The Islamic State

[Arakan]

A common misunderstanding of Islam I see often is that Islam is actually a peaceful religion. In other words, these ISIS terrorists are the ones who are "misreading" the Quran and using it as an excuse to be violent. In reality, however, Islam just is a fundamentally violent religion, and it's not open to interpretation at all.

ISIS terrorists can find a lot of verses in the Quran which justify their actions. (In all of these cases there is more than one verse, but I'll just copy paste one verse for the sake of simplicity). Let's examine them one by one:

1. ISIS executing apostates:

2. ISIS fighting against Christians until they pay "jizya":

3. ISIS fighting for jihad:

4. ISIS discriminating against women:

5. ISIS forcing women to wear veils:

The lesson we have to learn here is that the Islamic State finds justification for their actions via the Quran.

I would just like to add (by repeating) that as long as concepts like Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb do find a sufficient number of followers (as they do, even though a minority), terrorist groups such as ISIS will find recruits as well.

At the end of the day we are coming back to the point that Islam needs to go through a form of "Enlightenment" as Christianity went through.

Turkey was on a very promising way (in recent days I spoke with a lot of my Turkish friends about Erdogan and the future of Turkey) and I think Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (one of the greatest statesmen in the 20th century) was right with his approach to secularism: religion must be contained to the very private domain only.

[Chiki]

I'm from Turkey. Islam should be treated just as we should treat Nazism.

Or are you implying billions around the world are practising an 'evil' religion?

My quotes prove beyond question that yes, they are. But the moderate Muslims who do so are ignorant: they aren't aware that they're doing so. I have no problems with people who were raised as Muslims and believe in Islam without knowing how violent of a religion it really is. To accept these verses, however, means that you're probably a genuinely bad person.

[Arakan]

The abrahamic religions are all archaic.

In their cores maybe but unlike Islam or Christianity, the Jews never had the urge to convince others how great their religion is, whether peacefully or by force.

This makes Judaism very sympathetic compared to the other two, at least in that regard.

[Crixus]

I have to agree regarding ataturk. Separation of religion and state helped Christian States in the west evolve too, the example he presumably followed. Muslim States need to do exactly that: divorce religion and all its bigoted children from practical life, essentially. Easier said etc

[Chiki]

The abrahamic religions are all archaic. Especially when you look at ancient scripture. This isn't exclusive to Islam.

Just because they're archaic doesn't mean they're not evil. The Quran espouses the view that it is eternally true: it doesn't matter what time period you examine it in, all the verses are still going to hold. In other words, the Quran wishes for us to chop people's heads off and kill apostates even today. Do you think that's evil?

Why do you think ISIS is so obsessed with chopping people's heads off? Because of the Quran, and that its truths are perennial.

[mormont]

A common misunderstanding of Islam I see often is that Islam is actually a peaceful religion. In other words, these ISIS terrorists are the ones who are "misreading" the Quran and using it as an excuse to be violent. In reality, however, Islam just is a fundamentally violent religion, and it's not open to interpretation at all.

ISIS terrorists can find a lot of verses in the Quran which justify their actions.

That's true. So what?

Everyone from serial killers to gay marriage opponents by way of defenders of slavery, for example, have quoted Biblical verses that they believed 'justified their actions'. The Bible and the Quran are both well known for their conflicting content, particularly in relation to violence. Which means that...

The lesson we have to learn here is that the Islamic State finds justification for their actions via the Quran.

This lesson is true, but both obvious and utterly banal. Everyone knows that. They say so, often.

However, that is not the same as saying that Islam is not a peaceful religion. If being able to find verses justifying violence disqualifies a religion from being 'peaceful', we will not find many peaceful religions anywhere on the planet. If people committing acts of terror in its name means a religion isn't 'peaceful', there are none. (Seriously. Even Buddhists have done it.)

The test is surely, are the vast majority of adherents peacesful and law-abiding? And in the case of Islam, the answer is 'yes'.

[Crixus]

See edited post, also I didn't say archaic doesn't mean evil. I personally think religion was a useful concept that is now definitely obsolete. It has little in common with rational thought in my view. But I still can't agree that Islam is singularly evil, because religion is generally a license for intolerance and bigotry. And in my view that includes Christianity and Judaism: abrahamic alert!

Eta: thank you Mormont.

[Shryke]

Just because they're archaic doesn't mean they're not evil. The Quran espouses the view that it is eternally true: it doesn't matter what time period you examine it in, all the verses are still going to hold. In other words, the Quran wishes for us to chop people's heads off and kill apostates even today. Do you think that's evil?

Why do you think ISIS is so obsessed with chopping people's heads off? Because of the Quran, and that its truths are perennial.

Because it fits in with the historical and cultural contexts under which IS exists. It's part of the narrative they create about themselves being the return of the triumphant caliphates of the early days of Islam.

The thing many of y'all seem to be missing is that these kind of narratives are not specific to Islam. Or even religion itself. The only reason they are islamic here is because this is taking place somewhere that is deeply religious. Elsewhere, the narratives of the conflicts spring from different more locally appropriate sources.

[Arakan]

I have to agree regarding ataturk. Separation of religion and state helped Christian States in the west evolve too, the example he presumably followed. Muslim States need to do exactly that: divorce religion and all its bigoted children from practical life, essentially. Easier said etc

It is a difficult and long road but someone somewhere must start.

Just to give you an impression about how long it takes: in Bavaria (for centuries an agrucultural country, well into the the 1960s/70s), the churches still were the driving force in social life until the 1950/60s, in virtually every matter, from children education to marriages (my grandmother, herself a protestant, married a catholic man...this was considered a huge scandal in rural Bavaria back in the 1950s). By then they had already lost a lot of their former political power but to fight back their influence in everyday life took even longer.

[Shryke]

That's true. So what?

Everyone from serial killers to gay marriage opponents by way of defenders of slavery, for example, have quoted Biblical verses that they believed 'justified their actions'. The Bible and the Quran are both well known for their conflicting content, particularly in relation to violence. Which means that...

This lesson is true, but both obvious and utterly banal. Everyone knows that. They say so, often.

However, that is not the same as saying that Islam is not a peaceful religion. If being able to find verses justifying violence disqualifies a religion from being 'peaceful', we will not find many peaceful religions anywhere on the planet. If people committing acts of terror in its name means a religion isn't 'peaceful', there are none. (Seriously. Even Buddhists have done it.)

The test is surely, are the vast majority of adherents peacesful and law-abiding? And in the case of Islam, the answer is 'yes'.

But Mormont, surely you must admit that Charles Manson's actions mean that The Beatles represents a source of violence and terror.

[Chiki]

If people committing acts of terror in its name means a religion isn't 'peaceful', there are none.

I don't see the problem. I think that a religion can be violent even if the vast majority of its practitioners are peaceful. In fact, I think that a religion's believers have no bearing on whether a religion itself is peaceful or not. Of course, this is going to be a little subjective, but here are what I think a peaceful religion should be like: The basis of the religion (Quran, Bible, etc.) should not have any violent messages of any kind (or at least, only have a few.) As long as a terrorist can rationally use the basis of his religion as a justification for his actions, then yes, I believe that the religion is violent.

I think it's okay if there are Buddhist terrorists. (I know nothing about Buddhism, so please excuse me if I'm ignorant.) I think that Buddhism can still be a very peaceful religion, as long as whatever Buddhism is based on has no violent messages. If the terrorist is deluded, and if he cannot rationally base his actions on whatever Buddhism is based on, then we cannot blame Buddhism for his actions. The problem is with the terrorist, not with the basis.

This leads to the perhaps unintuitive conclusion as follows: imagine a completely peaceful religion like Buddhism of which _all_ of its adherents are terrorists. Every single Buddhist is misinterpreting the religion. In that case, is the religion peaceful or not? This may be unintuitive to you, but I think the religion is peaceful, and that we cannot blame the religion for making people behave this way.

ISIS terrorists, on the other hand, can find justification for their actions in the book, so we can blame the Quran for their actions.

[Crixus]

Lol@ shryke! Surely!

[Crixus]

Chiki I don't think you understand how vague and subject to interpretation and translation the Quran is. As a so called Muslim who's read the Arabic and English versions many times over, forgive me if I don't agree with your apparently simplistic bad one sided interpretation.

[Chiki]

Chiki I don't think you understand how vague bad subject to interpretation and translation the Quran is. As a so called Muslim who's read the Arabic and English versions many times

Ok, I'm sorry if I can't see how "slay them wherever you find them" is open to interpretation.

[mormont]

Of course, this is going to be a little subjective, but here are what I think a peaceful religion should be like: The basis of the religion (Quran, Bible, etc.) should not have any violent messages of any kind (or at least, only have a few.) As long as a terrorist can rationally use the basis of his religion as a justification for his actions, then yes, I believe that the religion is violent.

OK. But this definition is so broad, and encompasses so many religions, as to make it pretty useless for anything other than an argument that religions are often violent. It's not much help to us otherwise. And so I would suggest it's a bad definition.