Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

A New Theory for Islamic Hatred watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #_ZINAN)
    If ISIS don't really represent Is;am as you muslims say, how come the most conservative muslim country, the main islamic country on earth Saudi arabia, agree with their philosophies and funds and houses them?
    Indonesia has the highest Muslim population on Earth.

    Last time I checked, their military helped prevent an attack by ISIS in Jakarta.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    How about the fact that Irani and Syrian soldiers, Muslim soldiers, are the only thing that's stopping ISIS from exploding like a cancer throughout the Middle East?
    That's total bull-:dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin:. The Assad regime had a business relationship with ISIS and traded oil with it

    http://www.businessinsider.com/revea...is-2015-3?IR=T

    Assad basically left ISIS alone for a long time hoping they would swallow up the Syrian opposition and the world would be left with the choice between him and ISIS, thus strengthening his position.

    It's also extremely obnoxious to deny the very substantial effect that US airstrikes have had on ISIS. Nobody who actually pays attention to this conflict would deny that US airstrikes were the fundamental element in turning the tide against ISIS. To this day, it is only with US close air support and weapons that the opposition Syrian Democratic Forces in northern Syria have rolled ISIS back, as have the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi Army.

    To pretend that Assad who originally allowed ISIS to grow unhindered and did business deals with it is the only one doing anything about them is not just ignorant and factually wrong, it's quite puerile.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #_ZINAN)
    They follow more of the Qur'an than they do Violate it.


    For example there are over 109 verses of violence in the Qur'an while verses of peace come early whereas verses of violence come later, and because the Qur'an follows the laws of abrogation, your theory much like most of the other nonsense you say is completely flawed
    You also have to take the verses of the Quran in context. The Quran was conveyed to their prophet over a period of 30 years if I remember rightly. Earlier on the verses are peaceful as Muhammad was living during a peaceful time. As he and his faith gained more and more supporters they encountered more and more disbelievers who wanted to dispose of him thus starting holy wars where these verses come from.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bazzel)
    And Saudi Arabia fund ISIS.
    That's simply not true. While I oppose the "No True Scotsman" approach of many commenters on this thread trying to deny the link between ISIS and Islam, I do not think that justifies being loose with the truth or making things up.

    The Saudi Arabian government is a sworn enemy of ISIS. Da'esh has vowed to topple the Saudi monarchy, has attacked its border outposts.

    The Saudi government did provide support to Islamist groups like the Authenticity and Development Front, it is quite simply wrong to claim the Saud government provided funding or money to ISIS
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    That's total bull-:dolphin::dolphin::dolphin::dolphin:. The Assad regime had a business relationship with ISIS and traded oil with it

    http://www.businessinsider.com/revea...is-2015-3?IR=T

    Assad basically left ISIS alone for a long time hoping they would swallow up the Syrian opposition and the world would be left with the choice between him and ISIS, thus strengthening his position.

    It's also extremely obnoxious to deny the very substantial effect that US airstrikes have had on ISIS. Nobody who actually pays attention to this conflict would deny that US airstrikes were the fundamental element in turning the tide against ISIS. To this day, it is only with US close air support and weapons that the opposition Syrian Democratic Forces in northern Syria have rolled ISIS back, as have the Kurdish forces and the Iraqi Army.

    To pretend that Assad who originally allowed ISIS to grow unhindered and did business deals with it is the only one doing anything about them is not just ignorant and factually wrong, it's quite puerile.
    I don't care about the Assad government. I was quite clear with what I said. With US air support or not, if Syrians were not fighting ISIS, ISIS would have had control over Syria. Assad is a ******** dictator like most of them.
    I did not mention Assad, I said the Syrian army is the only thing stopping ISIS from spreading. If the Syrians were happy with ISIS, ISIS would have taken control over Syria. Why isn't that the case? Why isn't ISIS in control of ALL of Syria and Iraq? If you want to believe that America is fighting the will of Syrians and Iraqis to be ruled by ISIS and is the only reason preventing ISIS from gaining control of the region, be my foolish guest.

    I did not deny the actions of the West, but they're certainly nothing compared to the daily bloodshed of the Syrian and Iraqi blood fighting ISIS. How many American soldiers were killed fighting ISIS? less than 10 I am sure. How many Syrians were killed fighting ISIS? 90 thousand..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    The Quran condemns killing female / child hostages, which ISIS have done. The Quran condemns killing non-combatants, which ISIS have done.
    The Quran permits the taking of sex slaves, which ISIS has done. The Quran interprets "non-combatants" very widely (such as the killing of all the males of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza by Mohammed, every male from the age of puberty to the oldest men.. after which they seized the women and children for enslavement)

    ISIS has very precise regulations about their treatment of enslaved Yezidis which come directly from Islamic theology. And the ISIS decision to target the Yezidis (as they are perceived as pagans and thus unworthy of even dhimmi-tude that Christians will suffer) is directly from Islamic theology and its religious categorisation into two categories; "People of the Book" and everyone else.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    The Quran permits the taking of sex slaves, which ISIS has done. The Quran interprets "non-combatants" very widely (such as the killing of all the males of the Jewish tribe of Banu Qurayza by Mohammed, every male from the age of puberty to the oldest men.. after which they seized the women and children for enslavement)

    ISIS has very precise regulations about their treatment of enslaved Yezidis which come directly from Islamic theology. And the ISIS decision to target the Yezidis (as they are perceived as pagans and thus unworthy of even dhimmi-tude that Christians will suffer) is directly from Islamic theology and its religious categorisation into two categories; "People of the Book" and everyone else.
    That's the problem with Islam, its too vague on a lot of things, but thankfully most Muslims are reasonable people. And yes, there are some brutal things the Quran does permit, but there are definitely things which it doesn't. ISIS follow some things and don't follow others, but the person who I first replied to said they follow the Quran to the truest interpretation - which can't be correct.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    With US air support or not, if Syrians were not fighting ISIS, ISIS would have control over Syria.
    Syrians were fighting ISIS; that is, Syrian opposition and Kurdish Syrians. The Syrian regime forces mostly left ISIS alone until late last year.

    I did not mention Assad, I said the Syrian army is the only thing stopping ISIS from spreading.
    And in making that claim you are completely wrong. Laughably wrong. So wrong that it's hard to take you seriously at all.

    ISIS is opposed by the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish peshmerga. Are they "the Syrian Army"?

    If the Syrians were happy with ISIS, ISIS would have taken control over Syria. Why isn't that the case?
    Posing stupid questions that merely draw attention to your obvious ignorance about the Syrian/Iraq conflict and poor understanding of warfare and logistics doesn't actually move the debate forward.

    ISIS focus in 2013/2014 was not taking on the Syrian regime to bring it down, it was to acquire territory and in this they focused on targeting Syrian opposition forces and areas in which the Syrian regime was very weak (like the East). This is not up for debate, it is a matter of historical fact which you could learn about if you'd ever read a serious book on the subject (like Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad)

    The Syrian regime focused their attention mainly on the Syrian opposition and left ISIS alone for the most part to consolidate its gains in eastern Syria. They even had a roaring trade in oil with ISIS (again, this is not in dispute; it's a historical fact).

    You obviously get your information from the RT/PressTV/conspiracy website sources so it's not clear whether there's any point in discussing it with you if your worldview is based entirely on fantasy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Syrians were fighting ISIS; that is, Syrian opposition and Kurdish Syrians. The Syrian regime forces mostly left ISIS alone until late last year.



    And in making that claim you are completely wrong. Laughably wrong. So wrong that it's hard to take you seriously at all.

    ISIS is opposed by the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish peshmerga. Are they "the Syrian Army"?



    Posing stupid questions that merely draw attention to your obvious ignorance about the Syrian/Iraq conflict and poor understanding of warfare and logistics doesn't actually move the debate forward.

    ISIS focus in 2013/2014 was not taking on the Syrian regime to bring it down, it was to acquire territory and in this they focused on targeting Syrian opposition forces and areas in which the Syrian regime was very weak (like the East). This is not up for debate, it is a matter of historical fact which you could learn about if you'd ever read a serious book on the subject (like Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad)

    The Syrian regime focused their attention mainly on the Syrian opposition and left ISIS alone for the most part to consolidate its gains in eastern Syria. They even had a roaring trade in oil with ISIS (again, this is not in dispute; it's a historical fact).

    You obviously get your information from the RT/PressTV/conspiracy website sources so it's not clear whether there's any point in discussing it with you if your worldview is based entirely on fantasy
    I think they meant the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian opposition rather than the Assad regime. I think everybody agrees both President Assad and ISIS aren't helping the situation :P
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frank Underwood)
    ISIS follow some things and don't follow others
    So in other words, they're pretty much like all religious people.

    but the person who I first replied to said they follow the Quran to the truest interpretation - which can't be correct.
    That is a completely faulty premise. For there to be a "truest" interpretation, there would have to be some underlying objective truth to Islam such that various interpretations could come closest to the "true" one. Of course that's not the case, so to even put forward the notion of a "truest" interpretation brings us into completely untestable, unscientific areas.

    Like all religious people, ISIS pick and choose what suits them. The fundamental point here is that Islam's founding texts seem particularly liable to be "misinterpreted". The religion's founder was, after all, a warlord and a murderer
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ItsRoger)
    I think they meant the Free Syrian Army or the Syrian opposition rather than the Assad regime.
    Read his comments again. He's clearly referring to the Syrian Arab Army (he claimed before that essentially only Iranian and Syrian troops are holding ISIS back, a ludicrous claim that smacks of the kind of crap propaganda you see on PressTV)
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Syrians were fighting ISIS; that is, Syrian opposition and Kurdish Syrians. The Syrian regime forces mostly left ISIS alone until late last year.



    And in making that claim you are completely wrong. Laughably wrong. So wrong that it's hard to take you seriously at all.

    ISIS is opposed by the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish peshmerga. Are they "the Syrian Army"?



    Posing stupid questions that merely draw attention to your obvious ignorance about the Syrian/Iraq conflict and poor understanding of warfare and logistics doesn't actually move the debate forward.

    ISIS focus in 2013/2014 was not taking on the Syrian regime to bring it down, it was to acquire territory and in this they focused on targeting Syrian opposition forces and areas in which the Syrian regime was very weak (like the East). This is not up for debate, it is a matter of historical fact which you could learn about if you'd ever read a serious book on the subject (like Charles Lister's The Syrian Jihad)

    The Syrian regime focused their attention mainly on the Syrian opposition and left ISIS alone for the most part to consolidate its gains in eastern Syria. They even had a roaring trade in oil with ISIS (again, this is not in dispute; it's a historical fact).

    You obviously get your information from the RT/PressTV/conspiracy website sources so it's not clear whether there's any point in discussing it with you if your worldview is based entirely on fantasy
    You're completely misinterpreting my view.
    I know nothing about the actual logistics of the situation in Syria. When I said Syrian soldiers, or the Syrian army, I am referring to people who are Syrian by nationality and are fighting ISIS, whichever side they belonged to.
    My point is, if Syrians did want ISIS to rule them, why isn't ISIS ruling Syria? One must then deduce that Syrians do not want ISIS to rule them, which is my point. Syrian people, whichever side they're on, are dying daily fighting ISIS. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...170000620.html
    Yet people say Muslims are not doing enough to fight ISIS.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    Read his comments again. He's clearly referring to the Syrian Arab Army (he claimed before that essentially only Iranian and Syrian troops are holding ISIS back, a ludicrous claim that smacks of the kind of crap propaganda you see on PressTV)
    What the hell? I never even mentioned Iran, and I sure as hell don't een know what Press TV is. I was not referring to the Syrian Arab Army which I don't even know what it is. I am referring to Syrian individuals fighting ISIS, whichever side they belonged to. Be it Assad people, or Syrian opposition groups. And yes, the Airstrikes would have been useless if Syrians weren't fighting ISIS.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a6797486.html
    How would have that panned out without the ground Syrian and Iraqi troops? I am not underestimating the American efforts, but they would have been useless without the Syrian support.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    The religion's founder was, after all, a warlord and a murderer
    please explain how?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bazzel)
    Such as?

    ISIS follow the Quran more literally if anything.
    behaeding
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    When I said Syrian soldiers, or the Syrian army, I am referring to people who are Syrian by nationality and are fighting ISIS, whichever side they belonged to.
    You also mentioned Iranians. And you claimed that they were the only ones holding ISIS back. On that point you are clearly wrong. The biggest losses ISIS has suffered in the last 18 months have come at the hands of the Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

    The only serious offensive by the Syrian army against ISIS in the recent past was the one to retake Palmyra recently. Before that there's almost nothing.

    My point is, if Syrians did want ISIS to rule them, why isn't ISIS ruling Syria?
    Of course Syrians don't want ISIS to rule them. That has nothing to do with your bizarre claim that the Syrian army and the Iranians were the only ones truly opposing ISIS.

    And you seem to be confused also in that the fact that Syrians don't want ISIS to rule them has nothing to do with President Assad's strategy of trading with ISIS and leaving them alone in the hope they would swallow up the Syrian opposition forces.

    President Assad obviously doesn't want ISIS to rule Syria. That doesn't mean he wouldn't cut deals with them and leave them alone with the intention that this would aid him in the long term by bringing about a situation where the only two players left in the conflict would be him and ISIS, knowing that the West would have to support him in such a situation


    Syrian people, whichever side they're on, are dying daily fighting ISIS. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/0...170000620.html
    As are Kurds, as are Iraqis. And in fact, Americans are too.

    Yet people say Muslims are not doing enough to fight ISIS.
    I didn't say anything of the sort. I was simply responding to your factually incorrect claims that only the Syrian army and Iranians were truly opposing ISIS. As I have clearly pointed out, so are the Kurds, so are the Iraqis, and the Western allies are too
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    So in other words, they're pretty much like all religious people.



    That is a completely faulty premise. For there to be a "truest" interpretation, there would have to be some underlying objective truth to Islam such that various interpretations could come closest to the "true" one. Of course that's not the case, so to even put forward the notion of a "truest" interpretation brings us into completely untestable, unscientific areas.

    Like all religious people, ISIS pick and choose what suits them. The fundamental point here is that Islam's founding texts seem particularly liable to be "misinterpreted". The religion's founder was, after all, a warlord and a murderer
    You can't make such a comparison based on one thing. ISIS are criminals, murderers, rapists - they might follow parts of a religion and follow it to whatever extent, but they are killers. I'm not so sure that most religious people are murderers, and I mean religious people in the present tense - we all know that many religions have a violent past.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BeastOfSyracuse)
    You also mentioned Iranians. And you claimed that they were the only ones holding ISIS back. On that point you are clearly wrong. The biggest losses ISIS has suffered in the last 18 months have come at the hands of the Kurds and the Iraqi Army.

    The only serious offensive by the Syrian army against ISIS in the recent past was the one to retake Palmyra recently. Before that there's almost nothing.



    Of course Syrians don't want ISIS to rule them. That has nothing to do with your bizarre claim that the Syrian army and the Iranians were the only ones truly opposing ISIS.

    And you seem to be confused also in that the fact that Syrians don't want ISIS to rule them has nothing to do with President Assad's strategy of trading with ISIS and leaving them alone in the hope they would swallow up the Syrian opposition forces.

    President Assad obviously doesn't want ISIS to rule Syria. That doesn't mean he wouldn't cut deals with them and leave them alone with the intention that this would aid him in the long term by bringing about a situation where the only two players left in the conflict would be him and ISIS, knowing that the West would have to support him in such a situation




    As are Kurds, as are Iraqis. And in fact, Americans are too.



    I didn't say anything of the sort. I was simply responding to your factually incorrect claims that only the Syrian army and Iranians were truly opposing ISIS. As I have clearly pointed out, so are the Kurds, so are the Iraqis, and the Western allies are too
    I never mentioned Iran, I said Iraq. You're straw-manning what I said.
    I don't know what Iran is doing, but Iraq is definitely fighting ISIS to death. You seem to have misread my comments.
    I am talking about the efforts made by Syrians and Iraqis to fend off ISIS, which is the whole point of my argument.

    (Edit; I did say Iran, that was a typo. I meant Iraq, I have no idea what Iran is contributing to the war so I couldn't have mentioned them on purpose.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by peachlet)
    behaeding
    Quran 8:12 “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bazzel)
    Quran 8:12 “When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.”
    Stop scaremongering you idiot. The historical context for the above passage is that it was revealed at the battle of badr. A battle in which the disbeliever of Makkah travelled 100s of miles to kill Muslims in Madinah. The disbelievers had 1000 soldiers ,while the Muslims all they could gather to fight back in defence, they had only 300 soldiers. Even though Prophet Muhammad had left Makkah to find peace for its community without being persecuted, oppressed, they once again were trying to terrorize the Muslim community.

    Again I will say each and every 'violent' quote and passage that people like him like to cherry pick has CONTEXT! And people like ISIS like to take them out of context.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.