Bitcoin Forum

Some questions that have been on my mind, due to the discussions taking place on this board and the happenings in the Middle East:

1.  Is the rise of ISIS proof that Islam's "official" message of peace has failed?
1.A.  Is a message of "peace" consistent with any religious group that claims a monopoly on the path to salvation, or is any violence in the name of a religion justifiable within the context of that religion's value system?

2.  If "official" Islam preaches peace, why is a rogue sect of Islam with a violent ideology proving so successful in spreading such a blatantly anti-Islamic message to people who self-identify as Muslim?

3.  Who is ultimately responsible for self-identified Muslims who propagate violence in the name of Islam?
3.A.  In the marketplace of competing ideas, if the violent rogue ideology is more popular than the "official" peaceful ideology among people who call themselves Muslims in a given geographic area, does that suggest a failure of the peaceful ideology or the leaders of the peaceful ideology to engage these self-proclaimed Muslims and win their hearts and minds?

4.  If we call ISIS' form of Islam false, what does it matter if they receive popular support from self-identified Muslims? (i.e. does subscribing to a violent version of Islam make them non-Muslims?)
4.A.  How can a group self-identify as Muslim or Islamic and hold values that differ so greatly from what other Muslims consider to be legitimate to the religion?

Thoughts/answers to the above?

No, the last several thousand years have proven that islam fails at peace.  As a matter of fact, World history has shown that just about every religion fails at peace.   Religion creates an "us vs them" mentality which is usually problematic for the whole peace thing.

So do you think the root cause of violence is "us vs. them" (i.e. tribalism, which isn't unique to religion) or something inherent to religion specifically?

Excellent questions. I look forward for the answers...

Would argue the them vs. us predates religion and is a natural state for mankind. We have always found ways to divide ourselves into groups. There are good people in all camps and we need to look outside ourselves to find those branches that connect us all together or we could keep rolling with the monkey brain.

Yes, tribalism is the root of religion.  It's made far worse when the religion's tenets tie it to a certain geographical area - eg "The Holy Lands," Mecca, whatever.  Then you've got brainwashed idiots drooling over a piece of fucking dirt.  Then you've got problems.  Leaving that aside, Islam has for 50 years exported terror.  It's not new, it's just that the public has a short memory and really only looks at the last 2 years at any moment in time.

Islamic terror seems to have started with Sayyid Qutb, who did diverge from mainstream Sunni with his thirty some pamplets preaching violent Jihad.  One example would be the killing of the Jewish athletes at the (IIRC) 1982 Olympics.   And a long series of bombings and hijacking of aircraft back them.  As just one example, the 1985 movie Back to the Future has a subplot with Arab terrorists who are virtually the same as their stereotype today - indicating this profile predates 1985, of course.

Don't believe the propagandists posting here about peace and love, that's just paid shills - possibly with sincere, honest intentions.  But you see, the nature of propaganda is "to propagate," which means it is belief systems propagated by naive and gullible believers.  They don't really understand what they are doing.

1. You have to understand that literacy rates are low in some places in the middle east,combined with the fact that we have given a lot of these people a reason to fight.
Isis will continue to eat its own until a better option at life shows up. A bastardized version of Islam is what we are dealing with here anyways,so the question is a little off.

2. Isis could be gaining ground for many reasons. You could say that every drone attack or misfired missle creates tomorrows Isis warriors. Could be religious sects flying under Isis for their own personal gains. Also could be disruption from other Countries like Saudi Arabia,Iran or even Israel. Again it also could be that times are hard and people are given a new voice to rally behind. Change comes and it is not always what the people wanted for the sake of change.

3. You could change Muslim to any other religion and most people would dismiss it but the fact Muslims are the hot topic people will eat it up.

4. Any faction that is seeking power will take all advantages they can get. If you take away these labels we kill a good chunk of the problem. Instead of lone wolf Isis attacks in Europe or America we would have mass killings by unhealthy people. Its like we have given these people a flag to fly under and it provides them with a validation to proceed.

4a. Easy. Look at how many off shoots of Christianity there are today!

End of the day we have to stop lumping groups and thinking they are running on the same thinking. Its nice for debate but it damages more than it heals.

Well, for number 2, how do drone attacks affect ISIS warring against other Muslims? While drone attacks may give them reason to hate America, I don't see how that translates into butchering, raping, enslaving other Muslims, which constitutes a lot of their crimes currently.

Your notion on point 4 is interesting to me, that we are providing a flag for them to fly under by identifying them as a group. However, I would counter that we identify them as a group because they identify themselves as a group. I think absent our characterization of them, they would still be out there acting exactly as they currently are.

In regards to 4A, there are very many offshoots of Christianity, but so far as I know, none of them are preaching death to nonbelievers or currently murdering Christians of a sect they consider to be heretical. While that may be a part of their history, is ISIS then just several hundred years behind in their evolution as a society, or is a unique instance unrelated to how Christian sects warred against nonbelievers previously?

Like the girl wearing a mini skirt being responsible for the rape that she gets?

2. To be honest I reread the original question for 2 and misread it. So the drone attacks answer does not make any sense,my bad.

4. Mass killers tend to want the attention,the media always wracks up a total to compare other shootings against like its a challenge. You get into most of these sickos heads they are looking to out do the last guy. Suddenly a disturbed teen can be coaxed online into joining a cause and lashing out with a purpose,instead of not getting the keys to the car on Friday type killing spree. The draw is one of the most interesting dynamics to me and what makes these people go over that have no connection to the Muslim faith.
Really blame the media for sending up a beacon for these people to unite under.

4a. Well we could go back a couple hundred years to find that but we are talking about a newer religion than Christianity so the bloodletting is still new. Christians just went about business in a different way. I could stretch and say Ireland(Catholics vs. Protestants) but I think thats a stretch to make a point.

Think you are misunderstanding something I wrote as I do not follow the point of your question. If you explain,I will answer.

The purpose of the mini skirt is for a woman to attract attention.

Mass media focuses on the most dramatic, violent of current events to attract attention.

Thus (according to you) it is the "fault" of "us" because "our media gives attention to the killers" that they do it.

Similarly, it is the fault of the woman with a miniskirt that she gets raped.

Both are the same logical fallacy and mistake cause and effect.

Both incorrectly reverse victim and criminal.

I think you are jumping a little off the map with this one. You did not quote anything about media and you are comparing my post to being sympathetic to rapists.
Not sure how to take that. ;D

Will write a response in the morning as I have been up for 19 hours and need to sleep. Promise to respond.

Both Islam and Christianity has brought only misery and war to this world. Islam has always used genocide and warfare to gain new followers (especially in South Asia, Middle-East, Balkans and North Africa). Similarly, Christianity has also used genocide (Australia, Americas, South-east Asia.etc), ethnicide and warfare to increase its number of adherents.

That's a totally ridiculous statement.

Something like "one unfortunate side effect..." qualified by "may have increased" ...

but you didn't do that.

"always used genocide..."

What a crock of shit.

@Spendulus 

Below is my response,this really is to help me remember what I wrote as I respond. ;D



4. Mass killers tend to want the attention,the media always wracks up a total to compare other shootings against like its a challenge. You get into most of these sickos heads they are looking to out do the last guy. Suddenly a disturbed teen can be coaxed online into joining a cause and lashing out with a purpose,instead of not getting the keys to the car on Friday type killing spree. The draw is one of the most interesting dynamics to me and what makes these people go over that have no connection to the Muslim faith.
Really blame the media for sending up a beacon for these people to unite under.


To be honest I am still having a hard time connecting what I said to how you responded with,but that could be just a bias at play on my part.
You seem to take issue with the part I underlined,so I will focus on that.

Without the media how would so many people know about Isis to begin with? Media is controlled by a very small and elite group of individuals that are swayed by the government when needed. Its like they are allowed to push agendas on the public as long as they buy into the government machine when needed. Do not see how media can not be blamed. The problem is human beings tend to be moved in flocks and its old programming that is manipulated against us. How often do we have a craving for something and no idea why or how it got in our heads! Can go through history and see how the message is controlled or abused to get us on side.
The rape analogy is different because there is not a direct connection from miniskirt to rape. Isis has a direct connection to killing.

Hey I could be wrong and appreciate you making me think about my view.

Feature / aspect of reality  AS RELATES TO criminal action

Miniskirt  /  Girl      Rape

Media Exposure  /  Innocent victims         ISIS terror actions

Because there actually have been trials in which the lewd provocative appearance of women was claimed to be responsible for their being attacked and raped (this still occurs in backwards Middle Eastern countries).

Logical fallacy - "Blame the girl"  /  "Blame the media"

Excuse "rape" / "terror"

There haven't been any input by the Islam defenders of the other threads here, which is disappointing. The question I find most interesting is: from their perspective, why do so many people who self-identify as Muslim find the violent message of ISIS so appealing, when those teaching are so obviously not Islamic? Do subscribing to those beliefs make them non-Muslim?

isis is proof that moderate muslim countries fail at defending themselves from jewmerican backed jihadis with a limitless supply of weapons and money from billionaire puppet arab monarchies

socialist afghanistan overthrown by cia controlled mujahideen terrorists
arab nationalist iraq overthrown by jewmerican armies
african nationalist libya overthrown by jewmerican bombs and isis benghazi allies
syria, the best place in middle east for christians to live and the last arab country to not surrender to israel, currently in the process of being overthrown by the same dark forces

you bastards turned these secular peaceful countries into mad max world and now scratching your empty goyim heads wondering why a group of thugs you gave weapons and money to has taken control

Yes. And the westboro church is absolute, unequivocal and undeniable proof that Christianity is a violent, bigoted cult and nothing more. Good point OP!

Parsing this, I assume you took the OP, noticed it contained a logical error, "the exception proves the rule",

applied the identical rule to Christianity...

 ;) I would guess that the guys in the Westboro church claim to be the only people who really represent Christianity, just like DAESH claims to be the only true representatives of Allah. In reality they are both fringe element groups that embarrass the majority of good people who just want to pray in peace and raise their children. 

I rather like the analogy, but still suggest you use the commonly used term "ISIS."

And if the "worst" of the two religions is respectively Westboro and ISIS, I know which this here atheist likes better.

Are you being facetious or serious? I can't tell if your tone is sarcastic or not.

Yeah, I would rank ISIS a million times worse. As uncouth as they are, the W.B.C. congregation is just expressing an opinion peacefully. 
I use DAESH for a few reasons. Most of my experience with them has been in the middle east and they are always called DEASH there. But the main reason is that calling them ISIS is showing support for them. In the Islamic state it is forbidden to refer to them as DAESH. The punishment for this is that "your tongue will be cut from your mouth." They hate being called DAESH because it is a play on words in Arabic. It is the acronym for ISIS, but also sound like you are saying the word meaning to trample or crush under foot. Arab culture is weird about feet and this term is considered very disrespectful. As this war plays out over the next 10-20 years I think you will see this term replacing ISIS or IS or ISIL. All of which acknowledge the existence of the Caliphate.  For me they are not a caliphate and are better described as the ones who trample everything.

I was being sarcastic. As pointed out above, I was referencing the logical fallacy of making a rule from one example.

Seems most muslims don't admit ISIS is Islam, then I think there is no relationship with ISIS is Islam. Its same situation with native American slaughtering by European in 17th century imo.

RE the DAESH explanation, quite interesting.  I refer though to the fact that literally, you refer to DAESH and likely most readers are simply clueless as to what you refer to.  Maybe something like DAESH(aka ISIS) is called for, lol....

I should start doing that. I'm sure your right about the confusion. Another note about the term daesh (isis) is that when you search for news from the region you get much better results than with isis. I find many more interesting first hand accounts from English language Arab news sources.

Yours is a fair point, I'm actually inclined to believe in it. That is to say, I do believe that people who operate under a particular label don't speak for other groups that are not affiliated with them. It is striking though that we continue to have people this day and age that are savagely murdering in the name of religion. I suppose being from the West, where we have seemingly having advanced beyond the period of holy wars, the Middle East seems particularly anachronistic. I do wonder though how violence and religion continues to mesh. Is it violent people who seek out a religion to justify their violence, or a violent religion that seeks out violent individuals to advance its political agenda?

Interesting explanation on Daesh. I knew that they hated to be referred as it, but didn't know why.

A fundamental characteristic of many religions is "to spread outwards,to grow."  Thus in ancient times they existed in a sort of zero sum game of who gets the most land and how.  There is no way to ignore the fact that Muslim sects have and are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior overall.

Remember that even in wartime Germany WWII, ten percent of the population may have been in the armed forces.  Of those, no more than ten percent was on the front lines actually fighting.  So one percent of the population - a tiny percentage - was "violent."  ???  See the logical errors?  Relate this to your own arguments.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

Yes, Muslim sects are generating the most warlike and barbaric behavior now of any religious group (that I am currently aware of). I agree with that. The difference for me is I don't associate the crimes of the violent sects as being crimes of the non-violent ones. Re Germany, I also don't hold civilian Germans as being "violent" during WWII because they were born in Germany. I differentiate inside of a group between those who commit and condone violent actions, and those who don't. If all Germans were guilty of violence by association of the outwardly-defined group, they bombing of civilian centers by the Allies would have been justifiable. I don't consider them to be. The violent Germans were the violent ones, just like the My Lai massacre is attributable to those who committed the atrocity, and not all American soldiers who served in Vietnam. See the association error? Relate it to your own arguments.

So the German factory employing housewives to make artillery shells is not a valid target?

Or the Muslim community center with kindegardens and 1000 rockets in the basement?

Both might be, that's debatable. But that's also not the issue. This issue is the inappropriateness of carpet bombing heavily residential areas and other areas of little military or industrial significance, or the fire bombing Dresden at the end of the war which was so reviled by the Allied public that it caused senior British military commanders to write:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy. The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive.

Especially because of the "wanton destruction" the Allies inflicted in WWII during their campaign of total war, we no longer believe in the concept because we recognize that the actions of the guilty do not condemn the innocent merely by group association, an underpinning of today's civilized society which you're apparently loathe to accept. Your selective employment of the concept of group guilt is evidence of your true motivation.

Oh, I'm not so sure.  You're pretty darn selective.  I notice you have not mentioned the Rape of Nanking, the slaughter by the Russians as they marched West in the last year of WWII, or the massacres by the Germans.

Also, you miss the point of your own quote on carpet bombing.  See my bolded section.  It does not condemn indiscriminate bombing of the enemy cities, but is a statement of preferred military objectives.

Don't look at history through warm friendly fuzzy peacenik glasses of today.

Islam has not failed at peace... not yet, anyway.

Peace in Islam means that True Islam rules the world. Then there will be no reason for war or fighting, because all peoples, as Islamites, will be in agreement. Why? Because Islam itself doesn't fight anything that is True Islam.

The so-called nations and religions that call themselves Islamic, and yet attempt to hold out peace to other nations and religions, are not True Islam.

Perhaps ISIS is not true Islam, either. But it is far closer than its supposedly peaceful, moronic counterparts. At least ISIS practices the Islamic religion.

If the world were completely Islamic in all parts would there be peace? That's hard to tell, because it hasn't happened yet, and probably will never happened. Thus, we will probably never know if Islam has failed at peace. Maybe they will have simply failed at conquering the world.

:)

I just want to know people who are answering on this thread , how do they decide if Islam is religion of peace or not exactly ? you most likely never read the Quran (real arabic version) and don't know a shit about it and you come here blaming islam .
Those extremists groups are made and funded by intelligence agencies and this is a known fact , think logically won't you be dead if 1 billion or more muslims were not peaceful ?

... Except for one thing. No matter how you translate the Quran and Hadiths, whatever the excuses might be, there are sections that are violent. And if you want to be faithful to them, you need to be violent at times as well as peaceful at other times. There aren't any two ways about it, no matter how hard you want to twist the meanings of the words.

The result is that True Peace will only abound once Islam takes over the whole world, both as religion and as government. Up until that time, there will only be war to get to that time.

:)

I am amused of numbers of muslim people in this 'rogue sect' you mentioned this is not sect anymore it is nation. It seems that for me that muslims are either part of this or are silently supporting ISIS.
There is no way that terrorist organisation of this caliber without help from people would be that huge and dangerous. Muslims want ISIS to success and then it will be one sharia law for everyone.

If muslims, some fair part of them, support the evil which is known as ISIS, they share totally in it's evil.

If Muslims DON'T support some fair part of ISIS, they ain't really Muslim.

:)

Very interesting questions.
I will try to answer.
1. In my opinion, ISIS don't represent Islam in any way. They are just using their name for their own, selfish purpose.
2. Every religion talks about peace but the ultimate responsibility for peace depends on the rulers, and each person individually
3. Yes, you are right, but here we can also see the failure of Western countries and the idea of multiculturalism in general.
4. No
4 A Hatred and bitterness can do much to change people's consciousness and turn them to violence as a solution to all problems.

I don't think that ISIS represents the entirety of Muslims. If anything it serves as proof that there can be extremists in any religions. Now, to what extent they can justify their actions based on holy scriptures may vary from religion to religion.

Islam was never a very peaceful religion but that´s an exageration to identify all the muslims with ISIS. And we can link the brutality of modern muslim terrorists with poverty of the regions the live in.

That may be reversing cause and effect:  Not that the poverty propagates the brutality, but that the Islamic beliefs create the poverty, and then in some areas, the brutality.

No, it's the other way around.

Not all Muslims represent Islam, even though they say they do. To represent a religion, you have to do what that religion says. ISIS is doing a better job of it that most other Muslims do.

The problem is that most people don't really know what Islam is. Even most Muslims try to whitewash Islam because they are shocked at the violent side.

Either be the religion, or admit that you are weak. But don't try to make it into something that it is not - Islam = peace... NOT.

:)

good question. i like it.
so, what else with Islam????


many people dont understand the order by my GOD by my Prophet also.
Islam not to teach about the disturbance, make destroyed in everywhere, that is people who not understand what is the point be countained on my religion.
we should to know, every religion is good, nothing religion teach to broke each other right? every religion is teach about peace..
in Al-Qur'an was say by Allah if " there are non Moeslim is not make destroyed or interfere with Islam, we cannot and even ruling illegitimate to interfere they"...
Islam is very beautifull if they understand about this! why?? there are like ISIS or like a same, make some disturbance and Islam partake with this situation??? we Moeslim cry about this, we also cry when they make disturbance, destroyed, kill anywhere....

try to understand, everyone want to have peace life, not havent pleasant life.

Try to understand, most people want to have peace.

True written Islam teaches peace. But the only way it teaches REAL peace is when everyone becomes Muslim.

True Islam may teach temporary peace to non-Muslims, but it also teaches violence to non-Muslims.

If you want to be a true Muslim, if you want to truly be a follower of Islam, you need to be ready to do violence against every person who is not a Muslim. If you are not ready to do this, then you are a weak Muslim.

Is it good to be a weak Muslim? Yes! In fact, be a good person and get rid of Islam altogether. Many other religions teach peace without any of the violence that Islam teaches.

:)

Cut the crap if you don 't know anything about Islam dude .
our Prophet spoke about "Khawaraj" and gave decription about them and that they will come and they should be killed . and those descriptions matchs ISIS so ISIS have nothing to do with Islam even if they think they do .

http://britishmuslimsoldier.blogspot.co.uk/

There you go again, trying to call true Islamites the bad guys.

The Prophet was talking about people of other religions who would fight Islam. And he was talking about Islamites who would break the faith in groups.

ISIS isn't breaking the faith. ISIS is upholding the faith in every way.

If you want to be peaceful in Islam, are you supposed to fight Islamites who are upholding the faith? No! If you do that, you are becoming violent, the exact thing you are talking against doing. Yet, as you admitted, "they will come and they should be killed." So you, yourself, are talking about doing the violence you are condemning ISIS of doing.

Wake up and see that Islam is a religion of violence, and even you are caught up in its stupidity.

===============

Everyone who wants to live for any length of time needs to be peaceful at times, and with their own people. Constant violence doesn't work for anybody, individual or group. This means that violent people have to be peaceful at times simply to live.

However, if there is peace, it can work without violence at all... if the people will simply be peaceful.

Islam has both, peace and violence. It can work only if it has peace at some time. But because it has violence, it is a religion and government of violence. Wake up.

:)

Islam never been and never will be a peaceful religion. It was optimized for conquering and spreading by the sword since its birth. The only peaceful muslims are the muslims in minority, when they do not have the power to force their religion and customs on others. As soon as they became to the majority or a sufficiently big, coherent group in an atomized and weakened community (like most European nations today) they are going to show their real intentions.

Since the Peaceful Muslims don't point guns and force correct behavior at the Violent Muslims, Peaceful Muslims are totally, ridiculously irrelevant.

Religion is not peaceful. Religion says that we are divided and that, because God is a super being, you are absolutely wrong to believe otherwise. It does not matter what God your talking about.

I don't agree with your religion of the things you are saying here. Therefore you are correct. Religion causes division, and I just proved it by, in MY religion and religiousness, not agreeing with what you said.

The point is, what is the truth? We know by science and nature that God exists. So, God is not religion. Religion is the things that we understand about God and the universe, things that are difficult if not impossible to prove, and maybe to even find evidence for.

However, like it or not, the evidence of the various religions, when delved into deeply, show that the Judeo-Christian religion is far and away the most logical choice because of what it is in its entirety.

:)

I think its not really easy to relate peace to a religion. All of them had kinda religious wars etc. and ISIS cannot be related to Islam, because they are just a terrorist group which is against repetition of Islam.

Again, religious wars are done by people. People often say that they belong to a certain religion without understanding what that religion says or expects them to do. Christian religious wars were not done according to Christianity. There is no directive in the New Testament from whence Christianity flows, to make religious war. The closest thing that there might be is to love family and friends. And one might do this by forcefully fighting off attackers at times. But the directive to do this does not exist.

Islam has directives to do it (fight). ISIS members continually repeat the words of Islam that express such. From http://bigthink.com/praxis/how-islamic-is-isis:
ISIS has just as much right to interpret the Islamic texts according to what those texts say, as anyone else.

In the same website, Obama is quoted as saying that ISIS is not Islamic. Obama wants to get America to accept Islam with open arms, even though Islam has a fundamental "streak" of solid violence against all who oppose Islam. This includes Christianity and the American government.

Why would Obama want to oppose the American government? Because it is the form of that government that is keeping him or any other president from becoming and being dictator.

In America, every individual adult person is a king, by basic Constitutional law and mandate, based on common law of the people. It is evident from the Bill of Rights articles listed as the 6th, 7th, and 9th Amendments. These are the things that destroy governmental dictatorship in America.

Although government looks like it has made great inroads into taking away sovereignty from Americans, it is only by the ignorance about their government foisted on the people by the public schools that gives the American government the limited power that they have. If the people woke up, the government would have little power over them. But the people need to wake up and stand as real men and women to be in that kind of strength.

:)

Islam means the religion of peace. A person following Islam will find that he or she is surrounded by noble teachings, the aim of which is to establish peace between man and Allah, the Creator of all; between man and man; and between man and the rest of Allah’s creation.

How does such a religion deal with the issue of terrorism? And what does the word terrorist mean? Dictionaries will define a terrorist as one who systematically uses violence and intimidation to achieve political ends – or one who controls or forces others to do something by violence, fear or threats.

But Islam does not content itself with these injunctions strongly forbidding Muslims from ever becoming terrorists. It also makes sure that the believers are made into highly moral, excellently behaved people, by inculcating those lofty human values that can turn them into people who sincerely love humankind without distinction of religion, race or social status. Islam no doubt encourages the logical and rational discussion of views with people of all creeds in a calm and dispassionate way, with the only aim that truth prevail over error and falsehood. But it also reminds us that it is error and falsehood as such that are to be hated and detested. The people who unfortunately hold on to error are never to be hated. That is why the motto of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is ‘Love for all, hatred for none.’

Far from inciting hatred and aggressiveness in its followers, Islam keeps on enjoining kindness and sympathy for all. The Holy Prophet Muhammad, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, said: ‘Charity is incumbent upon every human limb every day on which the sun rises. To bring about reconciliation between two contestants is charity. Helping a person mount his animal or to load his baggage on to it is charity. A good word is charity. Every step taken toward the mosque for prayer is charity. To remove anything from the street that causes inconvenience is charity.’

However, Muslims have been warned by the Holy Founder of Islam, Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, that when they enter the territory of those who have been terrorizing and harshly persecuting them, they should not lose all sense of perspective and justice, and be tempted to start acting savagely, like the terrorists themselves. The worst crime of ungratefulness would be that committed by a people who, having forgotten that they had just been subjected to terrible cruelties, start meting out the same, if not worse, cruelties to others. The Prophet ordered:

‘You will meet those who remember Almighty Allah in their houses of worship. Have no dispute with them, and give no trouble to them. In the enemy country, do not kill any women or children, or the blind, or the old. Do not pull down any tree; nor pull down any building.’ (Quoted from Halbiyyah, Vol.3).

So the only Jihad permitted in Islam is the war of the oppressed against the oppressor, the war waged to protect the peace of all people irrespective of their religion or creed. Tactics used today such as suicide bombing, etc. are absolutely out of the question for true followers of Islam. Allah Almighty says:

It is our belief that not only Islam, but no true religion, whatever its name, can sanction violence and bloodshed of innocent men, women and children in the name of Allah Almighty. Terrorists may use religious or political labels, but no one should be deceived by their wily ways and treacherous guiles. They have nothing to do with religion. They are the enemies of peace. They must be combated at every level as advocated by Islam, the religion of peace.

Islam does not preach peace but submission. This submission is to god (allah).  Muslims pray to allah and ask for forgiveness. They kneel for the same reason.

Islam is a very peaceful religion, but when some one wants to hurt them for any reason kills them because of religion issues then they have rights too to take revenge. ISIS is a terrorist group killing anyone, even Muslims too just to show their fear and take money from foreign countries.

So all a slippery tongued Imam needs to do to justify and promote violent Jihad is to convince everyone in his congregation they are the oppressed, the victims of Western infidels?  That they have been abused for a hundred years?  That the Entire West is their enemy?

Man, that sounds awfully easy to do. 

Sounds like .... Jihad is permitted in Islam.....

Islam doesn't fail at peace. Peace is not really a part of Islam. Any religion that requires punishment for non-harm of others, is a religion of violence.

What is interesting is, in America, traffic laws and income taxes and many other things impose a penalty if they are not followed. The penalty is imposed even though nobody expresses that they have been harmed by not following these laws, and even though there is no evidence of harm. The American government has become a religion of punishment for no harm done, simply because government people have made some laws.


Violence without harm being done first is never justifiable. Certain punishment is justifiable if there is a teacher student relationship, and the student has agreed to the punishment when he fails. Violence without cause is wrong. A claim is merely a claim. A claim to a monopoly on salvation may be wrong, but it may also be non-violent.


Islam does not preach peace. Islam preaches no peace to people of other religions if they will not become Muslims. Islam may preach a semblance of peace between Muslims, but anywhere there is taxation rather than donation, peace is ultimately non-existent.


Everyone is responsible for his own idiocy. However, because points of law can be difficult to determine, the Islamic cleric who teaches Muslims incorrectly is doubly wrong.


Yes, absolutely. The fact that Islam exists is just such a happening.

Islam started as a method for its followers to get more than a lion's share of the goods of this life, by taking it from others. The infusion of ideals that appear peaceful into Islam was to help Islam gain a foothold on the minds of people who would normally be peaceful.


Anybody can call anything, anything that they want. Calling Islam peaceful doesn't make it so.



By rewriting the Islamic religious writings to eliminate the violence, or by writing some new, peaceful, religious writings, and then calling them "Islam."

:)

Currently, ISIS does not represent Islam. Rather, their own plan has been made attractive to them, and they have been averted from the way. And whoever Allah leaves astray - there will be for him no guide.

Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in their hearts.

isis or any islamic terrorists organisations dont represent true islam.. islamic precept teach us how to live in this world peacefully..

Islam is not peaceful at first place so ISIS is just proof on that. There is not even pace between different Islam fractions so we "infidels" cant expect any good from them. Wake up ppl, Islam is not about peace and prosperity and ISIS is just tip of iceberg.

^Ditto^

Yes! ISIS isn't proof that Islam has failed at peace. ISIS is proof that Islam is what it is, VIOLENT!

:)

The simple answer is NO, because if statically speaking, violence existed, exist and will always do, in human societies no matter what, but there are factor that can increase violence obviously, I don't think it's related to Islam as per se but the chaotic situation in the middle east makes a whole region prone to violence.

The fact is in the islamic world you have many countries that are peacefull and proof of the "Islam is religion of peace" but at the same time you have the exact opposite in some areas where religion is used as a tool to achieve something as well as other ideologies.

By same logic, Nazi germany is a proof that western culture is VIOLENT
KKK is proof, that white american are racist and VIOLENT
.........

I can go on and on, but don't you see the flaw with this logic?

I dont see any logic there mate. Nazi Germany did not represent western culture, in fact most of western countries were part of allies who defeated nazis and KKK was never running USA or even represent most of white Americans. Islam on other hand, since that desert demon possessed that Muhammad guy is nothing but violence. Just look how civil right stand in most developed Islam countries today and imagine how it was in past centuries.

You have a point.

Western culture does not exactly claim to be perfect, and does not claim to be peace.

However Islam claims to be perfect, and Islam claims to be peace.

Yet the production of cultures of peace, and cultures of violence, from the Judeo Christian beliefs and those of Islam, do seem to be reversed.

The only reason you think this way is because you don't know what Islam and ISIS are. If you knew, you would pity the Muslims. The Islam clerics attempt to hide the truth from all people, because they have an easy life from stealing tax money from Muslims... money demanded by the religion.

:)

It is exactly the same logic and if you fail to see it you are just in denial, but lets see, you say that western countries stood against Nazi germany, but then again the western world was split in two camps, and they fought because they were treatned to be taken over, if Nazi germany was expanding to those countries you think anyone would care to what cruel and violent things Nazi germany was doing (not like our countries weren't doing similar massacres in their colonies at the same periode but that's another point) , I still didn't answer your argument yet to show how your logic has a flaw and here is your answer, who do you think is fighting and suffering the most from ISIS, you ? your country? obviously not, it is muslims in the region, ISIS killed over 200k muslims according to the most conservative statistics and the numbers are raising exponentially.

Also you claim that the KKK was never running in the USA or represent the white American, which totally wrong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan they them self claims to represent white people supremacy in the US as does ISIS claims to represent the supremacy of Islam in the middle east, but the FACT is ISIS which is at most 100K barbarian (and most are mercenaries that are recruited by money and doesn't even read arabic or the Koran) compared to 1.5 to 2Billion muslims???? that's about 0.05% total, how can such number represent the majority ?

As for your claim that Mohammed is violent or whatever please read and understand the Koran before spouting nonsense, your information comes from websites and TV where they quote a part and disregard 99% of the book which is stupid and far from being intellectually correct

The truth lies above.

Or below.

www.thereligionofpeace.com

See? Even Spendy agrees that ISIS is proof that Islam has succeeded^^^, just not at peace.

:)

I dont think so that ISLAM itself responsible for terror, or failed to spread the peace. If some people make a group and start fight against the world, then they clearly deny the actual techings of Islam. Islam never preach to kill ANY one due to ANY reason. There are some reasons behind such extreamist groups like Afghan War. Everyonw knows so many millitants join Taliban in the reaction of Afghan war. Same in Iraq, the instability is still exist both countries. So these are the reasons which is somehow true. But still i said EVERY person who killed any other on the name of Islam, not on the right way.

For me ISIS is just proof how some people use religion for their own interest or agenda, to mobilize young and naive Muslims to fight against their Christian brothers and friends, against their families and countries etc.
ISIS is evil but have no relationship with Islam.

How about the other 82 organizations on UAE's list of Islamic terror groups?  Do they also have no relationship with Islam?  I guess that UAE thinks they do, since they call them "Islamic terror organisations."

Abu Dhabi (AFP) - The United Arab Emirates, which belongs to a US-led coalition fighting jihadists, on Saturday issued a list of 83 Islamist groups which it classified as "terrorist organisations".

The list, approved by the cabinet and published on the official WAM news agency, is similar to an announcement made by Riyadh in March.

It blacklists Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS), as well as the Muslim Brotherhood and Yemen's Shiite Huthi militia.

If you think deep about religions any of the books offer peace though. They all want you to turn people from other religions to their own religion. Christianity do the same, only Jews do different, you can't become jew but they still run the world. ISIS is the live proof of 6th century Islam in 21st century. How they do it is the same as in history. You can't blame for them, they just apply what's written in the book.

Minor note (and I'm not advocating religion or conversion) yes you can become a Jew (and then Help Run the World) or find out that actually they don't run the world but only a few hot dog stands.

What many of you seem to be not understanding is that just because someone (or a group) identifies as a Muslim it doesn't mean that their actions represent Islam

ISIS' version of "Islam" is just an excuse to justify their own agenda and get more people on their side. They do so much that goes against the Quran that it would be straight up stupid to think of them as representers of it.

yes, as soon as they they do something other muslims arent proud of, they arent muslims again
[/sarcasm]

Regarding KKK and why that minor, secret organization is founded mate, i suggest you study bit more or at least google about American civil war when again, evil white dudes defeated confederacy and give freedom to slaves (try to avoid retarded conspiracy theories, claims of terrorist organizations and take some history book for change). I know that evil, lying desert demon have negative effect on you so it will be hard, but try at least. It is irrelevant what KKK claims, hope you realize that. ISIS claim they are only true Muslims for example no?

The Americans can produce a recyclable space rocket now while the ISIS are killing innocent people, raping women. So how could you not say that ISIS has failed the Islam?

Islam, according to the holy writings, is peace for Muslims; peace for people that Muslims are trying to convert to Islam; violence for people who obstinately will not convert to Islam; violence for people who attack Muslims; violence for Muslims who convert to some other religion.

Most Muslims don't have enough of the required violence that is directed in the holy books. ISIS may have too much violence, and may not be giving non-Muslim people a long enough time to convert to Islam.

When you get right down to what the Islamic holy books say, it is difficult to figure out if ISIS is successful or not. However, the more peaceful the Muslim is towards non-Muslims, the less successful of a Muslim he is as well.

:)

well Jews run the world, by proxy that is, they have strong lobbies in every major country, they influence the financial and political world and they influence the international politics especially toward Israel, but I guess good for them, it proves how smart they are.

ISIS is not even representing the 6th century Islam, they have their own version of it, Islam stats clearly to not kill women and children even if times of wars, to not kill prisoners, to not steal or destroy what's god created ..... they are doing every capital sin possible in Islam, yet they claim to represent it...

Wrong, even from a past perspective, check out Islam golden era (9-16 century) for example.

The sin of ISIS is something that happens in war. Besides, ISIS recognizes that peaceful Muslims are not Muslims except for just a little bit. So, they are trying to either spur other Muslims on towards being strong Muslims, or else they are trying to eliminate them so only the strong remain.

The golden years of Islam didn't happen because Muslims of that time were following Islam. Rather, Muslims of that time were being rewarded by the Christian God for bravery in NOT following the dictates of the Islamic holy writings, even in the face of death from their comrades.

If only those Muslims had studied the Bible and become Christian - as opposed to Roman Catholic subjects. Muslim worlds would have become the ruling/leading class of the whole free world.

:)