What would happen if a Christian yelled “God is good” before throwing a pipe bomb into an abortion clinic? Would we start treating all Christians like potential criminals?
We should.
If you put more effort into your bait you’d get more entertaining responses. Step your game up, OP.
Now I’m curious, do Arabs shout “Allahu akbarr” during sex? You know, like Westerners shout “oh my God” or “Jesus Christ!” What sort of religious inspired tirade would they go on when they hit their finger with a hammer or stub their toe?
What are you talking about, ISIS don’t EVEN picket gay funerals. Perhaps they see them as a fellow oppressed minority?
But what of Jeff? What of Jeff?
ISIS thanks you for taking up their fight, and hopes you will continue to foment the seeds of anti-Islamic sentiment at home so as to swell their ranks with angry and disaffected second- and third-generation Muslim men who know their way around Western countries.
Jeff is pretty great too. The guy can rock a fez like nobody else.
Don’t forget “This is for Syria!”
Are you arguing that we should be pro-Islamic so Muslims will sympathize with us and leave us alone?
A Christian tries to get evolution taken out of text books.
Religious nutjob.
A Jew thinks Israel is their people’s Holy Land.
Religious nutjob.
A Muslim shoots civilians and blows himself up.
IT’S NOT ABOUT RELIGION, BIGOT!
It never ceases to amaze me how the atheist rationalist humanists on this board apologize for Muslim terrorists and bury the Jews and Christians, and anyone who dares make the “connection” between The Jihad and uhm Islam.
Says who? You? What Islamic study qualifications do you hold which you feel empowers you to condemn ISIS’s interpretation of Islamic texts as an illegitimate one? I mean, Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi has a Ph.D in Islamic studies. What have you got?
I read both the articles you linked to. The first is a simple strawman of Wood’s position. Wood is not arguing that ISIS’s interpretation of Islamic texts is the only correct one. He’s merely arguing that it is a plausible possible interpretation of Islamic texts, and that people who refuse to acknowledge this (that is to say, people like you) are getting in the way. Meanwhile, the second article seems to be largely in agreement with Wood, so I’m not sure what you think you’re proving by citing it.
Frankly, I doubt you even bothered to read Wood’s article. If you had, you might have seen passages like this:
“It would be facile, even exculpatory, to call the problem of the Islamic State “a problem with Islam.” The religion allows many interpretations, and Islamic State supporters are morally on the hook for the one they choose.”
Wood makes this point several times during his essay. I’m guessing you either didn’t read it at all, or got a few paragraphs in and just started screaming “Bigot!” at it until your computer screen melted.
Someone should draw a disrespectful image of Islam’s Prophet, that’ll get them good!
Depends how frequently it was happening and how many of the fellow Christians agreed with the tactic.
Neither of these involve violence.
Yes. And several hundred Islamic scholars, conservatives included, who wrote to the self-styled ‘caliphe’ as well rebuking him for his errors.
Better than an anglophone journalist who did not understand his subject fully.
I am a muslim, an arabic speaker and I am educated, and I have lived in many different muslim, and non muslim, countries.
I do not need a 2nd hand rendition of islam from a journalist to teach me anything.
That is claimed, there is not clear proof of this at all, nor does that make him qualified.
I have a French state masters in islamic history and another in the economics. I have without any doubt gone to the more qualified schools than this Baghdadi has, but so what?
His gross distortions are clear bidaa3 and outside of all historical consensus.
I do not agree at all, it is in fact on the point of the lack of good grounding and the superficial journalistic analysis without an actu
he manages to imply it is a well-founded
Refuse to acknowledge?
Any text can be distorted, but the ‘plausible’
What is “getting in the way”? I am the secular and the Muslim moderate you hypocrites claim to want to see.
Our rejection of these readings based on centuries of the tradition and the consensus is what is “in the way” of the takfiri and specificially the DAESH innovations in distortions of the texts and traditions - their very selective ones it is added.
Not some idiot anglphone journalist giving an unfounded half-learned reason to the DAESH distortions.
Prove, that even in being favorable to the subject, it is highlighting from even a friendly perspective the significant lacks of the understanding of the Islamic practice in the faith and the standard setting
Notably the discussion of the consensus
“Frankly” I doubt you are doing anything but bigotted knee jerking.
I read the article as many of us did when it was first published and every boring bigot emails us the link to prove to us that in fact the DAESH is right.
I am guessiing you have this reaction standardized in a template for any criticism of those things that fit your world view on the Islam.
Wood throughout that article writes idiocies such as "We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. " which are stupid to write in they are factually incorrect.
The DAESH theology is not medieval, it is indeed in violation of the long-held standards of the medieval, it is innovative and it denies old consensus. Yes of course it draws, selectively, on the islamic texts, but not in a medeival way, it is a modern reading in the modern ironic innovations of the takfiri concept.
throughout he also channels the particular views of the Haykel who makes actively incorrect statements that are highly selective, in what is a very maroni fashion that is so detectable. The idiocy of statements like cotton candy view is simply a political baggage, the violation of the anti-fitna princpals, the violation of the black and white Quranic injunctions against the harming of the non-combatant, these do not come from ‘scrupulous’ reading and only an active distorter can say this. The DAESH reading of permitted practice violate even the medieval ideas in consensus.
Making the idiot argument that their readings are scrupulous is serving their purposes and it is also for any Muslim reading natively in the Arabic painfully clearly factually wrong.
Yes the DAESH has its death-cult rooted in the islamic texts and yes they are an islamic radical movement, but they are something modern, something outside - as the hundreds of properly authenticated islamic scholars from across the spectrum have highlighted, any of the traditional consensus from the conservative to the liberal.
It is no accident they recruit from the western or the urban youth muslims who are weak in the learning, and that even the old Al Qaeda groups rejects them.
I’m arguing that making targets out of all Muslims only supports the culture war narrative that ISIS uses to support its ideology.
I’ve always wondered what some anti-Islamic people would do when confronted with an actual Muslim (incidences of obvious violence aside). We’re actually starting to get that in this thread, which is cool, but there’s still way too much pussyfooting, and it’s not face to face, so I suppose that affects matters quite a bit.
But we’ve already gotten “I know your religion better than you, a practitioner,” so there’s that.
Allah Akbar means God is Great or the Greatest (as the form is the superlative).
but it is used for almost any moment of surprise or stress.
I would be more amazed at how a certain people manage to grossly distort and utilize sad straw men to mischaracterize things when their gross bigotry is critiqued.
The only point ever made on this board by the non-bigotted seculars and athiests is to the simple point of not engaging in bigotry of condemning all of a religion and its believers - christian or jewish or islamic for the act of the nut jobs.
This of course gets actively distorted and hypocritically lied about by a certian kind here.
The Christian in your narrative is nutjob that is not interpreting his own religion in a rational way.
The Jewish person (seriously, maybe you shouldn’t use Jew, it seems wrong coming from you) is far less likely to be called a nutjob for his belief. That would rarely happen on this board.
If the Muslim terrorist did it for reasons of his interpretation of Islam than he is a nutjob on top of being a terrorist. Though being a fucked up terrorist seems bad enough.
None of these make any of the 3 religions inherently bad, though arguments can be made that all three are outdated forms of belief that humanity should move away from.
To take it further most Roman Catholics are not bad despite the many totally horrible things that officials of the RCC have done in recent times and the past. There is the general consensus that more terrorist are Muslim currently but just 30 years ago I think the general consensus was most terrorist were either Roman Catholic or Communist. Islam has too many radical leaders and followers but it is still a very small percentage of those that identify themselves as Muslim.
Give it another 20-30 years and it will probably be another group that is condemn for the action of a small minority of their people.
Don’t be silly. Those Christians would yell, “Jesus loves you!” before bombing anyone.