6 ms·

> ISIS beheadings are a matter of form, a propaganda tool Wrong. The beheadings are the things Mohammad did, as written in their holy books, so they just do th

by acqq 11y ago

> ISIS beheadings are a matter of form, a propaganda tool Wrong. The beheadings are the things Mohammad did, as written in their holy books, so they just do that, following their role model even without the cameras.

Shihan 11y ago
Exactly. Their prophet raided caravans, fought against anybody who did not want to convert to his new religion or even sanctioned slave owning and stoning of women (it's all in authentic hadith that belong to mainstream Islam). So how can muslim distance themselves from such things? They really can't but they try anyway by saying "has nothing to do with my religion" to avoid the argument. A better solution would be that they would acknowledge that their prophet isn't a good role model and that some sacred verses and teachings must be discarded as they are not compatible with human rights. But no, they repeat the great marketing slogan that "Islam is a religion of peace" and hope that one day it really is. But without self-criticism it will never be one.
- madeofpalk 11y ago
  I read your comment and could apply the exact same thing to Christianity. The problems you described are not exclusive to Islam, so it seems very short sighted to blame their prophet. It does have something to do with religion, but only because that is being used as _motivation_ to do bad things which isn't inherit to just Islam. I mean, Klu Klux Klan > Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in > part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity. The goals of the KKK included, > from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in > America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman." What this is about is radical _people_ finding whatever motivation they can do to force _their own views_ onto the world.
  - Shihan 11y ago
    Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries and is only seen by a fringe group as the direct word of god. What is your motivation in protecting islam? Why the finger pointing to Christianity and other religions? Sure, they also got problems, but do we currently really have a huge problem with those religions? What you are doing is like saying: "Well national socialism isn't that bad because other totalitarian ideologies also are stupid. Look at communism and how many dead people resultet because Stalin distorted the true teachings of marxism. See, national socialism isn't the problem."
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Yes, we do currently have massive problems with other religions. But when I list those problems you're going to say things like "but those aren't christians" or "those are a distortion of christian teachings" -- exactly what the vast majority of Muslims will tell you.
    - madeofpalk 11y ago
      I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to protect Islam or bring Christianity down. I honestly don't care either way about any of them. What I'm trying to explain that blaming Islam is the wrong thing to do, is pointless, and if anything it helps disenfranchise the at-risk, on-the-fence-extremeists who are (getting) upset at how everyone else deals with their religion.
      - DanBC 11y ago
        The other reason blaming Muslims is weird is that Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks and not the perpetrators.
        acqq 11y ago
        > Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks The Muslims from the another "sects" are also considered "unbelievers" by the fundamentalists (unless they join them), so it perfectly fits their ideology to do to them "what Mohammad did." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza "All Males who reached puberty and 1 woman beheaded" Directly from the holy texts: "No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords." (The "Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)" is how Muhammad is referred to in the texts. Whenever we write just "Muhammad" it already sounds "improper" to his believers.) The fundamentalists know the content of the holy books of Islam.
the_af 11y ago
In what sense is this wrong? Everyone from all sides is saying this: that ISIS is different from other radical Muslims in their effective use of propaganda. Have you seen some of their videos? They are crazy, and I'm not talking about the beheadings. They use "Western" techniques, including stuff like slow-motion for dramatic effect. Public beheadings, whether televised or not, are always propaganda, a show of force, a message to the common people. Public punishment is sometimes a barbaric form of entertainment, which is a form of propaganda as well. Historically this was the case in most countries, including those in Europe. In the case of ISIS, I also think they are meant to shock Europe and the US into action. A war between Islam and the West is just what ISIS needs. I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, but that's a different issue.
- acqq 11y ago
  > I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, Saudi Arabia is not poverty stricken, and they actually behead people for, for example, "adultery" or "homosexuality"(!) They invest 56 billion dollar per year for education, out of that billions for "exporting" their view of Islam, exactly the one with which I have problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
  - the_af 11y ago
    Thanks, I know what Wahhabism is. Yes, the Saudis who support ISIS are wealthy. Do they represent the majority of Muslims?
    - acqq 11y ago
      Salafists don't "represent" but they surely attempt to become majority and the Wahhabis are the biggest financier of Muslim education abroad, which is especially surprising for Europeans as most people just now learn what was happening for decades among them.
mercurial 11y ago
If you think ISIS doesn't have a carefully planned PR strategy, I have a bridge or two to sell you. Of course they're using medieval methods, since their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam". But it's absolutely calculated.
- acqq 11y ago
  > their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam" That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how those that don't want the reform will behave: more "pure, undiluted" acts.
  - the_af 11y ago
    Yes: pure, unreformed Abrahamic religions are not very peaceful. They are quite blood-thirsty and vengeful. Let's for a second agree that everyone reasonable wants their religion modernized and adapted to the current world (and ISIS, religious white supremacists, and abortion clinic bombers are not "reasonable"). We can disregard everyone who wants pure, unadulterated, literal Islam or Christianity. That said, there's a reasonable case to be made that this is ISIS "branding". What their leaders truly believe is unknowable, but we can see their masterful use of propaganda, with smiling jihadis next to happy-looking children, and of course also the brutal beheadings shot in high-definition using modern techniques. I doubt the Prophet approved of HD cams. There's also a good case to be made, as in this article from The Atlantic, "The Phony Islam of ISIS" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha... ) that "literal" intepretations of the Quran and other Holy Texts are a red herring. You cannot claim there is a literal interpretation; just an interpretation that claims to be literal. But holy texts are rife with ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, as explained in the article -- you can find an equivalent of "You Shall Not Kill" and in a different verse "Kill The Infidel", and you need some Wise Man to explain to you "ok, you shall not kill believers, but you can kill the unbeliever, unless there is a full moon (as mentioned in verse XYZ), in which case you can only kill goats". But this is the Wise Man's interpretation; by definition there is no single valid "literal" interpretation. And once you accept there is some degree of interpretation at play, you can no longer claim ISIS is evidence that Islam is fundamentally more blood-thirsty and terrorism-prone than other religions; just that some of the current high profile terrorist organizations are using their reading of the Quoran to justify their actions, and that they claim their interpretation is the "purest". Even within ISIS and Al-Qaeda there is doctrinal dispute, as evidenced in this other article from The Atlantic, "What ISIS really wants" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ), which shows fundamentalist clerics disagree, and this creates splits. How can this be, if all of them believe they are following "pure, unadulterated Islam"?

by acqq 11y ago

Shihan 11y ago

Exactly. Their prophet raided caravans, fought against anybody who did not want to convert to his new religion or even sanctioned slave owning and stoning of women (it's all in authentic hadith that belong to mainstream Islam). So how can muslim distance themselves from such things? They really can't but they try anyway by saying "has nothing to do with my religion" to avoid the argument. A better solution would be that they would acknowledge that their prophet isn't a good role model and that some sacred verses and teachings must be discarded as they are not compatible with human rights. But no, they repeat the great marketing slogan that "Islam is a religion of peace" and hope that one day it really is. But without self-criticism it will never be one.

madeofpalk 11y ago
I read your comment and could apply the exact same thing to Christianity. The problems you described are not exclusive to Islam, so it seems very short sighted to blame their prophet. It does have something to do with religion, but only because that is being used as _motivation_ to do bad things which isn't inherit to just Islam. I mean, Klu Klux Klan > Klan members had an explicitly Christian terrorist ideology, basing their beliefs in > part on a "religious foundation" in Christianity. The goals of the KKK included, > from an early time onward, an intent to "reestablish Protestant Christian values in > America by any means possible", and they believed that "Jesus was the first Klansman." What this is about is radical _people_ finding whatever motivation they can do to force _their own views_ onto the world.
- Shihan 11y ago
  Well, I'am an atheist, but I wouldn't directly compare Christianity to Islam just because they are two Abrahamitic Religions. For example a huge difference is the way the "holy" books of those religions were created and are treated. The content of the Koran is more or less dictated by one person and is seen as the direct word of the religion's god (this is a mainstream islamic view). Bible was written over centuries and is only seen by a fringe group as the direct word of god. What is your motivation in protecting islam? Why the finger pointing to Christianity and other religions? Sure, they also got problems, but do we currently really have a huge problem with those religions? What you are doing is like saying: "Well national socialism isn't that bad because other totalitarian ideologies also are stupid. Look at communism and how many dead people resultet because Stalin distorted the true teachings of marxism. See, national socialism isn't the problem."
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Yes, we do currently have massive problems with other religions. But when I list those problems you're going to say things like "but those aren't christians" or "those are a distortion of christian teachings" -- exactly what the vast majority of Muslims will tell you.
  - madeofpalk 11y ago
    I'm not comparing the two because they're both Abrahamic. I compare the two because if you're looking hard enough in both texts you'll find justification for evil. Extremist 'Muslims', ISIS, (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Muslims') find justification in their text. Extremist 'Christians' (I say in quotes, because IMHO they're not 'real Christians') found justification in the Bible. I'm not trying to protect Islam or bring Christianity down. I honestly don't care either way about any of them. What I'm trying to explain that blaming Islam is the wrong thing to do, is pointless, and if anything it helps disenfranchise the at-risk, on-the-fence-extremeists who are (getting) upset at how everyone else deals with their religion.
    - DanBC 11y ago
      The other reason blaming Muslims is weird is that Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks and not the perpetrators.
      - acqq 11y ago
        > Muslims are overwhelmingly the victims of fundamentalist attacks The Muslims from the another "sects" are also considered "unbelievers" by the fundamentalists (unless they join them), so it perfectly fits their ideology to do to them "what Mohammad did." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza "All Males who reached puberty and 1 woman beheaded" Directly from the holy texts: "No woman of Banu Qurayza was killed except one. She was with me, talking and laughing on her back and belly (extremely), while the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) was killing her people with the swords." (The "Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him)" is how Muhammad is referred to in the texts. Whenever we write just "Muhammad" it already sounds "improper" to his believers.) The fundamentalists know the content of the holy books of Islam.

the_af 11y ago

In what sense is this wrong? Everyone from all sides is saying this: that ISIS is different from other radical Muslims in their effective use of propaganda. Have you seen some of their videos? They are crazy, and I'm not talking about the beheadings. They use "Western" techniques, including stuff like slow-motion for dramatic effect. Public beheadings, whether televised or not, are always propaganda, a show of force, a message to the common people. Public punishment is sometimes a barbaric form of entertainment, which is a form of propaganda as well. Historically this was the case in most countries, including those in Europe. In the case of ISIS, I also think they are meant to shock Europe and the US into action. A war between Islam and the West is just what ISIS needs. I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, but that's a different issue.

acqq 11y ago
> I find your explanation about Mohammed utterly unconvincing, because most Muslims don't go around beheading people, only some. ISIS and people from backwards, poverty-stricken countries/communities do, Saudi Arabia is not poverty stricken, and they actually behead people for, for example, "adultery" or "homosexuality"(!) They invest 56 billion dollar per year for education, out of that billions for "exporting" their view of Islam, exactly the one with which I have problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabism
- the_af 11y ago
  Thanks, I know what Wahhabism is. Yes, the Saudis who support ISIS are wealthy. Do they represent the majority of Muslims?
  - acqq 11y ago
    Salafists don't "represent" but they surely attempt to become majority and the Wahhabis are the biggest financier of Muslim education abroad, which is especially surprising for Europeans as most people just now learn what was happening for decades among them.

mercurial 11y ago

If you think ISIS doesn't have a carefully planned PR strategy, I have a bridge or two to sell you. Of course they're using medieval methods, since their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam". But it's absolutely calculated.

acqq 11y ago
> their branding is "pure, original, undiluted Islam" That's actually true, and it's not just "branding," nobody can deny them that they are qouting the words in the primary holy books. And still some people believe in "peacefulness" of that "pure, original, undiluted Islam." It's the opposite: only by "diluting" (honestly reforming) it can the violence induced by it be avoided long-term. But it's easy to imagine how those that don't want the reform will behave: more "pure, undiluted" acts.
- the_af 11y ago
  Yes: pure, unreformed Abrahamic religions are not very peaceful. They are quite blood-thirsty and vengeful. Let's for a second agree that everyone reasonable wants their religion modernized and adapted to the current world (and ISIS, religious white supremacists, and abortion clinic bombers are not "reasonable"). We can disregard everyone who wants pure, unadulterated, literal Islam or Christianity. That said, there's a reasonable case to be made that this is ISIS "branding". What their leaders truly believe is unknowable, but we can see their masterful use of propaganda, with smiling jihadis next to happy-looking children, and of course also the brutal beheadings shot in high-definition using modern techniques. I doubt the Prophet approved of HD cams. There's also a good case to be made, as in this article from The Atlantic, "The Phony Islam of ISIS" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/what-muslims-really-want-isis-atlantic/386156/ http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/02/wha... ) that "literal" intepretations of the Quran and other Holy Texts are a red herring. You cannot claim there is a literal interpretation; just an interpretation that claims to be literal. But holy texts are rife with ambiguous and contradictory paragraphs, as explained in the article -- you can find an equivalent of "You Shall Not Kill" and in a different verse "Kill The Infidel", and you need some Wise Man to explain to you "ok, you shall not kill believers, but you can kill the unbeliever, unless there is a full moon (as mentioned in verse XYZ), in which case you can only kill goats". But this is the Wise Man's interpretation; by definition there is no single valid "literal" interpretation. And once you accept there is some degree of interpretation at play, you can no longer claim ISIS is evidence that Islam is fundamentally more blood-thirsty and terrorism-prone than other religions; just that some of the current high profile terrorist organizations are using their reading of the Quoran to justify their actions, and that they claim their interpretation is the "purest". Even within ISIS and Al-Qaeda there is doctrinal dispute, as evidenced in this other article from The Atlantic, "What ISIS really wants" ( http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isi... ), which shows fundamentalist clerics disagree, and this creates splits. How can this be, if all of them believe they are following "pure, unadulterated Islam"?