13 doctrines of radical Islam and ISIS

[Mystic]

The Quran does not say Aisha was 6. It's hadiths that state that.

[Minimalist]

They are misinterpretations of those verses. From the first to the last.

You are right.


Yet the bombs keep going off.

[Mister Agenda]

The core of each religion is the imitation of their archetypal prophets. Actions speak louder than words, and it's the deeds of these prophets (and their early followers) that largely define each religion. And they are quite clearly not all the same.

Never heard of Moses, eh?

[The Valkyrie]

I think there's a possibility that radical Muslims are mentally ill

If they weren't mentally ill before joining Islamic State, they sure will be afterwards.

And for that particular mental illness, as a physician, I prescribe a high calibre lobotomy.

[Mister Agenda]

"Maturity Age" - Which for that paedo you call a prophet, was 6 years old.

So, you're a Sunni? If you were a Shi'a, you'd have her at least 17, maybe in her early twenties...definitely older than Mary when God is supposed to have knocked her up.

Now, as you have ably demonstrated, there isn't a single age defined....just loose fluffy bollocks that can be interpreted in pretty much any way the reader chooses.

Do you think it would be an improvement if it said 'six'? We WANT Muslims to interpret Qu'ran verses according to the standards of modernity, don't we?

Then we come onto the bit of Islam I particularly hate......Muhammed is the role model, the man all of you pathetic sheep aspire to. Anything he does is right and correct, isn't that so?

The Q'uran tells us Aisha was 6 when they married......6.

No, the Qu'ran does NOT tell us Aisha's age when they married.

Which means that the vast majority of Muslims believe it to be absolutely fine.

Because they're Sunnis, not because they're Muslims. The Sunnis had a political interest in making Aisha out to be young so it would seem more miraculous that the teachings of Islam were transmitted through her instead of the heir to Mohammed the Shi'a claim.

I know, as I work in East London, which has a massive muslim community.

And all Muslims everywhere believe the same things as the Muslims you know, eh?

I work in a team of 8, 3 are Muslim. I have asked about Aisha and whether Muhammed was wrong to each of them......an awkward silence is the best answer I've got, followed by a pretty rapid change of subject. These are good, decent people by the way.

How can they be good, decent people if they believe a 'pedophile prophet' (your words) was perfect and should be emulated? It's almost like their beliefs aren't so easily summarized, isn't it?

You're indoctrinated, so cannot see, but your religion, above all others, contains lessons that are now considered evil.

Have none of you people ever read the Old Testament?

As such, evil acts and occurrences are accepted as normal and common place by those who follow that putrid, disgusting religion.

Yes, the state of the Middle East and our troubles with it have nothing to do with the great Western Powers treating the region the way a honey badger treats a beehive. The state of affairs has nothing to do with our military support for the main purveyor of Wahabbism, toppling legitimate secular governments and replacing them with Western puppets, or dividing up the region as we saw fit in the first place. If only Islam hadn't been invented, they'd be Orthodox Christians and we'd all be friends and they would have been glad to let us run their countries in the way most convenient to our oil interests. History has nothing to do with it, it's all that execrable religion!

---

They are misinterpretations of those verses. From the first to the last.

You are right.


Yet the bombs keep going off.

Those bombs? They're mostly ours.

[Cato]

The Quran does not say Aisha was 6. It's hadiths that state that.

Really? I guess that makes it okay then particularly since we know that the hadiths don't inform Islam in the slightest and have absolutely no influence over the behavior of Muslims.

[mralstoner]

Never heard of Moses, eh?

Good point, but Christians don't follow Moses. They primarily follow Jesus and ignore the bad parts of the OT, generally speaking.

And likewise the Jews don't hold up Moses to be a role model for all to follow.

But in Islam, there are 90 verses which command Muslims to imitate Mohammed ("a beautiful pattern of conduct"). He is the perfect role model, for all Muslims, for all time.

[Minimalist]

Those bombs? They're mostly ours.

Yeah....it's that 'eye for an eye' shit.

[Mister Agenda]

The Quran does not say Aisha was 6. It's hadiths that state that.

Really? I guess that makes it okay then particularly since we know that the hadiths don't inform Islam in the slightest and have absolutely no influence over the behavior of Muslims.

They aren't given the same weight as the Qu'ran, and different Muslim sects accept or reject different ones. Qu'ranists throw them out entirely.

---

Never heard of Moses, eh?

Good point, but Christians don't follow Moses.

That's true. There is a religion that does though. It's on the tip of my tongue....

They primarily follow Jesus and ignore the bad parts of the OT, generally speaking.

Except for the bad parts a particular Christian sect likes. There are at least tens of thousands of Christians in the USA who would support stoning as a punishment for adultery.

And likewise the Jews don't hold up Moses to be a role model for all to follow.

That's the one! Judaism! Moses is honored in Jewish tradition as a person of unequaled spiritual character. On what do you base the notion that theistic Jews don't hold him up as a role model? Or think that he shouldn't have commanded the atrocities that he did? He was acting in the name of God, dude. God talked to him. Theistic Jews certainly believe that everyone should listen when God talks to them and do what God commands...although they're allowed to bargain with him.

But in Islam, there are 90 verses which command Muslims to imitate Mohammed ("a beautiful pattern of conduct"). He is the perfect role model, for all Muslims, for all time.

So, you're an Islamic fundamentalist? Because those are the people you're agreeing with. How the vast majority of Muslims can be peaceful instead of desert warlords like Mohammed with armies at their command and a dozen wives must be mystifying to you.

But it's a really good point, otherwise. Other religions are much better at following their exemplars. Look at how most Christians give up their worldly goods to the poor and devote their lives to serving God with no thought to the future or temporal matters, the way they're told so often to do in the NT. If most Muslims were as literal as most Christians, we'd really be in trouble,wouldn't we?

It wouldn't hurt to bear in mind that Muslims are humans like the rest of us. Fanatics aren't the norm. And treating Islam like it's monolithic and all you have to do to understand it is to look up some verses in the Qu'ran is not only the most superficial understanding you could strive for, it does a disservice to reform movments within Islam, and brave Muslims trying to change things. Over-generalizing is not a good companion to rationalism. It's not that hard to say 'Islamic extremists' instead of 'Islam'.

[Cato]

Really? I guess that makes it okay then particularly since we know that the hadiths don't inform Islam in the slightest and have absolutely no influence over the behavior of Muslims.

They aren't given the same weight as the Qu'ran, and different Muslim sects accept or reject different ones. Qu'ranists throw them out entirely.

I'm not sure where to begin with this reply. Perhaps addressing Qu'ranists first is easiest.

Qu'ranists are such a small minority within the religion that I found their inclusion in your reply to be a bit bizarre. To my knowledge, Qu'ranists have no significant influence when it comes to the current practice of Islam and how that might translate to effects on culture and Muslim state practices. Personally, I would like to see Qu'ranists gain more influence as I think it would be a step in the right direction if the goal is a more liberal version of Islam.

Despite the primacy of the Qu'ran in the religion, Qu'ranists are severely outnumbered by Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi Muslims; all of which consider hadiths central to the practice of Islam despite the Qu'ran's primacy. The hadiths being weighted less than the Qu'ran is a trivial distinction as practiced by a vast majority of the world's Muslims. Your distinction on the matter is immaterial.

Let's look at this from a practical standpoint and consider KSA's (Sunni) execution of women for sorcery and Iran's (Shia) execution of citizens for "sowing the corruption of earth" (insulting the prophet). Does the Qu'ran support this? If so, Islam is fucked up simply because of the Qu'ran. If these executions are not supported by the Qu'ran, then the differing hadiths are both fucked up and we can conclude that the primacy of the Qu'ran is meaningless in this regard.