How can we fail to see here the mysterium iniquitatis at work in the human heart? ".[3][4][5][6]

en.wikipedia.org...

Let me know when a Caliph apologizes for the Arab Empire.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Are most people like that? No! Not in EITHER religion. But there's no shortage of people who will draw on the darkest and most evil sections of their books to justify their own hatred, fear and need to control.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think Christianity is better than Islam. Both are just superstitions as far as I'm concerned. All I am doing is pointing out that the West has found new superstitions to justify its own atrocities.

originally posted by: DJW001
Don't get me wrong; I don't think Christianity is better than Islam.

And yet, your posts defend Christianity and criticize Islam...

All I am doing is pointing out that the West has found new superstitions to justify its own atrocities.

I must have missed where you pointed that out.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Contrasting Christianity and Islam is not the same as defending Christianity.

a reply to: DJW001

To save screen scroll, responses in the order of your post.

1. And for the "Islamist" terrorists, the Muslim equivalent of "mainstream religious figures" have done the same thing. So, that settles that then, Islam has "spoken up."

2. Great attempt at false equivalency. Army of God was presented as evidence of a violent organization doing violence in the name of the Christian religion and the Christian God ... NOT as an organization similar in scope or size to ISIL/ISIS/IS. Good try though.

3. Imams issuing fatwas in Iran, Pastors preaching sermons that homosexuals should be killed in the US. What's the difference?

4. ... but all of Islam should stand up and condemn these IS/ISIS/ISIL terrorists and if not, they're co-conspirators? Seems like a double standard is at work here.

5. You polled all Christians? You know what all Christians have said world-wide, all 2 billion of them? Surely you're not serious here.

6. Why would a Caliph (?) apologize for the Arab Empire? Did John Paul apologize for the Empire of Charlemagne or the Norman Conquest? How about the Hundred Years War? (1) You're trying to mix together political conquests with religious ones. (2) Unlike Catholics, most of the world doesn't find saying "I'm sorry" sufficient to wipe away all wrongdoing.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: FyreByrd

“Reasoning with God: Reclaiming Shari’ah in the Modern Age”.

Don't know what that book is about...but the title...scares me. As soon as the muslims mention their "precious" Sharia...

There is no extreme Islam...only Islam. There are however extreme people. They all drink from the same well...extreme or otherwise.

And that's exactly why I put his bio with his books in there.

You said it yourself: When you hear anything about their 'precious sharia'......

Just what do you or I know about it? That isn't slanted towards 'endless war' that benefits the 'kings' of Saudi Arabia.

Honestly I don't know anything about Sharia and it was nice to hear someone, a scholar, talk about it in a resonable manner and how it is compatible with 'modern civil rights'.

Do you know the history of the region at all between the romantisised christian crusades and the imposition of the state of Israel on the region in the late 40's.

It might be wise to learn more before criticizing.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information,
which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail
to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is
contempt prior to investigation ."

www.anonpress.org... (a fascinating paper on the origins of the quote and it's misquote)

a reply to: Gryphon66

1. And for the "Islamist" terrorists, the Muslim equivalent of "mainstream religious figures" have done the same thing. So, that settles that then, Islam has "spoken up."

Yet here you are, accusing Christians of being just as bad, instead of quoting verses from the Qu'ran that demonstrate the terrorists apostacy.

2. Great attempt at false equivalency. Army of God was presented as evidence of a violent organization doing violence in the name of the Christian religion and the Christian God ... NOT as an organization similar in scope or size to ISIL/ISIS/IS. Good try though.

Christians don't dance in the street when an abortion clinic is bombed, the way Palestinians did on 9/11.

3. Imams issuing fatwas in Iran, Pastors preaching sermons that homosexuals should be killed in the US. What's the difference?

In the United States, the government will charge a minister with incitement if his flock commits violence. In Iran, the government enforces the fatwas.

4. ... but all of Islam should stand up and condemn these IS/ISIS/ISIL terrorists and if not, they're co-conspirators? Seems like a double standard is at work here.

Not at all. Did I say the western media should not condemn preachers who preach intolerance?

5. You polled all Christians? You know what all Christians have said world-wide, all 2 billion of them? Surely you're not serious here.

I'm not sure what this hyperbole is in reference to.

6. Why would a Caliph (?) apologize for the Arab Empire? Did John Paul apologize for the Empire of Charlemagne or the Norman Conquest? How about the Hundred Years War? (1) You're trying to mix together political conquests with religious ones. (2) Unlike Catholics, most of the world doesn't find saying "I'm sorry" sufficient to wipe away all wrongdoing.

And that brings us back to the point. The Norman Conquest was entirely political, as both Normans and Saxons were nominally of the same religion. The Arab Empire was not just political, it was explicitly intended to spread the Muslim religion. Convert or die, presumably the motto of IS.

This is one of the fundamental problems of Islam in the modern world. Because the Qu'ran is believed to be the absolute, infallible word of God, and what it says is to be the central focus of every individual's life, it is believed to provide the blueprint for society as a whole. It is therefore viewed, first and foremost, as a political tract. Furthermore, it is believed that this political system must be accepted by the entire world, as it is explicitly ordered by God.

Unless Islamic scholars have the same sorts of insights that German scholars had 200 years ago, that "sacred books" are really just texts written by human beings that, at best, are inspired by God and filtered through those fallible humans, Islam and the modern world will remain mutually exclusive.

a reply to: DJW001

Did you know you are misquoting:

Misquotations and misattributions like this are fairly common, and actually make up a significant portion of the canon of famous quotations.

For instance, Voltaire never wrote some of his most famous words: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Voltaire died in 1778, but this quotation dates from 1906.

It was written by a biographer, S.G. Tallentyre, in her book The Friends of Voltaire. In 1935 she explained in a letter to the New York Times that the words were not Voltaire’s. She was trying to describe Voltaire’s attitude, but did not mean to suggest that Voltaire had used those exact words. She explained that they “are rather a paraphrase of Voltaire’s words in the Essay on Tolerance – ‘Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.’” [5]

www.anonpress.org...