are you being serious? don't you think there is a reason the media has bothered to translate their name into english? why didn't they translate al qaeda?
im not fooling myself, when was the last time you studied interpretations of the quran? they are bad people, and they don't have anything to do with islam.
are you being serious? don't you think there is a reason the media has bothered to translate their name into english? why didn't they translate al qaeda?
im not fooling myself, when was the last time you studied interpretations of the quran? they are bad people, and they don't have anything to do with islam.
Ah interpretations of the Quran. Interesting how simply picking up an English version of Mein Kampf and reading it with knowledge of historical context is enough to dismiss it. Imagine if we all needed fluent German and 10 years of Third Reich studies to give an opinion.
No not all Muslims are terrorists. However they go on a sliding scale of moderate-might-as-well-not-be Muslims, to conservatives who have evil beliefs but perhaps not the same appetite for violence as the people who fill the other end of the scale.
Shia and Sunni have been fighting for longer than there have been divisions between the Orthodox and Catholic churches (which is another source of horrific violence). Iraqis were doing BEST under Saddam, mainly because he was only semi-interested in religion. Before that the region was just as turbulent as it is now.
ISIS are in fact a mere tip of the iceberg and a sort of modern bogeyman. What they have done is nothing compared to what regular Islam has done to its adherents (especially women) for centuries. Every Muslim considers non-Muslims as kaffir.
ISIS did not appear from nowhere - actually their origins begin the instant Muhammed died and his followers could not decide who should be considered his successor.
If there were no Islam (and no other religion), we would still have problems, but they would not be nearly as backed. America would not be a puppet for Christian fundamentalists and jewish backers, Iran and Saudi Arabia would have no inclination to hate each other the way they do as neither Shia nor Sunni would be important, and Iraq/Syria would be much less easy to manipulate as it wouldn't be being fought over with groups with equally little evidence for their beliefs.
I know the Sunni and Shia conflict has been going on for centuries, I'm shia. I know, you are right tbh the likes of ISIS have always existed, expect now they are a much larger threat because they actually have resources. generally, sunnis and shia get along in iraq(my parents grew up there). also, you have no idea about whether iraqis were doing better under saddam (ironically who also received support from america at the start). of course he was interested in religion, he hated shias. Just read about shaheed baqir al sadr- one example. and his classic quote 'if my finger was shia, i would cut it off and feed it to the dogs'.
as for 'every muslim considers a non muslim a kaffir'. why make sweeping statements on something you don't know about. the shia school of thought does not consider someone a kaffir unless they agree with everything islam says, and still refuses to be a muslim. so when someone leaves islam, they have to fall under this category to be considered an apostate.
That would be a good point, were it not for the fact that there are far more killings by extremist Muslims than there are by extremist Christians.
Also worth noting that hatred of Islam isn't solely due to extremism, but also due to bigoted views (homophobia), reactionary practices (killing of apostates and stoning of adulterers), fanatical response to criticism and mockery (British Council of Muslims calling for murder of Rushdie for writing a book) and questionable passages of scripture (Muhammad marrying a 6 year old and sleeping with a 9 year old).
Finally worth noting that islamophobia, far from being ignorant and prejudiced, is actually quite a logical and reasonable view.
Might be worth considering that Christianity is also guilty of homophobia and reactionary practices and still is in many countries. I'm not pardoning them or saying that fundamentalist Islam is right in any way, but this is a severe case of pot calling the kettle black. The benefit that Christianity has is that it is an older religion that has had more time to deal with progressive societies (of which the United States are not one) and has been FORCED to change views. Many are still held, many still call for the mass eradication of homosexuals. Catholic against Protestant conflict in Ireland caused many brutal acts and is still present today.
I'm not bashing Christianity with the intent to attack it specifically but for the most part the media sensationalise extreme Islam practice as something entirely different from many other kinds of extreme religious practice. You can't just whitewash the horrors that have and are being committed. They may not be as numerous or reported on as much as Islamic extremism but by God they are just as bad.
Where there is a belief there is always a way to radicalise it. That's exactly what the Western World has done by depriving the middle east of education and instead giving groups of Muslims guns and training before radicalising them ready to be a nuisance to Russia. Its come back in the ass to bite them.
I know the Sunni and Shia conflict has been going on for centuries, I'm shia. I know, you are right tbh the likes of ISIS have always existed, expect now they are a much larger threat because they actually have resources. generally, sunnis and shia get along in iraq(my parents grew up there). also, you have no idea about whether iraqis were doing better under saddam (ironically who also received support from america at the start). of course he was interested in religion, he hated shias. Just read about shaheed baqir al sadr- one example. and his classic quote 'if my finger was shia, i would cut it off and feed it to the dogs'.
as for 'every muslim considers a non muslim a kaffir'. why make sweeping statements on something you don't know about. the shia school of thought does not consider someone a kaffir unless they agree with everything islam says, and still refuses to be a muslim. so when someone leaves islam, they have to fall under this category to be considered an apostate.
Shia Islam falls into the category of philosophical disagreement but I do not see it in the same way I see Sunni Islam, Protestantism or Catholicism (i.e. fundamentally evil) as far as I am concerned, so I take back the criticism I made talking about Sunni Islam
Ah interpretations of the Quran. Interesting how simply picking up an English version of Mein Kampf and reading it with knowledge of historical context is enough to dismiss it. Imagine if we all needed fluent German and 10 years of Third Reich studies to give an opinion.
you need historical context for the quran as well. to continue with your analogy, in history you look at interpretations of different historians and contrast them to reach your conclusion. someone interested in the quran could easily do the same.
“He is the one who revealed to you the Book. From it are verses that are clear (muhkamat). They are the foundation of the Book while others are allegorical (mutashabihat). So as for those in whose hearts is perversion, they follow what is ambiguous of it, while seeking discord and seeking its meaning. And none know its meaning except Allah. And those firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in it. All is from our Lord.’ And none take admonition except those possessing inner core.” {Ali-‘Imran: 6}
Shia Islam falls into the category of philosophical disagreement but I do not see it in the same way I see Sunni Islam, Protestantism or Catholicism (i.e. fundamentally evil) as far as I am concerned, so I take back the criticism I made talking about Sunni Islam
just out of interest, why do you see those three as fundamentally evil? particularly protestantism- always considered it to be the more relaxed form of Christianity. and why don't you consider shia islam evil?
just out of interest, why do you see those three as fundamentally evil? particularly protestantism- always considered it to be the more relaxed form of Christianity. and why don't you consider shia islam evil?
I'll get into all that another night; its a long explanation. But Protestantism is seen as (and was) a version of Christianity sans the influence of the papacy (which can only be good). However here and in the US, as well as SA and other places, it has become linked in irreversibly with the establishment and the worst of conservatism and the monarchy.
Northern Irish Prods are proud to put two fingers up to the Pope and then go and lick the Queens arse