Radical Islam is a cult, plain and simple

a reply to: kicked

Moreover, David "call me Dave" Cameron would rather array himself in the finest hijab before Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi than risk offending the ever growing Muslim populous of Britain, and it's that brand of secular cowardice that's led to British-born jihad fighters spoiling the world in numbers that ought to make the western world ashamed. We need a robust (dare I say Christian) response to both Islam and the hellish enlightenment values which have left people scrambling in confusion and valuing nothing.

Our boys in the Islamic state: Britain's export jihad

Any people who follow a religion or any cause could be considered a cult.
That said, I agree with you. Radical Islamic people are part of a cult. But we need to remember that there is a difference between people who follow a religion and the radicals. They are not the same group.

a reply to: Ridhya

Christ would never in 2000 years approve of your antagonising words or avatar. He would have loved his enemy, even if they crucified him...

Like I said...

I am a Christian, and if you want to curse me, my G-d, burn the Christian bible, etc… Than have at it! It is what some of us call “free will”! It’s what’s within my heart that matters most! It is your free will to do so, and I’m not going to go out and kill you, or make threats to kill you if you decide to do such things!

And...

I would love to see how a so called "MODERATE" Muslim would react if I burned the Koran in front of him/her! Yeah, we'll see just how "MODERATE" they really are!

As for the Avatar. Don't you love it! I've had a few members tell me in their own little way how they would like to have me beheaded because of it...!

Those moderate Muslims, what's their NOT to love about them..!

Edit: Please show me one (1) moderate Muslim who wouldn’t go off the deep end if I burned the Koran in front of them.

a reply to: Propulsion

Im more curious as to why you want to burn qurans in front of them and deliberately troll them with your posts.

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: tonycodes

Interesting .Our Australian prime minister always calls Isis a death cult , an example would be , this Isis death cult . Love him or hate him you have to agree with him on this stance .

I've never heard him say that.

And no, I will never agree with Tony dumb dumb on anything. He's a far right zealot who should never have been made PM.

a reply to: lifecitizen

Perhaps you tune out when Tony talks . Of subject but do you think his face is kind of rat like .

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: lifecitizen

Perhaps you tune out when Tony talks . Of subject but do you think his face is kind of rat like .

lol. perhaps I do. And yes I do, now you mention it.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

You know i jist dont think the label radical is correct for this. Radical cant be a huge group of followers..im tryig not to nit pick but thisbis the heart of why i posted this.. i think people out there dont want to call it a cult bc they sympothise with these groups

a reply to: Ridhya

Not every religion is a cult.. i placed the definition in my post.. not to be a dick but i gotta paraphrase wiki again.. really a deviant group is a cult.. NOT A RELIGION

a reply to: tonycodes

Im just waiting for a pissed off high ranking brainwashed member to cum here and defend against this post.. youll see.. anyday now..

Now im going to go and read about the city under peru and get some rest .. politicians need to just do what they are good at...talk #.. play the pshyhological popularity game around the world .... call this a cult and move onto funding cool things in this world like exploration and science

originally posted by: tonycodes
a reply to: Ridhya

Not every religion is a cult.. i placed the definition in my post.. not to be a dick but i gotta paraphrase wiki again.. really a deviant group is a cult.. NOT A RELIGION

The only difference between a cult and a religion is the numbers.

a reply to: tonycodes

Hey I outlined the real definition in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And I reiterate, the original definition was a religious group that chose to worship one god and deny Roman taxation/veneration. Modern day this fits EVERY monotheistic faith, and so the colloquial use of the term has changed to mean 'outside the norm' so to speak, and so it is so vague that it could still apply to virtually every faith.

Why cant they just be deemed radicals? Id consider the nazi party radicals, but not a cult. (The SS on the other hand was certainly a cult)

a reply to: Ridhya

if th SS was a cult created by nazis you cant let the nazi leaders off and not call them a cult too... unfortunately you cant compare nazis to this bc they were a country and this cult has no specific country, nazi's were the name of a countrys army, not a cult and the ss were a branch of that army...

heres an example of the psychological danger of misusing and softening labels in society. even some of the brightest minds are manipulated....

One of the most striking findings, Barnhart points out, is that there’s genuine confusion among students about what actually constitutes sexual assault.

“There’s a gap between the percentage of students who say that they’ve been sexually assaulted and the number of students that by answering the behavioral questions indicate that they’ve been sexually assaulted,” said Barnhart.

While virtually all survey respondents agreed that it’s important to get consent before sex, more than half said “rape and sexual assault can happen unintentionally, especially if alcohol is involved.”

a reply to: lifecitizen

no its the deviant actions, not the numbers, plus once you are denounced by the OFFICIAL church of the religion you are manipulating, then you are a cult...

a reply to: tonycodes

BTW i am sorry to come across as snide in my responses, but i feel what i am expressing here is really a solution that can save lives....and i absolutely appreciate your responses that are on topic

a reply to: tonycodes

Well you're wrong there, because the SS was Himmler's personal private army, and not created by the Nazis. It was his personal endeavour, and Hitler himself was very against much of what they stood for (pagan rites and superstitions etc). But we are getting sorely off topic.

originally posted by: tonycodes
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

You know i jist dont think the label radical is correct for this. Radical cant be a huge group of followers..im tryig not to nit pick but thisbis the heart of why i posted this.. i think people out there dont want to call it a cult bc they sympothise with these groups

It can be though.
If you look up the definition of cult on google, it says it's a "system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object." and "a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister."

And what we call radicals are usually a small group of people within a bigger group of people who don't always speak for the entire group of said people. Radical feminists for example, come off as hating men. The large portion of feminists want equality for all people. Radical Islam is a small group of people within the religion that use their religion in order to harm others. The people outside of the radicals that still follow Islam, are really peaceful people. I doubt that they would behead someone, or suicide bomb anyone or anything. These people hate being compared to the radicals, and they are being made victims by the radicals.

I will call radical Islam a cult. Because I am not a hypocrite. I've numerous times called radical Christians part of a cult of their own. What they follow isn't Christianity. The same goes for radical Islam. They don't follow Islam. They follow their own skewed version of Islam or Christianity that is used to harm those that displease them. I just call it like I see it.

I don't sympathize with radicals, because they put themselves in the mess that they are in. There's a reason why people hate radicals. But radicals are too close minded to realize that they are the problem. I do sympathize with the people they harm. I have my eyes opened wide, and I know that there is a difference between extremists/radicals and the people/group they attempt to say that they are a part of. I sympathize with the victims.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

Could you expand upon "They (Islamic radicals) don't follow Islam. They follow their own skewed version of Islam" Lyxdeslic? As no matter the way I slice it what radical Muslims are doing appears to be promoted by Islamic teachings, rather it's others who're not living up to their Muslim duties, as the radicals (having studied radical teachings) are acting in radical a fashion, which makes sickening sense in truth. It seems that the peaceful, loving and kind Muslims who greet and befriend me daily are incompetent, by which I don't mean incompetent in an offensive fashion, rather I mean not competent when concerning their Islamic belief system. They're unequipped so that they don't understand how to interpret their Qur'an, for which they merely read and remember the portions they like while ignoring notions as damaging as the doctrine of abrogation, Mohammed’s status of Al-Insān al-Kāmil and many many more unattractive notions that radical Muslims accept without fail.

Muslims (even ones who've memorized their Qur'an front to back) often times are without any understanding when asked what certain passages mean, or what they're leading to when followed to their logical conclusion, and that's not even beginning with secondary literature like Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Ibn Kathir and the biographies of Mohammed, many of which Muslims haven't even heard of! One of the ignored notions found in the Qur'an happens to be the doctrine of abrogation, which rather than writing of myself I'll outline through another Muslim source so to have the most sympathetic understanding possible.

"Naskh (abrogation) in Arabic means lifting and removing. In Islamic terminology it means lifting a ruling indicated by a shar‘i text, on the basis of evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah. The concept of abrogation is based on the Qur’an and Sunnah, and on the consensus (ijmaa‘) of Ahl as-Sunnah, and there is great wisdom behind it. In most cases the abrogation was for the purpose of making things easier for the Muslims or increasing the rewards." The writer continues: 'And He (Allah) tells us that whoever rejects abrogation has rejected His sovereignty and might, as He says: “Know you not that Allah is able to do all things? Know you not that it is Allah to Whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth?”'

So according to Muslim sources whoever rejects abrogation isn't an actual Muslim, although there's another more practical reason that the orthodox are in desperate need for abrogation to be sound and binding upon every page of the Qur'an, that's because incomprehensible is how most would describe the best of the Qur'anic verses, true believers therefore (as well as everyone else) cannot understand the Qur'an without understanding abrogation, it's utterly without sense to it. Hereafter you'll find where people draw the doctrine from, that being Qur'an 2:106: "We (Allah) do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?"

We're told therefore that whenever two verses seemingly contradict one another we're to ignore whichever came earlier and settle upon following the later revelation. It's the idea of abrogation that informs any Muslim worthy of the name, and if you're interested here's just what the doctrine of abrogation destroyed over the course of time. Although I'm not hoping to overwhelm you or anyone with information, instead I'm curious if you can fashion something peaceful out of Islam while preserving its teachings, since Islamic radicals appear to have preserved them in all their gruesomeness.

Qur'an 2:190: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors." Abrogated thanks to Qur'an Surah (chapter) 9, which is infamous for its violent content.

Qur'an 2:256: "There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing." Same as the above.

Qur'an 2:62: "Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." Abrogated through Surah 3:85.

Qur'an 5:99: "The duty of the messenger is only to convey (the message). Allah knoweth what ye proclaim and what ye hide." Once again Qur'an Surah 9 abrogated this.

Qur'an: 6:104: "Proofs have come unto you from your Lord, so whoso seeth, it is for his own good, and whoso is blind is blind to his own hurt. And I am not a keeper over you." Qur'an Surah 9:5 does away with the above passage.

Qur'an 109:6: "To you be your religion, and to me mine." An awesome teaching again destroyed through Qur'an Surah 9:5.

After having taken abrogation into account what's left for the peaceful Muslim to believe and defend, here's what the Qur'an teaches Muslims who're driven in their studies nowadays.

Qur'an 8:65: "O Prophet! Exhort the believers to fight. If there be of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there be of you a hundred (steadfast) they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they (the disbelievers) are a folk without intelligence."

Qur'an 4:34: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great."

Qur'an 61:4: "Lo! Allah loveth them who battle for His cause in ranks, as if they were a solid structure."

With abrogation (abrogation as defined by orthodox Muslims) thoroughly understood, I'm tempted simply to leave Mohammed's final marching orders to Muslims everywhere. “Expel the Jews of the Hijaaz and Najraan from the Arabian Peninsula, and know that the most evil of people are those who took the graves of their Prophets as places of worship." Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 4463; Muslim, 2444. Beneath you'll find some Muslim commentary from islamqa.info regarding Mohammed’s viewpoint on the subject.

"Praise be to Allaah.

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) commanded that the Jews be expelled from the Arabian Peninsula, and said that no two religions should co-exist in the Arabian Peninsula. This is a shar’i ruling. It is not permissible for any mushrik to remain there."