AtlasS33 Wrote:

Quote:I know it's controlled and probably fabricated by the CIA (just like in Afghanistan), but if Muslim sects didn't exist, ISIS wouldn't have existed. 

The Sunni fire that the Ummayads started, just turned around to bite us in sensitive areas.

You had me up to 'controlled and probably fabricated by the CIA'.

Rhythm Wrote:I know Atlas, I know..ISIS isn't islamic and it's all americas fault.  You're one bad case of indigestion away from screaming death to america...as far as I can tell....and you wonder why I have trouble understanding -why- you don't agree with ISIS?

You weren't kidding about not being able to tell Muslims apart, were you?

marssims Wrote:What confuses is not the definition of Islam. They'll always be people who follow it one way and those who follow it another. I'm confused how so many young people hold strong beliefs on it. Is it lack of education?

I always thought that every new generation would become more and more agnostic. But it seems it's going the other way round in the Muslim community.

What is it Islam has that other religions don't? In the UK, I think it would be a serious struggle to find more young Christians that agnostics in the street.

It may be that 4 million Muslims dead at the hands of the West since 1990 has a way of keeping religious grievances fresh.

Not to over-generalize from a small sample, just a tidbit: a journalist held captive for 10+ months by ISIS (Didier Francois) remarked that his captors seemed to be way more about politics than religion.

(January 19, 2016 at 1:34 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Not to over-generalize from a small sample, just a tidbit: a journalist held captive for 10+ months by ISIS (Didier Francois) remarked that his captors seemed to be way more about politics than religion.

I get what you're trying to say, and there have been other reports of ISIS members not knowing a lot about the koran or not reading it very much.  But so what?  Do you think the huge numbers of fundamentalist evangelicals in the US know a lot about the bible?  It's kind of their calling card that they don't know a lot about the bible and are way more focused on political ideas (see gay marriage, abortion, aid to israel, etc).  But I doubt you would say that they aren't christian. They would certainly call themselves christian (like ISIS calls itself islamic).

That they aren't biblical or koranic scholars doesn't really have anything to do with whether or not they're christian or islamic.

That's part of the issue though, isn't it? Whether they are 'nominally Muslims' or 'devout Muslims'. I've often noted that many Christianists are really just 'team Jesus'. They're not particularly devout or knowledgeable, they just know what tribe they identify with.

Again, who decides and why does it matter?

Marssims: The way I see it, there are four approaches to these "holy books":

1) Literal reading, assuming every word is supposed to mean exactly what it says
2) Non-literal interpretation, which can be anything you like, there are no rules except as set by individual sects
3) As a historical document, to try and examine which events might have really happened, which didn't, which were intended to be literal, and what we can learn about the cultures at the time
4) A fictional story loosely based around historical events

Sadly, options 3 and 4 are generally closed to everyone within the religion who worships the book. In this way they end up under-appreciating what their book really tells us.

If you're just assuming the stuff is somehow real (you're in the religion), I say there's still no correct choice between 1 and 2 because no one knows for sure exactly which parts are intended to be literal. So as far as I'm concerned, everyone who says they are a Muslim is a Muslim, and I don't rate any "interpretation" over any other, for truth value. I rate them all as zero, bar demonstrable historical events.

Of course, I would far prefer people interpreted the books so as to ignore the horrific parts. This has been the recent trend with Christianity, since the OT barbarity does not gel with civilized secular law. Islam seems to make concessions too, but fewer and more grudgingly. From my experience, your average "moderate" Muslim holds more extreme views than your average "moderate" Christian. I may be wrong of course, it's hard to get accurate data on these things.

(January 13, 2016 at 4:32 am)AtlasS33 Wrote: Give one thing ISIS does, that Mexican drug cartels don't do.
Be my guest & visit bestgore.com , and search for "los zetas". Then search for "ISIS". Then compare.  

If the voice is muted, you might get confused between the two.
In other words; the vibe ISIS shines is more of a "gangsta/cutthroat", it's not a unique thing. All gangs practice the same barbarity and brutality.

ISIS is full of fanatics that's for sure, but calling it Islamic is plainly wrong. Blame the gang that produced this version of Islam (Wahhabies), you can also blame the mother of all of that (the Sunni faith). But it's not Islam.

Through Islamic history, gangsters and cutthroats threw their share into the mix, and cooked one nasty meal, called " the sunni/shia sects".

That's a non-sequitor - it doesn't matter what ISIS does other than preach the Islamic faith and practice it according to the same holy text as yours, in accordance with how they view it, it is this alone which defines them as Muslim. This is an important counterpoint for those who believe their religion does anything to modify behavior, which I think is particularly what has the Muslim mainstream so upset and angry - it doesn't matter what you believe or how you practice your religious faith, it will never change anyone for the better - it can only serve to convince you the believer that your behavior, good or evil is justified. I see how this scares those who want to promote Islam as anything more than what it truly is, and it should. It won't get any better for you when you lie.

FatAndFaithless Wrote:Again, who decides and why does it matter?

Um, it's the topic of the thread.