My take on ISIS and why we should STOP PRETENDING

They are doing it for a reason, but its not for Islam. These people know that committing these atrocities makes Muslims feel hated, that they damage the Muslim community and make westerners hate Islam.

They're doing it because their lives have been turned upside down and they want to harm as many people as possible.

A quick glance of the profiles of these perpetrators often shows that they binge drink, use drugs, commit petty crimes and are generally irreligious - but apparently Islam is to blame still.

The answer to your facetious question is simple. Europe, North America and most of Eastern Asia are supposed to be safe countries. We dont expect terror attacks here on a daily basis. We DO expect terrorist attacks in the middle east and africa, so there is less of a surprise.

So obviously we care more when attacks happen where they are not expected.

Hope that answers your "question".

For gods sake, you have at best discredited two quotes. Tell you what, if Islam doesn't condone terrorism, massacres, and conquest, why did Muhammad himself conquer most if not all the Arabian peninsula in his lifetime? Also, why did the Rashidun caliphs who succeeded him conquer from Tunisian to china, and the Umayyads to Portugal and Tours?

You know, there is a possibility many turn to religions in bad times. I know I have turned back to Christianity in bad times of my life (against my better judgement perhaps, but that is the past), but I didn't go as far as to conquer in the name of Jesus, some people may go that far. It is probably easier for Muslims to do this since there is so much scripture and history behind this course of action.

This is ridiculous, you don't just do something for no reason, and this seems like a very strong reason. Just because the majority of muslims do nothing doesn't mean that islam isn't responsible

since, as I have stated, the Ideas and the history of islam shows very adequate justification for this action.

Gulf Middle Eastern countries are supposed to be safe (much lower crime rate than America without people going on shooting sprees every other week), yet when terror attacks happen in those countries once in a while, as they do in the west, no one cares. No one cared when it happened in China or Malaysia. And to lump Africa (an entire continent) together as though it is one country is pure ignorance.

Most people care about what affects them or what could affect them. At least be honest about it.

Because the Quran was written 1500 years ago, back when conquest was the norm. The Romans conquered all of Europe and more, Genghis Khan conquered a massive part of Asia, why is Islam / Muhammad suddenly the one who needs to be brought to account?

Islam is not an entity; it's not a monolith, thus the emboldened text makes no sense. If Islam was the "primary factor", we'd actually expect the vast majority of its devout adherents to commit act of terror, eradicate all non-Muslims from their countries, and general make life difficult for non-Muslims. Instead, we usually get mentally unstable, non-practising Muslims committing these acts.

Are you familiar with the Constitution of Medina?

Because he is telling the muslims in order to be closer to god and get to heaven they must follow what he or the caliphs said. I think the direct quotation for that is somewhere in Bukhari, cannot recall which one.



Alright, allow me to be more clear. There is adequate room to interpret these texts in the manner. I am aware that the Sufis etc. aren't into that at all. A large proportion of the radical islamists do, and support it, although these people have different personalities too. Some simply lack the courage, some respect the law more, some don't wish to die etc. It takes some insanity and/or huge courage to do something that will result in your death, something the vast vast majority of people lack.

No I am not. However, I never said that Jews and Christians couldn't coexist in Islamic countries either provided they paid the Jizya.

1500 years ago...

It could be 5000 years ago, it doesn't matter.

Was it really that troublesome to explain why?

Because it has been written down as the correct thing to do. There is a reason why jews still follow the old testament in spite of parts being more than 3000 years old.

I've lumped Europe, Eastern Asia and North America together as well, and yet you decide to focus on me "lumping" Africa together as if it were a single country? Thats quite peculiar, dont you think? Intersting selective perception problem.

Speaking of ignorance, you do realise that many Gulf countries are considered safe because the state does the killing, rather than some random terrorist? Saudi Arabia is a terrorist haven, and to a large extent a terrorist state institution.

At least you got the "most people care about what affects them" part correct.

This makes no sense to the original point about conquest, 1500 years ago, as I said, conquest and empires was normal and its an entirely different world to the 21st century environment. But apparently some prophet who told his people that what they were doing was in the name of God, is more accountable than the Romans or Genghis Khan or any of these other conquerers. Apparently the religious motivation means that Muhammad should be brought to justice and no one else. Why exactly is a religious motive suddenly more important?

And even if it was, what about the crusades and all of the other non-Islamic, religious wars. Why is Islam the one to be attacked?

The fact it is conquest is irrelevant, and the world isn't that much different at a fundamental level. Is it really that hard to understand that maybe the messenger of god who cannot lie is followed to the letter? The religious motivation is more important as we have a concrete idea that can be targetted and criticised, like we did with nazism and fascism.

The crusades to the middle east were fundamentally defensive against islam, and christianity is constantly attacked, are you blind?

You brought up conquest in the first place roflmao.

You said:

"For gods sake, you have at best discredited two quotes. Tell you what, if Islam doesn't condone terrorism, massacres, and conquest, why did Muhammad himself conquer most if not all the Arabian peninsula in his lifetime? Also, why did the Rashidun caliphs who succeeded him conquer from Tunisian to china, and the Umayyads to Portugal and Tours?"

Oh and don't forget to throw in a classic "are you blind" attack at the end


We're done here, you've clearly got no substance to your uninformed argument.

Saudi Arabia, yes, the other Gulf states rarely carry out the death penalty and still have low crime rates. I am against the rulers of those countries, especially the Saud family, but don't pretend that this is about which countries are or aren't safe.

That was also ignorant but you did not do so negatively. Countries like Botswana, Tanzania and Malawi are safe countries, with a lower threat of terrorism than some of the countries in the regions you referred to. Yet you would "expect" terrorism in those countries because they are African.

Alright, allow me to be more clear. There is adequate room to interpret these texts in the manner.

I am aware that the Sufis etc. aren't into that at all. A large proportion of the radical islamists do, and support it, although these people have different personalities too. Some simply lack the courage, some respect the law more, some don't wish to die etc. It takes some insanity and/or huge courage to do something that will result in your death, something the vast vast majority of people lack.

No I am not. However, I never said that Jews and Christians couldn't coexist in Islamic countries either provided they paid the Jizya.