"ISIS is not Islamic

[downbeatplumb]

I tend to the idea that there is no such thing as a true Muslim or a true Christian as the basis for their beliefs is fiction.
In my mind anyone who identifies as christian or muslim is just that and no one can say otherwise.

[marssims]

Hi,

Sorry to interrupt your discussion, but there's one thing I wanted to say 

"This is exactly what is happening with Islam now. Somebody would re-arrange stuff to produce violence, using the faith as blanked for their own corrupted acts."

I've heard this before, ISIS is just using the faith as a blanket for their crimes. However I find it very, very hard to believe suicide bombers would be killing themselves if they didn't think they'd be rewarded in an afterlife.

[robvalue]

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.

As far I can tell, the thing Islam "has" is the property of being more inflexible. It's been mentioned that the Quran does not have as many peaceful passages which directly contradict the violent ones, as the bible has. So Christians can just take the peaceful part, make excuses for the violent part, and go with that. It's much harder while trying to say the Quran is the word of God while just flat out ignoring parts which have no balancing verses to cling to.

As a rough estimate, I'd say Christianity is generally going the route of co-opting science and bending to fit in with a secular culture, whereas Islam is generally resisting a lot more.

And I agree. Someone who blows themselves up is someone who believes in what they are doing, or else someone who is under extreme coercion. Making excuses as to how ISIS is not Islamic is a major barrier to progress.

Atlas: I can't even take what you're saying seriously. If you're trying to tell me the Quran is not open to interpretation, you're living in a fantasy world. The fact that you consider yourself an authority on what is and isn't a correct interpretation is quite amazing. It's no good trying to convince me, when not even two Muslims can agree on it all.

You're actually saying that the Quran is not allowed to be interpreted any way other than how you read it, to go so far as to exclude people from holding a religious view.

[ReptilianPeon]

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.

The (definition of) word '"Islam" does confuse me though; which is why I prefer to use the word "Muhammadan". There could be an entire thread on the etymology. But, basically, it comes down to the common understanding of the word 'Islam'.

"Islam" means "submission to god" in Arabic. Christians, and indeed all religious people, submit to a god(s) so why isn't their religion referred to as "Islam"? Many Arab speaking Christians even use the word "Allah". A "Muslim" is one who submits but, perhaps oddly, nobody called modern Christians "Muslims". So I use the term Muhammadan to differentiate the people of the Ummah from other those of other religions.

[marssims]

Thanks for the explanation guys. Interesting stuff. I'm not as well educated as you guys on the teachings of religious, but I think I'm gonna learn a lot form this site!

Would it be a fair assumption to say that the first testament preaches a lot of hate, then Jesus' second testament is a lot more hippy, forgiving and loving, then the next part, Muhammad's, it get's a bit more harsh again? Sorry for the horrendous lack of knowledge and terminology, I'm just taking a leap from the little I know, would love to be informed otherwise.

[robvalue]

You're right yes, the Old Testament is horrific. It's the most appalling collection of atrocities I've ever seen. So much so that Christian apologists (those that argue in its defense) spend a lot of time making excuses for why it doesn't really mean what it appears to mean, or why it doesn't apply anymore.

The New Testament is a lot better in some ways, it is generally more peaceful, although not as much as people generally seem to think. However, Jesus brought with him the idea of Hell to Christianity, the most evil thing I could imagine. So that makes Jesus actually worse than Yahweh (Old Testament God) in my opinion. At least Yahweh generally just killed people for petty reasons, he didn't set up a system where they were tortured indefinitely after death.

The Quran and the Hadiths (the Islamic texts) are really nasty too. I don't know as much about them, but I know they tell stories about a guy who is supposed to be the hero but is actually a delusional barbarian, responsible for thousands of deaths. The books spend a lot of time making it clear that anyone outside the religion is so bad as to deserve to be sent to a "Fiery Doom" (generally considered to be Islamic Hell). The texts also provide inspiration for Jihad.

Going back to interpretations, I would be very happy if atlas said, "I consider ISIS to be very bad representatives of Islam and horrible people. They don't stand for what I think Islam should be about." That would be awesome and I'd fully support it. But instead just saying they are not Muslims is to bury your head in the sand. People kill each other over interpretations of this book. And guess what? Allah just talked to me and said the Quran is all wrong and not his word. I'm the only true Muslim now. Are you calling Allah a liar?

There is no entrance requirement for being in a religion, nor is there anyone who can kick you out of it. If you say you're in that religion, you're in it. To say otherwise is literally religious oppression.

Here's another interpretation of the Quran: it's fictional nonsense, vaguely based around some historic events. Now my interpretation stands up a lot better to scrutiny than "it all happened as it is written". So clearly, no one gets to say what the "true interpretation" is, because there isn't one. It's just a book.

[downbeatplumb]

That's similar to my take Rob. There is no "true" Islam so to deny that a person who self identifies as Islamic is Islamic is puzzling. At least in my view.

[robvalue]

I think it is a feeble attempt to cover the embarrassment that murderous people are drawing their inspiration from the same texts that a nice Muslim does, and they spread exactly the same oral myth that these books are somehow magically "the word of God". If you subscribe to such nonsense in the first place, you have to be prepared for other people to make up slightly different nonsense and put it in the same category. Religion is about fantasy not reality, so none of it is "true" anything. You can't have correct and incorrect fantasy.

In the interests of personal freedom, a secular society lets you state your religious views, however ludicrous, and lets you practice whatever bizarre rituals you want as long as you're not hurting anyone or forcing it on others. People who go around killing using their religion as their explanation are breaking secular law, but they don't stop being part of their religion. Just like if I'm a member of a golf club and I break all the "rules", I'm still a member of the golf club, until such time as I'm kicked out. However, no one can be kicked out of a religion. That is what the protection of religious freedom is all about. Nonsense in, nonsense out.

[marssims]

You're right yes, the Old Testament is horrific. It's the most appalling collection of atrocities I've ever seen. So much so that Christian apologists (those that argue in its defense) spend a lot of time making excuses for why it doesn't really mean what it appears to mean, or why it doesn't apply anymore.

The New Testament is a lot better in some ways, it is generally more peaceful, although not as much as people generally seem to think. However, Jesus brought with him the idea of Hell to Christianity, the most evil thing I could imagine. So that makes Jesus actually worse than Yahweh (Old Testament God) in my opinion. At least Yahweh generally just killed people for petty reasons, he didn't set up a system where they were tortured indefinitely after death.

The Quran and the Hadiths (the Islamic texts) are really nasty too. I don't know as much about them, but I know they tell stories about a guy who is supposed to be the hero but is actually a delusional barbarian, responsible for thousands of deaths. The books spend a lot of time making it clear that anyone outside the religion is so bad as to deserve to be sent to a "Fiery Doom" (generally considered to be Islamic Hell). The texts also provide inspiration for Jihad.

Of course, I never thought about Jesus bringing hell to the table of tales. I forgot, because Jews don't believe in hell. Purgatory for un-christened babies is the worse thing I've ever heard. But that wasn't even Jesus, that was the Catholic church continuing to make up stories years after. 
When we talk about fundamentalism, aren't we just talking about taking things literally? It seems the most logical way to interpret these book. Sure, it helps our moral to say "what it means is..", but isn't this just a sort of denial. Sure there isn't a definite right or wrong way, and no-one has the power to decide. But taking things literally, seems like the best understanding of these old, unscientific books.

[Mister Agenda]

They are a monster the United States and al-Saud created after they had sex because they want to control Syria.

I'm tired of hearing this tripe. Please tell me what the U.S. has to do with an ideology consummated decades before its founding in the marriage of al-Wahhab and al-Saud? ISIS is only its current untethered manifestation.

For starters, the USA indirectly (through petroleum purchases) funded the Saudi export of Wahhabism throughout the Middle East and North Africa. Despite their lavish funding of this pernicious form of theo-fascism, the US continues to support the House of Saud both militarily and financially. Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant form of funding for Sunni terrorist groups. Though the Saudis are anti-ISIS, ISIS is the product of Saudi financing of terrorism and of Saudi religious ideals. And the US as a matter of policy supported Wahhabism in Afghanistan in the eighties as part of our opposition to the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. The US was sending Wahhabism-oriented children's textbooks to Afghanistan into the nineties...and those textbooks proved popular in Pakistan as well.