[Politiks]

Muslim outrage on social networks after video of 2 American women degrading the Quran went viral with more than 15 million views


here:
https://wake-upusa.blogspot.com/2017/10 ... after.html

I think I'm in love with them.

[Hong Wu]

Obligatory "this was tasteless but there's no outrage over viral footage of Muslims killing people of other religions" post.

For a Hong Wu-ism, Islam was a pretty normal articulation of the state of the world at the time of its origin and apex but in a world where fewer people than ever are capable of being a "Muslim" (one who submits to God) and charity has been turned on its head by industry, it seems more like a justification for political totalitarianism than an ascent of the righteous to authority.

[Oxymandias]

@Hong Wu

All religions are pretty much outdated so I don't see your point.

Islam doesn't just mean "submission" it also comes from the Arabic word "Al-Salaam" which means "peace" so it actually means "individual peace attained from submission to God".

Also your post is too vague. It makes very little sense so you are required to clarify.

[Hong Wu]

@Oxymandias I think that a "Muslim" describes a certain kind of religious person who is probably more rare today than it was in the past and that one way to interpret Islam/the Qur'an is that it symbolized an ascent of the righteous to earthly authority, at least during its heydey but when there's a dearth of real "Muslims" around (in the sense I've described) it seems to turn into another political ideology, albeit one with religious overtones. One argument in support of this would be the fact that many cultures with a higher level of religious or metaphysical belief seemingly have had less extreme forms of Islam as their leading religions. Other people have pointed out that the Middle East used to be a multi-religious place which tells you something about how differently Islam is sometimes interpreted today as compared to the past.

[Godstud]

Christians, Muslims and Judaism are all parts of the same shit religion.

The young idiots who did this did it for attention and because they knew it would "stir the pot". That's all.

If they got death threats... well, fundamentalists do stupid stuff(See death threats to doctors who perform abortions).

[Oxymandias]

@Hong Wu

Alright, so Hong Wu, this may seem off-topic and I will surely respond to the your post in it's entirety within this one at a moment's notice but I have some advice for you when discussing Islam or anything really. Now you have good ideas and you're clearly capable of expressing yourself, but you simply do not put enough research into the topics that you discuss and when you do research, you either look into second-hand information or opinionated information. Now while I understand why you do this, maybe you don't have enough time to read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic texts and would rather look into a summary, something that's quick and gives you the meaningful information you need to make an argument or maybe, in this world full of fake news, you don't know who to look for for right and objective information so you say to yourself "well if I can't win either way, if I can't find the truth regardless of what I do, I might as well go to the websites that validate what I believe in since at least then I'll be getting something from it".

But these actions damage your ability to effectively debate and limit the potential ideas that may pop into your head. You need to experience first hand the things you're debating, not google it and go to some random site on the internet. You need to challenge yourself and read articles that come from the complete opposite side of the spectrum, that go completely against what you believe in because, eventually on of those articles will stick and you'll think to yourself "hm, that's interesting" and you'll gain something new from that experience because when you go out of your way to validate yourself, even if you feel that you're gaining something, your not gaining anything. You're only reinforcing your previous beliefs, you're not actually gaining new ideas. And even if you gain nothing, at least you'll better understand the opposition's beliefs and become better at debating them. There's seriously nothing to fear from this, you just have to face it head on and never give up. You're a bright guy Hong Wu, you just need to get that extra push necessary to squeeze the brightness out of you.

BTW, since we're still on topic, you should read Hegel. I mean, any form of Continental philosophy is fine but I personally think Hegel would be the most significant impact to your thinking processes out of most other philosophers. I also love Hegel but I think you'll love him for very different reasons.

---

So, to your post. What you are talking about is political Islam, in fact, that's exactly what political Islam symbolizes and what most political religious groups or heck even most religious groups want. I mean, what self-respecting religious guy wouldn't want the most virtuous and righteous of his religion to take the responsibility of becoming an earthly authority? Not only that, but either accidentally or completely intentionally, you have successfully not only explained but also discussed other viewpoints for a Caliphate in the Middle East and why some MidEasterner's want a Caliphate in the first place outside of basic animalistic needs.

And even more surprisingly you have managed to achieve a revelation that few people in the MidEast and even less people in the West seem to recognize, that Islam is A. interpretable and B. has several different interpretations that change over the time periods which is astounding considering that you're a conservative who seems to have no regard for Islam. That level of resolution is strange coming from you.

So you haven't describe Islam in full, you have simply described political Islam.

[Hong Wu]

@Hong Wu

Alright, so Hong Wu, this may seem off-topic and I will surely respond to the your post in it's entirety within this one at a moment's notice but I have some advice for you when discussing Islam or anything really. Now you have good ideas and you're clearly capable of expressing yourself, but you simply do not put enough research into the topics that you discuss and when you do research, you either look into second-hand information or opinionated information. Now while I understand why you do this, maybe you don't have enough time to read the Quran, Hadiths, and other Islamic texts and would rather look into a summary, something that's quick and gives you the meaningful information you need to make an argument or maybe, in this world full of fake news, you don't know who to look for for right and objective information so you say to yourself "well if I can't win either way, if I can't find the truth regardless of what I do, I might as well go to the websites that validate what I believe in since at least then I'll be getting something from it".

But these actions damage your ability to effectively debate and limit the potential ideas that may pop into your head. You need to experience first hand the things you're debating, not google it and go to some random site on the internet. You need to challenge yourself and read articles that come from the complete opposite side of the spectrum, that go completely against what you believe in because, eventually on of those articles will stick and you'll think to yourself "hm, that's interesting" and you'll gain something new from that experience because when you go out of your way to validate yourself, even if you feel that you're gaining something, your not gaining anything. You're only reinforcing your previous beliefs, you're not actually gaining new ideas. And even if you gain nothing, at least you'll better understand the opposition's beliefs and become better at debating them. There's seriously nothing to fear from this, you just have to face it head on and never give up. You're a bright guy Hong Wu, you just need to get that extra push necessary to squeeze the brightness out of you.

BTW, since we're still on topic, you should read Hegel. I mean, any form of Continental philosophy is fine but I personally think Hegel would be the most significant impact to your thinking processes out of most other philosophers. I also love Hegel but I think you'll love him for very different reasons.

---

So, to your post. What you are talking about is political Islam, in fact, that's exactly what political Islam symbolizes and what most political religious groups or heck even most religious groups want. I mean, what self-respecting religious guy wouldn't want the most virtuous and righteous of his religion to take the responsibility of becoming an earthly authority? Not only that, but either accidentally or completely intentionally, you have successfully not only explained but also discussed other viewpoints for a Caliphate in the Middle East and why some MidEasterner's want a Caliphate in the first place outside of basic animalistic needs.

And even more surprisingly you have managed to achieve a revelation that few people in the MidEast and even less people in the West seem to recognize, that Islam is A. interpretable and B. has several different interpretations that change over the time periods which is astounding considering that you're a conservative who seems to have no regard for Islam. That level of resolution is strange coming from you.

So you haven't describe Islam in full, you have simply described political Islam.

Thanks for your detailed post. I was indeed trying to describe political Islam. I'm aware (if not in fine detail) that more religious, less political Islam exists and I'm sure it is still effective towards its stated goals in some places or instances but as a westerner, it's political Islam that concerns me so that is indeed what I focus on when I discuss Islam. I suspect that a challenge Islam (both overtly political versions and the less political versions) will need to resolve in an increasingly globalist world is how political it's appropriate to be, where and how, there seems to be a lot of disagreement on that point.

[SolarCross]

Interpretations...

[Rich]

Christians, Muslims and Judaism are all parts of the same shit religion.

The young idiots who did this did it for attention and because they knew it would "stir the pot". That's all.

If they got death threats... well, fundamentalists do stupid stuff(See death threats to doctors who perform abortions).

Since 2000 three people have been killed by anti abortionists in the United States for other notable countries the figures are:

UK: 0
France: 0
Belgium: 0

Now I'm no fan of Christianity and I totally support the heroic Buddhists in Burma and Thailand defending their countries against Muslim terrorists, but even Buddhist radicals are more of a threat than Christian anti-abortionists.

I have to be honest I am starting to think that Islamophillia is a disguised form of misogyny. Women have been oppressed, mutilated, violated, raped and abused by Muslims for 1400 years and when these brave women finally take a stand all the Muslim lovers can think to do is to condone violence against them. Disgusting!

[Godstud]

You want an example of Christian extremism? Look at Iraq War 2003, when Bush said,"God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq.", which led to even more tyranny, under US rule.

I have to be honest I am starting to think that Islamophillia is a disguised form of misogyny. Women have been oppressed, mutilated, violated, raped and abused by Muslims for 1400 years and when these brave women finally take a stand all the Muslim lovers can think to do is to condone violence against them. Disgusting!

That's rich! So is Christianity, but you are horribly biased, because you're born into the faith, like most Westerners.

Or are you going to tell me about the women priests, and how women were not told by priests to "listen to your husband"? You ignore all the misogyny of the Bible, (it's been going on 2000 years), because you're biased towards it. In short you pick and choose the Bible parts you like, and ignore all the misogyny, rape, and shit in the Bible.

Let's not forget all the pedophilia linked to Christianity! Christianity is great at that!

So, this is a HUGE case of the pot calling the kettle black!

[SolarCross]

That's rich! So is Christianity, but you are horribly biased, because you're born into the faith, like most Westerners.

Being born into Christianity (I don't think Rich is an actual Christian btw), in a land with few muslims creates another kind of bias which assumes that Islam is only superficially different from Christianity. You look at Islam from afar and see an exotic Christianity. However those up close such as the jews in Israel and the last remnants of Christianity in Lebanon or Egypt see what Islam is like up close and have no luxury of kidding themselves about its true nature.

---------------

@Oxymandias

What do you think of this chap?

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

I didn't even have to watch to video to know that it's BS. There is literally no 1 interpretation of anything. The Quran and even the hadiths themselves aren't detailed enough and unambiguous enough to warrant having one interpretation. Even if it was as exact as possible with Arabic it would still run into a major barrier which is language and Arabic, like most natural languages, has ambiguity build into itself. And even if Arabic was a completely unambiguous language well in order for it to be unambiguous it would have to have some form of logical grammar that makes things make sense and thus, lower ambiguity. However religion is, by definition, illogical, so either it'll be a completely different version of Islam or make absolutely no sense. Same if you translated Christianity into an unambiguous language.

Heck, the Arabic version of the Quran has so many potential interpretations that it's crazy. For example, the Quran and all it's letters can be converted into numbers that actually holds a unique meaning and thus, a different more minimalist interpretation. On the complete opposite side of the spectrum, if you read the Quran in it's traditional Kufic Arabic, the little nuances in the inflections and sounds of the words sometimes can potentially change the entire meaning of the book and change the way you see it. Arabic texts in general possess this quality and so do some Farsi texts and even some traditional Turkish ones (pre-Turkish language reformation texts). The encoding of information and the branching paths of which they can be interpreted is what makes Middle Eastern languages great.

Anyhow, the idea that "what Mohammed says/does is real Islam" or "Mohammed is the most perfect human being so all Muslims want to be like him" is a Westerner concept that is misunderstood. Westerners often think that Mohammed is essentially the "Jesus" of Islam and that, like in Christianity, every Muslim wants to emulate him. This is not the case and I have wrote several posts (some of which responded to you SolarCross) refuting this myth.

I won't give you most of the justification since I don't like repeating myself and because you'll dismiss it all anyways, in a nutshell Mohammed is a messenger of God and nothing special. He is considered to be the most perfect human being but that doesn't mean that he's the most perfect thing in existence which is God and only God. That idea only comes from Christian theology and it's ideas on Jesus which Mohammed rejected and was the thing that caused him to create Islam in the first place. Mohammed is a human and therefore makes mistakes. Throughout the Quran he prays for forgiveness for his sins, he is tricked by Satan several times, and sometimes makes mistakes (and then God corrects him).

---

I do not have the time to watch a 49 minute video thank you very much. However I do not trust it because A. Imams aren't the leaders of Islam and do not hold much authority or know what they're talking about especially in the Middle East B. Often foreign Imams are extremist as fuck and C. you are only showing me this link to taunt me, not debate me. You may say otherwise but I cannot imagine any other reason why you might give me a 49 minute video of a ranting extremist foreign Imam other than to mock me.

If you get all your information from just these videos, then that explains why you know so little about Islam outside of small little snippets. You know that dedication you put into finding out more about Christianity and critically but fairly examining it? Put that same dedication into learning about Islam because even if you don't give a fuck about Islam at least you would know what the fuck you're talking about.

@Hong Wu

Good on you and you're right. That is exactly how political Islam works. In fact, I haven't ever seen anyone seriously talk about political Islam both in the West and MidEast so kudos to you. Maybe you should learn more about both Islam and political Islam and write an essay about it here on PoFo. Like do some serious research and come to a conclusion on it. Maybe even write a book on it. You've got good ideas Hong Wu and you should release your potential!

Also read Hegel, please. You can't go wrong with good ol' Hegel.

[SolarCross]

@Oxymandias
Her point was not that people can't play silly intellectual games creating alternative interpretations, her point was that all those alternative interpretations don't matter. It is Mohammad's religion and so only Mohammad's interpretation matters, as found in the Hadith. But since you didn't watch the vid you wouldn't know that.

As for the Aussie Imam he seems to be coming from a similar position to yourself. Didn't you say something about ignoring the Hadith and making a new Islam based only on the Quran? Well that is what he wants to do! He is saying he wants to believe in a nice Mohammad that doesn't go around hacking limbs off and acting like a demon possessed crazy, so he is saying the Hadith must be discarded because of how it portrays Islam's prophet. He is saying that the reason Islam has such a terrible reputation and the reason why Muslims behave so terribly is because of the Hadith not the Quran.

[Oxymandias]

@SolarCross

Are you assuming right now that the hadith is the definitive and the most objective biography of Mohammed's actions and interpretation of the religion? Do you know anything about Islam at all? Alright, I will no longer be talking to you about the hadiths at all when talking about Islam since you seem to have no idea anything about them. If you really want me to throw most of the video out into the garbage I could tell that the hadith were made over 100 years after Mohammed's death therefore making most of the information found in the hadith to be very questionable. But you don't care about that do you?

I didn't watch the vid because, like I said, I don't have the time. I have life to do fortunately so I'll watch both of them in full later. On another note I don't see anyone making silly intellectual games to make stupid interpretations other than the West. And yes, that previous sentence bait. Go ahead, I dare you to argue that the Mutazila, Sufi, and Ahmadiyya sects are "silly intellectual games" I will rip you to shreds. You don't seem to understand who you are debating, don't you? How the fuck are you going to compete with your third-rate knowledge on Islam with a guy who was born and lives in a country dominated by it?

---

You did not understand a single thing I said did you? I bet you skimmed directly over it and didn't even bat an eye as to what I was trying to say. If you want my full thoughts on it, I disagree with it theologically. There you go, there's your reaction. Are you happy now? Are you finally at peace?

[SolarCross]

Are you assuming right now that the hadith is the definitive and the most objective biography of Mohammed's actions and interpretation of the religion? Do you know anything about Islam at all? Alright, I will no longer be talking to you about the hadiths at all when talking about Islam since you seem to have no idea anything about them. If you really want me to throw most of the video out into the garbage I could tell that the hadith were made over 100 years after Mohammed's death therefore making most of the information found in the hadith to be very questionable. But you don't care about that do you?

I didn't watch the vid because, like I said, I don't have the time. I have life to do fortunately so I'll watch both of them in full later. On another note I don't see anyone making silly intellectual games to make stupid interpretations other than the West. And yes, that previous sentence bait. Go ahead, I dare you to argue that the Mutazila, Sufi, and Ahmadiyya sects are "silly intellectual games" I will rip you to shreds. You don't seem to understand who you are debating, don't you? How the fuck are you going to compete with your third-rate knowledge on Islam with a guy who was born and lives in a country dominated by it?

---

You did not understand a single thing I said did you? I bet you skimmed directly over it and didn't even bat an eye as to what I was trying to say. If you want my full thoughts on it, I disagree with it theologically. There you go, there's your reaction. Are you happy now? Are you finally at peace?

I understand that hadith are of variable reliability, as I understand it Islamic scholars have an elaborate system for assessing the reliability of the various narrators, so this is no revelation for anyone but that doesn't stop 99% of muslims using it as an indispensable guide for understanding the Quran. And you will find it an impossible task to get very many of them to discard it. The reason for that is if you discard the hadith then you have even less information with which to assess the quran. The quran by itself lacks context. So for the Hadith unreliable information is better than no information.

The New Testament, especially the Gospels reads a lot like the hadith, there are narrators (of variable reliability) who report what Jesus and others say and do. Now imagine how much sense the New Testament would make if you would make it like the Quran by stripping out all the narration leaving only Jesus's own dialogue and then scrambling that out of chronological order. There would be a line like "Why hast thou forsaken me father?" but there would be no clue that he was saying this whilst nailed to planks of wood waiting to die!

There is a very good reason why 99% of muslims keep the hadith with the quran, their religion doesn't make sense without it.

[Politiks]

[usermention=41367]

So, to your post. [highlight=yellow]What you are talking about is political Islam, in fact, that's exactly what political Islam symbolizes and what most political religious groups or heck even most religious groups want.[/highlight]I mean, what self-respecting religious guy wouldn't want the most virtuous and righteous of his religion to take the responsibility of becoming an earthly authority? Not only that, but either accidentally or completely intentionally, you have successfully not only explained but also discussed other viewpoints for a Caliphate in the Middle East and why some MidEasterner's want a Caliphate in the first place outside of basic animalistic needs.

And even more surprisingly you have managed to achieve a revelation that few people in the MidEast and even less people in the West seem to recognize, that Islam is A. interpretable and B. has several different interpretations that change over the time periods which is astounding considering that you're a conservative who seems to have no regard for Islam. That level of resolution is strange coming from you.

So you haven't describe Islam in full, you have simply described political Islam.

Can you show me by example of Islam being anything less than political? Like a example of a Islamic country separating Islam the religion from Islam in politics?

Good luck... you wont find. Islam is inherit political, social and also the law. There isn't a way to separate the "religion" from Sharia because Sharia is Islam.

What you implied being possible, separating political Islam from the religion, is the equivalent of saying a Democratic country is possible without a Constitution, without a Justice system and without a civil rights bill.

You say Islam has several interpretations. I disagree with that. Give me a example of Islam having several interpretations. Islam is prayed in Arabic all over the world, doesn't matter where the Muslim is he prays in Arabic turned to Mecca. One of the reasons is to exclude outsiders, infidels.

Islam isn't even based on our life on earth, "Here After" is what is important, Sharia exists so you can have a decent "Here After". You should be a good Muslim not because your life on earth but because "Here After" is the end game.

You told the font to read Hegel...like for real, you're applying Western logic to understand something that works in a entirely different logic. To understand Islam you need to read the Quran and Hadiths because that shit has their own logic and is extremely poorly written, I laughed a lot reading that mess, if you have a dark humor and a lot of patience is entertaining a few times, mostly boring and barbaric, almost stupid.

[Oxymandias]

@Politiks

Why yes, I do. The Quran and it's several interpretations are an example of that. Islam, like all religions, also concerns itself with politics but it certainly isn't purely political. Islam, like all religions, is a cult that has become a wider part of society and therefore, is a part of all society, not just politics (although politically it doesn't seem to have that much influence).

Sharia was created after the Quran based on the hadiths which were also created after the Quran. Furthermore Sharia is personal law, not a legal system. It is only a legal system if all members of the community consent to it.

What the fuck are you talking about here? Are you telling me that there are no interpretations of Islam because the Quran is always written in Arabic? What sort of argument is that? Actually it isn't, the majority of "infidels" a regular Muslim would find during the early days of Islam would already speak Arabic so that's certainly not the case.

Oh so Christianity isn't the same either is it? The Quran frequently states that you must not ignore your own earthly responsibilities in fact it is anti-monasticism and if you didn't know, monasticism is the most extremist form of "Here After"-ism. The "Here After" is the end game for all Abrahamic religions.

I told him to read Hegel for other reasons other than to understand Islam. I told him to read Hegel because @Hong Wu is a conservative fascist (I think) so there would be many insights that Hong Wu might gain from reading and interpreting Hegel. You do realize I'm the type of guy who thinks that applying Western perspectives on Islam is ridiculous and worthless (it's perspective, not logic since logic is obviously universal).

The Quran and hadiths aren't based on logic, they're based on culture particularly the culture of 7th century Arabia. Also if you think it's poorly written then you must've read a very bad translation which would've probably affected your reading as whole. Given how little you know about Islam, it seems to me that you either skimmed through the Quran (I doubt you even touched the hadiths) or didn't read it at all and are just basing your beliefs on prior unsupported statements.

@SolarCross

Firstly, I'm not arguing that we should be trying to convince others to turn Quranist. I personally think Quranism is a natural progression for Islam and can be achieved through a better understanding of Islam and the removal of Wahhabi and extremist scholars from Islamic authority which is progressively happening anyways (see the Saudi Arabian heir declaring war on radical clerics: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/saudi ... le/2638480). Second, you don't understand what I mean by "vague" it does contain context and it does contain exactly how to "do" Islam and you can use only the Quran for your spiritual guidance. It simply is, "incomplete" however that is the wrong word to use. The Quran is seen as complete and requires no additions and if additions are made, that is considered a sin to Islam. So in actuality, the hadiths are the additions, not the Quran at least that's my theological interpretation of something that desperately want to reform.

Christianity, like you said, is not like Islam. They do share many similarities to the extent of which a Christian and a Muslim would have more in common than say to a Buddhist or a Hindu. However they are significantly different so you can't create correlations between them that easily. I understand what you're doing SolarCross and I appreciate it. By emphasizing the similarities between Christianity and Islam you are not only humanizing Muslims to yourself, but humanizing Muslims to others. By doing this, you give other conservatives here who may have never even read anything about Islam or talked to any Muslims get a window into what Islam potentially looks like. I appreciate what you're doing, I really do. But it just doesn't work in this context.

You see, the way you describe it is perfect. You explain exactly the similarities between Muslim theology and Christian theology yet there are clear subtle differences that lead to radically different ideas. The Hadiths are not like the Gospels even if they do function similarly to them and have different properties from it.

[Politiks]

answers in blue

@Politiks

Why yes, I do. The Quran and it's several interpretations are an example of that. Islam, like all religions, also concerns itself with politics but it certainly isn't purely political. Islam, like all religions, is a cult that has become a wider part of society and therefore, is a part of all society, not just politics (although politically it doesn't seem to have that much influence).

I didn't say Islam is purely political, did I? What I said is you can't separate political Islam from Religious Islam. I also asked for a example of a Islamic country that separates politics from religion. Show me one...just one.

[color=#000080]Islam, Like all religions Just don't, that is just a poor argument. First , religions are different and produce different societies. Second Islam isn't like any other religion, you can't compare the major Christian branches (Catholicism/Protestantism) to Islam because there's no comparison.

Sharia was created after the Quran based on the hadiths which were also created after the Quran. Furthermore Sharia is personal law, not a legal system. It is only a legal system if all members of the community consent to it.

Sharia is based on the Quran, Hadith and the 6 books of Al-Sihah, there for Sharia was not created after or before the Quran as Sharia is the Constitution of Islamic belief and is the essentials of the Quran. Sharia ISN'T by any meanings a personal law because there's no personal anything with Islam. Unlike Christians, Islam doesn't give you free will. There isn't a single moment in the Quran or Hadith you find free will. So Sharia is the Islamic Law and since there's no free will Sharia in Islam is a institution of ways of living, justice, traditions and etc. Islam is a religion/political system. In Sharia every facet of life is outlined for you: how to sell fruits, grains. Don't think at all, is all written in Sharia as every law has a correspondent thought in the Quran, hadith or Al-Sihah. [/color]

What the fuck are you talking about here? Are you telling me that there are no interpretations of Islam because the Quran is always written in Arabic? What sort of argument is that? Actually it isn't, the majority of "infidels" a regular Muslim would find during the early days of Islam would already speak Arabic so that's certainly not the case.

Yes and no. I'm saying there's one interpretation of the Quran, period. The fact it can only be prayed in Arabic is to avoid external influences from other cultures.

I used this example thinking you would easily understand I was tying this to Muslims outside the Middle East. To clarify, what I meant is a Catholic mass in Australia/England/USA is prayed in English, in Spain/Argentina/Colombia is prayed in Spanish. A Mosque and Islamic prayers are in Arabic in England, Spain, Portugal, USA, England, Japan, China, Russia... doesn't matter where they are or even if they speak fluent Arabic, Islamic prayers are always in Arabic. Is actually brilliant if you think about it.....


Oh so Christianity isn't the same either is it? The Quran frequently states that you must not ignore your own earthly responsibilities in fact it is anti-monasticism and if you didn't know, monasticism is the most extremist form of "Here After"-ism. The "Here After" is the end game for all Abrahamic religions.

Nope matte, you're wrong again. Here After in Islam is completely different from any other. First of how descriptive it is. How the trees in the Catholic heaven look like? The rivers? Do they have houses in the Protestant Heaven? Not even gonna start on Christians being able to ask for redemption before dying and being given such redemption by God. There's nothing like that in Islam. There's no redemption for infidels, for Muslims who were "bad Muslims" (the ones who left Islam for example, they go where? What happens to them? I know the answer, but do you know?).



I told him to read Hegel for other reasons other than to understand Islam. I told him to read Hegel because @Hong Wu is a conservative fascist (I think) so there would be many insights that Hong Wu might gain from reading and interpreting Hegel. You do realize I'm the type of guy who thinks that applying Western perspectives on Islam is ridiculous and worthless (it's perspective, not logic since logic is obviously universal).

LOL...seriously? Logical is universal? That is such nonsense. Did you know one of the hardest things to create in Afghanistan's first election was the idea of election as there was no word or term remotely similar to Democracy or electing your own leaders? The ballot looked like a cartoon book, they had to draw what it was. That alone shows you how logic is a construct, what is logical to you might not be logical in different cultures.


The Quran and hadiths aren't based on logic, they're based on culture particularly the culture of 7th century Arabia. Also if you think it's poorly written then you must've read a very bad translation which would've probably affected your reading as whole. Given how little you know about Islam, it seems to me that you either skimmed through the Quran (I doubt you even touched the hadiths) or didn't read it at all and are just basing your beliefs on prior unsupported statements.

I think you either know nothing about Islam or you have an agenda. Seriously, you wont win this one with these posts because I do know a lot about Islam and theology in general. I also know a lot about history and economics. For example, the idiocracy of saying Islam is based in the logic of 7th century Arabia when Islam was created in the 7th century Arabia. Obviously has that mentality since the Quran was wrote during the life time of a single man. The abnormal thing is Islam still being what it is, Muslims still live in the 7th century Arabia. Nothing ISIS does is out of the Quran, actually is exactly what Mohammad after Medina did for all his life. The culture of 7th century Arabia is the logic of those people.
.
Example: Iraq has a population of 38 million people. How ISIS managed to enter a 38 million country that has one of the best armed forces in the Middle East? If those people didn't agree with ISIS or were not with it, how they controlled a city? How's that possible? Unless ISIS controlled the army right? Then is possible.

[anasawad]

Actually no, saying Sharia is meaningless since Sharia is simply the word law in Arabic.
Then, saying Islamic Sharia as if its one thing is clearly bullshit.
You said its based on the Quran, Sunnah and the 6 sahih books.
Thats flat out wrong, as it differs between sects. Mainstream Sunni Muslims take only 2 of the Sahih books alongside the Quran.
Shias don't take any of the Sahih books and have an entirely different Imams.
Zaidis don't take either. And Quranists skip Sunnah altogether.
Outside the fundementals like believing in god and the prophet, it turns into something called "Foro'" Which means branches. This is where the interpretation (i.e Ijtihad and Qiyas) comes in. Currently there are practically no sect in Islam that agrees on a single interpretation for those. This is why they are sects to begin with.

For example, one of those foro' is the verdict for homosexuality.
Mainstream Sunnis believe its forbidden and punishable by death, specially salafists.
Mainstream Shias believe its forbidden but don't have any specific punishment for it. (also varies between Shia sects but all on this path)
And Zaidis, Ibadis, Ismailis,Ahbash and others of their likes of sects don't believe there is a punishment for it to begin with, rather its just a sinful act that god decides its punishment for each individual in the afterlife. Since the Quran doesn't mention any punishment for it at all.


And no, you don't know anything about Islam. Your posts are dripping with ignorance on the topic.

For Iraq, Iraq was in a civil war and ISIS was formed by the remaining of Saddams baath regime. Its motivation is Sunni nationalism not religious per say.
Rather the religious drive for it came from the chechan and Jordanian fighters who joined it along side a major push to that direction from the Saudi Wahabists who joined.

[Oxymandias]

@Politiks

Here you go:

Can you show me by example of Islam being anything less than political?

Good luck... you wont find. Islam is inherit political, social and also the law.

Proof you did say this.

And like I said before, just because Islamic countries have Islam intertwined with the government doesn't mean that it's theologically correct or the only interpretation of Islam. Some interpretations of Islam advocate for seperation between church and state and many prominent Islamic scholars from the Golden Age through the early 19th century advocated for such a separation.

In other words the fact that many countries with an Islamic majority have Islam as a state religion is meaningless as an argument against Islam as an ideology. We are talking about ideology, not the current conditions of the Middle East and why Islam is a state religion in Islamic majority countries.

Actually there are many similarities between Protestantism and Sunnism and Catholics and Shias. I won't go into these similarities now because at this point their irrelevant to the discussion. I just want to let you know that there is a history of cooperation between Sunnis and Protestants and Shias and Catholics due to these similarities.

Oh really? Then tell me when Sharia Law was created then? Just because Sharia law is based off of the Quran and the hadiths doesn't mean it's true and you have not given any arguments that prove that Sharia law is true because it's based off of the Quran and hadiths. Remember, the Quran is vague and the hadiths may or may not be wrong.

Oh really? Then tell that to all those Islamic scholars who have proved that there is free will in Islam through the soul. The Quran never states for you to abandon your identity and actually encourages you to keep it according to several Islamic philosophers with pretty good evidence to back up their claims.

Oh really? Do you have any hard evidence that proves that there is only one interpretation of the Quran? Do you have any hard evidence that proves that the Quran was written in Arabic to avoid external influence? You do realize that Islam has thousands of interpretations and that Arabic, as a language, has been influenced so significantly by other languages that reading the Quran in it's original Arabic form is impossible? No you don't, because you know nothing about Islam.

Ok, so? They're in Arabic, what about this proves that there is only one interpretation of the Quran? What about this is hard evidence that there is solidarity among Muslims (which is stupid of course if you even read the first thing about anythign going on the MidEast).

Ok you have not read the Quran at all, I don't even think you have touched it. At this point your arguments are so bad that I don't feel a need to respond to them. Do more research on what your fucking talking about before you open that big mouth of yours thank you very much.

Alright you have no idea wtf logic is. Logic is a system of thinking which uses a certain set of principles that can be found in all human beings. Logic is not language you idiot. Logic is a thought process. Just because Afghan doesn't have a word for election (which is ridiculous since Afghan had elections since 1949, a hundred years before America occupied Afghanistan) doesn't mean that Afghani people don't have a built in logical thought process. All human beings are rational beings with their own self-interests at heart. By assuming that logic isn't universal you are saying that some people aren't human at all.

That's rich coming from you. Honestly, you are so hard to take seriously. "I lots of stuff about Islam" meanwhile earlier "Islam has only one interpretation because it's in Arabic!" the stupidity here is astounding. Anyways, you agree with me that the Quran is a product of it's time I assume?

Actually historical Islam is so much more different than Islam now. Historical Islam was closer to Christianity and Judaism than it was now and historical Islam also had more idolatry than it does now. Most practices deemed to be idolatry to many Muslims was perfectly fine during Mohammed's life and even Mohammed accepted them. That's why Muslims celebrate many Christian and Jewish holidays as well as have similar rituals to them, because that influence is still seen today. Modern Islam is influenced heavily by Wahhabism.

ISIS's crowning ideology is Salafism combined with extreme militarism which is far from the only interpretation of the Quran.

How did ISIS do it? Well, before ISIS, America left Iraq in pretty bad shape so it was pretty easy for ISIS to take over Iraq, a country that has been destroyed, doesn't have a stable government, and is facing a civil war. Also if ISIS had that large of an army why would it be so focused on recruiting people for their cause? That would just be a waste of time if you ask anyone with a brain.