I guess moderate Muslims say that ISIS and jihadists are reacting to U.S. foreign policy or British imperialism, but one wonders, what can this possibly have to do with enslaving underage Yazidi girls, killing Turkmen Shias, throwing gays off rooftops, or executing apostates? Perhaps religion is not the only factor driving these atrocities, but rather that of several factors involved, religion is one and a key driver.

And also the fact is that not always Muslims need provocations from Brits, Americans, Jews, violent video games or what ever excuse they use to "react" violently like Jihadi. Take this example from the words of Thomas Jefferson back in 1786 who had a meeting with Tripoli's envoy to London, Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja.

Quote:The Ambassador answered us that it was founded on the Laws of the Prophet; that it was written in their Koran; that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found; and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Mussulman [Muslim] who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/...09-02-0315

Obviously, this is before the Islamic State or Al Qaeda. It's before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict. It's before Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian revolution; before Saudi Arabia; before the Taliban; before drone strikes; before the Cold War or the World Wars; before Herzl founded the Zionist movement; before Americans knew what jihad or even Islam was; before the United States had ever engaged in any military operation overseas; and importantly well before the existence of any established U.S. foreign policy.
Yet these words about the laws of the Quran, taking slaves, waging holy war, and martyrdom read as if they could just as well have been plucked from any international newspaper in the last week.

Yes, it's just their violent religion and Koran. You can find endorsement for almost all of these actions that Saudis and ISIS do in the Quran. The beheading of disbelievers in verses 8:12–13; the amputation of hands for theft in verse 5:38; domestic violence in 4:34; the killing of polytheists in 9:5; and so on.

(September 18, 2018 at 9:42 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 18, 2018 at 9:30 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: I prefer the term "returned to its original shape"; which is following the Quran and treating the other books as they are: history books that weren't revealed by a God.

But yes; it will be a time capsule that would transfer Islam to the early days of the faith.

The original shape of islam was an aggressive military expansion under the guise of a holy crusade.  If you transported members of ISIS back to the 6th and 7th centuries, they'd be heroes.  To be blunt, those are the heroes you're still worshipping today.

I see you losing your shit, up above, on account of being incapable of accepting that reality.  Jihadists..ultimately, are just people who feel like you do, and decide to do something about it.

Provide evidence for the first section; please. Because the major opinion of scholars and historians defy your words:

https://classroom.synonym.com/how-muslim...87869.html

Quote:From Muhammad's founding of Islam and his unification of the Arab tribes in the seventh century, Muslims were instructed to practice respect towards other religions. This tolerance was essential to ensure peace and stability in Medina and throughout Asia Minor, as these lands were populated by Jews, Christians and other faiths. Most of the Islamic empires established in this region upheld the tradition of religious tolerance, although conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims was frequent.

The apologist strikes again! If you trace back her source, the information comes from The Muslim Times. An unbiased source if ever I heard one!

(September 19, 2018 at 5:57 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(September 18, 2018 at 9:42 pm)Khemikal Wrote: The original shape of islam was an aggressive military expansion under the guise of a holy crusade.  If you transported members of ISIS back to the 6th and 7th centuries, they'd be heroes.  To be blunt, those are the heroes you're still worshipping today.

I see you losing your shit, up above, on account of being incapable of accepting that reality.  Jihadists..ultimately, are just people who feel like you do, and decide to do something about it.

Provide evidence for the first section; please. Because the major opinion of scholars and historians defy your words:

https://classroom.synonym.com/how-muslim...87869.html

Quote:From Muhammad's founding of Islam and his unification of the Arab tribes in the seventh century, Muslims were instructed to practice respect towards other religions. This tolerance was essential to ensure peace and stability in Medina and throughout Asia Minor, as these lands were populated by Jews, Christians and other faiths. Most of the Islamic empires established in this region upheld the tradition of religious tolerance, although conflict between Sunni and Shiite Muslims was frequent.

How do you think the islamic empire was created, Atlass, lol?  Bunch of peaceful muslim clerics strolled into town and said "hey yall, wanna be a part of our empire and follow our laws and pay our tax?".....?

Quote:The rapidity of the early conquests has received various explanations.[89] Contemporary Christian writers conceived them as God's punishment visited on their fellow Christians for their sins.[90] Early Muslim historians viewed them as a reflection of religious zeal of the conquerors and evidence of divine favor.[91]

Try pulling your head out of magic book. You might learn something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

One should never pay any attention to what any phenomenon so vile, so unscrupulous, so deceitful, and so opportunistic  as to actually attain the status of a religion could have to say.

But if one falls into the cesspit of believing what any religion has to say, one might do worse than believing what each religion has to say about the others, but one could hardly do any worse than to believe what a religion has to say about itself.

(September 19, 2018 at 6:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

The apologist strikes again!  If you trace back her source, the information comes from The Muslim Times.  An unbiased source if ever I heard one!

Is the Guardian good enough for you, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...-terrorism

Quote:What about its wars of conquest? Well they definitely happened, but not in a way that marks Islam out from other cultures. The subsequent wave of imperial expansionism came via the sky-worshipping Mongols, before they settled down to become Muslims. Not only that, the dominant (often genocidal) military powers since the 17th century have been Christian – and they frequently regarded themselves as having a religious mission.

"Hurr durr, other people do it too!"  Yeah...no shit.  

The difference being that none of us have to bullshit ourselves and others about some revisionist "original shape", lol. The original shape of your favorite toy was very much like the shape of is ISIS today. That fact of the matter is independent of your beliefs both about the events of history and what it would mean to be a good muslim.

If you wanted to remain consistent with your modern re-interpretation of magic book, it's religion, and it's founders - it would be far easier and far less infantile to simply contend that early muslims just weren't very good at musliming...even though they were skilled warlords, liars, and slavers.

(September 19, 2018 at 8:47 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(September 19, 2018 at 5:57 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote: Provide evidence for the first section; please. Because the major opinion of scholars and historians defy your words:

https://classroom.synonym.com/how-muslim...87869.html

How do you think the islamic empire was created, Atlass, lol?  Bunch of peaceful muslim clerics strolled into town and said "hey yall, wanna be a part of our empire and follow our laws and pay our tax?".....?

Quote:The rapidity of the early conquests has received various explanations.[89] Contemporary Christian writers conceived them as God's punishment visited on their fellow Christians for their sins.[90] Early Muslim historians viewed them as a reflection of religious zeal of the conquerors and evidence of divine favor.[91]

Try pulling your head out of magic book.  You might learn something.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Muslim_conquests

Don't put words into my mouth; I never said Muslims didn't fight, please bring an evidence to support this statement. Actually they fought and kicked ass, bringing rome and persia to their end, and saving the world from the Mongols and Vlad the Impaler. Yes we fought, but Muslims never butchered a whole continent like the white man did, neither did Muslims hack prisoners of war in front of their families like the crusaders did.

Actually; it's quite hilarious and sad at the same time that you consider the Islamic expansions "brutal". Talk about the mongols for a change, or about the atomic disaster non-Muslims caused.

Tragic, sad.

Still losing your shit.  

If the extent of the islamic empire is close to the estimates we have..they did indeed butcher an entire continent to get it...they just spread it out over three continents, is all.  Likewise, muslims have committed atrocities with as much zeal and enthusiasm as anyone else in their various engagements.  You need to disabuse yourself of the fantasy that the white man has some sort of patent on brutality, and that muslims would just never do such and such.

OFC they would, and have, and will again. The ummah was unremarkable for it's time in what brutality it extended, and it was an impressive military campaign carried out by zealots. That, Atlass, is the original shape of islam, and ISIS.

(September 19, 2018 at 10:22 pm)AtlasS33 Wrote:

(September 19, 2018 at 6:06 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

The apologist strikes again!  If you trace back her source, the information comes from The Muslim Times.  An unbiased source if ever I heard one!

Is the Guardian good enough for you, then?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre...-terrorism

Quote:What about its wars of conquest? Well they definitely happened, but not in a way that marks Islam out from other cultures. The subsequent wave of imperial expansionism came via the sky-worshipping Mongols, before they settled down to become Muslims. Not only that, the dominant (often genocidal) military powers since the 17th century have been Christian – and they frequently regarded themselves as having a religious mission.

An op ed that doesn't even support your point? Go join Drich on the bench for perpetually clueless and deluded idiots.