They have also used the civil war to set up shop in Syria; have weapons seized from routing Assad military depots and those of other Syrian factions to compliment what they got in Iraq. The problem therefore is much more multifaceted than the simplicity of blaming the US, the Saudis or anyone else.
How peaceful is Islam?
- Thread starter Momochiru
- Start date
They have also used the civil war to set up shop in Syria; have weapons seized from routing Assad military depots and those of other Syrian factions to compliment what they got in Iraq. The problem therefore is much more multifaceted than the simplicity of blaming the US, the Saudis or anyone else.
OK. Well, as I said if you can provide an argument that details why this thread should be closed and you can convince a moderator then PM some of them and raise it as an issue. Personally I don't think you've sufficiently argued your case well enough, but I'm not staff so it's not me you need to persuade. Until we're told otherwise to stop however, people want to debate this topic whether you find it offensive or not.
This debate has been going on since 2001 in the wider public arena. High profile intellectuals like Dawkins, Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have been banging this drum very loudly for a long time.
Wahhabism is based on an extremely literal and intolerant interpretation of the Hanbali school of Sunni law, which in turn is regarded as the most narrow and literal of the four main schools. The teachings of Muhammad Abd al-Wahab were also heavily influenced by the 13th century theologian Ibn Taymiyyah, who wrote in the aftermath of the Mongol destruction of the entire region, and interpreted the Hanbali doctrine in an extremely narrow and intolerant way.
So the followers of al-Wahab certainly believed that the scope of when and against who the violence sanctioned by Islam could be applied was very wide, and the Saudi states which were founded on its basis were accordingly violent and intolerant.
Adherents of the Hanbali school are mainly confined to the Arabian Peninsula, with the Malikis dominating North Africa, the Shafis South-East Asia, parts of Yemen, Egypt and the Levant, and the Hanafis Turkey, Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent. So you can see how tiny the Wahhabi creed is within Islam.
I think its naive to pin the blame largely on the West. While mistakes and poor decisions were made, even lies... Its far more complex than being down to the US/ UK or west in general.
It also in many ways, gives some justification to Isis and the like. When they see 100s of people claiming how the US is behind Isis and its all a conspiracy of some kind, Isis get a sense that their cause is accepted. Of course its not but it makes great propaganda for Isis' marketing men.
this debate must happen but without bigotry. we must hold the saudis, US, russia, UK and france responsible in equal measure for what is happening. blaming a religion of 1 billion people doesnt make sense when the people causing this crisis make up 0.003% of the entire muslim population and the people running away from these extremists (refugees) are also muslims. i dont think people like sam harris get this
i wouldnt club dawkins with harris. being an athiest is fine but theres no need to be as dogmatic overzealous in your beliefs to the point of being insensitive. how is he any different from any crazy cleric.
What? Just because some people said that the US and UK bear some responsibility for leaving an environment where ISIS managed to gain power isn't saying that the US is behind it all in some sort of conspiracy fantasy
I'm saying its far more complex.
They do not advocate the indiscriminate murder of people perceived to be in opposition to their beliefs. They do not want to take over the world and implement a 7th century legal system that is extremely violent and (look at Saudi Arabia) easily used as a barbaric tool of oppression. These are huge distinctions, you must realise that. Dawkins et al bear little resemblance to extremist clerics. They also have evidence and reason on their side. Islamist's have an ancient text anchored on a supernatural supreme being that carries no weight of convincing evidence for it being the authentic word of that being. I mean, if it did, everyone would be a Muslim. That is your acid test right there.
I agree that the West played a major part in the mess. But I am not convinced from what I have learnt about Islamic history, moreover the complete lack of consensus on what Islam actually is and how it is to be interpreted that ISIS are not real Muslims, because Islam is so open to interpretation. The Islamic state espouse a clear religious motive that details their new path for Islam right up to the day of judgement and the end of the world.
I would refute any accusations of being Islamaphobic. I find all the Abrahamic religious texts to be damaging and fundamentally divisive. Just look at Israel, the place is completely insane. I went to church as a child and was forced to Sunday school also but I am now an atheist. It is the only logical position for me. I find the notion of an afterlife inconceivable and the Islamic description of it seems especially ridiculous. That does not mean that I am not respectful of Muslims in everyday life. Muslims are people just like anyone else and are good for a laugh and conversation. The Muslim posters on here all seem like good guys. I do feel that we should be able to freely debate and criticise, in a constructive way, the teachings of Islam, the history of Islam and the content of the Islamic text freely, however.
Syria and Iran both stoked sectarian conflict to ensure that a stable Iraq didn't develop. Something like 90% of AQI's foreign fighters came in through Syria with the help of Assad's intelligence agency. Assad emptied his prisons of Jihadis and then trained them to go to Iraq. Iran trained and supplied groups like Sadr's Mahdi Army to encourage conflict between the Sunni and Shia insurgent groups.
Re read what I put. Its not confusing at all. I'm not saying it does justify Isis' actions. Only that Isis can use this for propaganda. Its just to simplistic to say its mostly the Wests fault.
There is an element of Western society that do make the leap to justifying their actions though. Especially on social media. I'm sure you have seen the "if we didn't go to Iraq they wouldn't attack us" type stuff. Whether intentional or not it is giving some justification for the crimes of Isis. The thing is, Isis don't represent the people of Iraq. They are not fighting for them.
Terrorism has not always emerged from places the western world has interfered in. At least not on this scale. I think its entirely possible that a group like Isis would have appeared regardless of western intervention.
See you there matey. Bitches and alcohol, cannot ask for more. Hell is full of them.
Iran with ISIS? Hmm, you might be a bit wrong there.
US played as a bigger part that Saudi Arabia IMO. Not only there are top ISIS members who were either US prisoners or worked for US government/military, but also the weapons send to 'moderate fighters' are getting rapidly into the hand of ISIS. And of course, if US didn't invade Iraq, then there wouldn't be an ISIS. And most likely, those half a million or so of Iraqi wouldn't have died. That is what, around 5000 or so as much people killed as in the massacre of Paris.
Hard to know what it is exactly the endgoal for US for continuously destabilizing the Arab states in the last 25 years, but I don't believe for a second that it is for noble reasons. Neither that it is not intentional.
Last edited:
I think he meant the involvement of the Quds force / Revolutionary Guards in Iraq post '03, which definitely exacerbated the tension.
Uzz?
Yea, I've had a username change (hello).
Not with Isis but other extremist views and policies.
What? How did I miss this earlier?
Can you clarify what you mean before I start posting.
Because he doesn't offer money for people to kill authors. I mean, come on.
No problem. I am referring to the historical accuracy of the story of Muhammeds life and indeed the early spread of Islam.
Clerics offer money to kill ppl ? Where did you get that from?? Im talking abt the crazy ones who preach violence. Sam Harris talks about carpet bombing like only terrorists die when a bomb explodes. Do you get my point?
Agreed. But blaming Islam for ISIS makes no sense to me. That's my point. There numerous reasons for the creation of ISIS. People on here only want to talk and discuss about one thing - Islam - which is probably the least relevant reason for it's creation. No one understands the geo political reasons and Islam becomes an easy target.
Half the problem with Islam seems to be the number of people who get their knickers in a twist when someone dares to say anything less than perfect about the religion. I see Christianity getting a lot of stick on here as well but no one seems to have a problem with that.
I guess you have to be in their shoes to understand
Hitler (christian) - kills millions - its just Hitler
Christian terrorists in Africa - kill people - its an African problem
Hindu extremists - massacre Muslims in 2002 in india - its a local problem.
Muslim extremist destroy WTC in 2001- all Muslims are terrorists - Islam needs reform
Whether you admit to it or not there is a bias against Islam. I witness it time and again. I shouldn't be bothered about it because I'm not muslim . but I find such fear and hatred to be baseless.
I know that on this forum no one is saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Yet we talk here about Islam as a direct result of ISIS like the two are related at the core. I suggest everyone goes and reads how the muslim saudis and christian countries like US and atheists like the Russians are equally responsible for the creation of ISIS.
What are the Christians going to do, hold a church fete?
Feel free to create a thread on how other religions are violent as well then. I'm sure no one's going to stop you. Islam is a violent religion and I'm not sure how saying terrorists from x&y religion have also killed people is any sort of defense.
Did you conveniently ignore the rest of the post because it doesn't suit your rhetoric? This discussion is happening because of IS. So why are we beating around the bush. Let's talk about IS. Why has it been created do you know? Why has it suddenly risen out of nowhere and become so strong? Does Islam give them guns as well? Does the prophet come down and hand it to them? Go read about it and come back and tell me if its because of Islam or because of 20 other reasons which are more pertinent.
You are the one with the agenda, not me. I, for one, think all religions are violent fairy tales, a product of the times they originated in. This thread is particularly about Islam and given you seem to have such a huge problem with other religions not getting their fair share of flack the only alternative appears to be creating different threads for each religion. That or you can just unsubscribe from this thread since reasonable discussion on a perfectly valid topic seems to annoy you a whole lot. I'm sure the mods won't mind either way.
Let's talk about ISIS? Have you by chance missed a 150 page thread in the same forum that's devoted to ISIS? And yes, I'm perfectly aware why this thread was created and the question in the OP needed to be asked. This nonsense about Islam being a peaceful religion needs to stop. It's most definitely not. Second, ISIS has plenty to do with religion and Islam in particular. You may want to bury your head and ignore it but their statement alone in the wake of the Paris attacks seems to differ.
Was Hitler a christian? And I am pretty sure some pretty massive reforms took place in Europe after his demise.
And some terrorism is localised to a particular region. Some is global. How many terrorist attacks are currently being commited by Hindus and Christians? It doesn't excuse it of course, or any form of terrorism but its hardly a global issue.
i think you need to educate yourself. please go and read whats happening in central africa, in gujarat (and other places) in india and what happened not so long ago in myannmmar. of course these problems dont directly affect western society therefore of course its not news worthy or debate worthy.
Its certainly debate worthy and you have been encouraged to start one with a new thread. To fact it doesn't directly affect western society is exactly why its not news worthy, though it is of course, reported by several mainstream news stations like the BBC.
Islam as a religion is definitely responsible in parts for the terrorism problem.
One has to be a moron to link Gujarat 2002 in India to a similar act as it was a riot not an terrorist attack, people of both religions participated and died and riots started because a bunch of 1000+ Muslims burnt down a train carrying Hindus. Anyone who ignores the burning of train by Muslims which instigated riots carries an agenda. Again, Muslim extremists very much in thick of it and at least as much responsible for 2002 Gujarat riots as Hindus. Muslims extremists in this region are responsible for massacre of Kashmir Hindus as they have been equally responsible when it is a 'riot' elsewhere. Not to forget their role during massacre of Hindus during partition. Anybody who thinks riot issues are same as terrorism is too thick to be explained anything anyway. Muslim extremists do make a big use of Islam, whether in global terrorism issues AS WELL AS local issues.
One has to be a moron to link Gujarat 2002 in India to a similar act as it was a riot not an terrorist attack, people of both religions participated and died and riots started because a bunch of 1000+ Muslims burnt down a train carrying Hindus. Anyone who ignores the burning of train by Muslims which instigated riots carries an agenda. Again, Muslim extremists very much in thick of it and at least as much responsible for 2002 Gujarat riots as Hindus. Muslims extremists in this region are responsible for massacre of Kashmir Hindus as they have been equally responsible when it is a 'riot' elsewhere. Not to forget their role during massacre of Hindus during partition. Anybody who thinks riot issues are same as terrorism is too thick to be explained anything anyway. Muslim extremists do make a big use of Islam, whether in global terrorism issues AS WELL AS local issues.
you can take it from a kashmiri hindu himself that you dont know what youre talking about. hindu extremism in the form of rss vhp and bajrang dal has existed since before independence i.e. 1947. they have a systematic campaign both through politics and through violence to oust muslims from india (its part of their written ideology/charter - read savarkar and hedgewar). you can redefine terrorism all you want but that doesnt change facts. and since you mentioned partition- i suggest you read this too.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24159594
(sounds similar to what happened in gujarat if you read carefully)
Either you are deliberately being obtuse or you actually have not read any of the discussion on ISIS on the caf.
Several posters have been continuously making the point that it is interference by US and other western powers that has led to its emergence. Some have attributed to Islam in some way, while some has attribute it to both factors. Several posters have continuously made the point that the vast majority of the Muslims are not terrorists but that in itself does not mean that terrorist groups do not find justification for their violence in Islamic teaching or history, be it may out of context or misinterpreted. Like I said previously, posters who were overtly bigoted towards Islam/Muslims were swiftly banned.
As far as why Islam is a button button topic here because this pretty much a Euro-centric forum and Hindu extremism or on-goings in Africa is not a top that interests all. That is how the world works unfortunately. For example - in Indians only private convo, Hindu right wing is up for discussion almost every other day.
I personally believe that this article pretty much covers the ISIS Islam debate -
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...-a-full-blown-global-jihadist-insurgency.html
Islam is the least relevant reason for the creation of ISIS? Do you know what the 'I' in that acronym stands for? I'm glad the mods haven't shut the thread down, as you suggest. I'm enjoying the debate, it's basically the whole point of having a forum in the first place. If you feel strongly that the premise of the thread is false then let the weight of your argument convince and educate, instead of trying to halt conversation.
I very well know what I am talking about, you can keep on trying or believing otherwise. Anybody who links Savarkar to violence to oust Muslims is too thick to engage anyway. Given proportion of Muslim has increased at fast pace in India and continues to, your point looks ridiculous. Also, I don't care what an BBC article says, I very well know what has happened and happens in this country and how muslim extremism is selectively ignored.
It is you who is trying to change 'terrorism' definition, not me. Very ironic thing to say.
moronic and thick...its the language of someone who cant argue properly.
ps. stop reading times of india
It would be a much better world if most of the Islamic extremist organisations were as "extremist" as the Hindu ones.
Also, Kashmiri Hindu, who the hell uses that term except, well, you know who
Also, Kashmiri Hindu, who the hell uses that term except, well, you know who