Shootings and explosions in Paris

[psynuk]

Then what, what?

[Eric Arthur]

Then what after some people agree that IS Islam isn't proper Islam, then what? IS won't care. All it does it make some Muslims and liberal thinkers (I include myself in that category usually) feel warm inside.

[psynuk]

It's clearly a preventative measure for the future, being able to categorically prove that the 'true version' is indeed not.

 

I know your getting at, 'in the meantime?' but the tit for tat revenge nature of a mostly unwilling and somewhat economically/politically/morality hamstrung kind of response serves in many ways to allow the hydraesque status quo to persist.

As it's impossible to simply wipe every muslim from the world and allowing the 'we are devout' and 'you'll get your reward in heaven' style of evangelical propaganda to pass by with out being able to nail it down as wrong only allows it to do so.

 

I can't say it's wrong or even simply a perversion of islamic tenets, can you? can anyone?

[betterman]

I'm trying to establish that IS's idea of a Caliphate is not part of the Quran and therefore not unquestionable for Muslims in general.

If it's from the Hadith or other teachings outside the Quran, then it's not the final and unalterable word of god and it is therefore incorrect to assert that IS are simply following Islam. They are instead following one interpretation.

 

A caliphate is an Islamic state. It's led by a caliph, who is a political and religious leader who is a successor (caliph) to the Islamic prophet Muhammad. They have been in existance from the start of islam.

 

One of the reasons ISIL are said to be non Islamic is because the Quran states categorically that killing any innocent soul is a gross sin:

God does not allow fighting (war) except in the case of self defence:

 

 

Sinners are not innocent so can be killed and when you look at the list of sins there can't be many innocents.

War is justyfied because they believe it is self defence.

 

They are following the examples from their own history and everything they do is justyfied according to their relgiouse texts.

[Eric Arthur]

It's clearly a preventative measure for the future, being able to categorically prove that the 'true version' is indeed not.

 

I know your getting at, 'in the meantime?' but the tit for tat revenge nature of a mostly unwilling and somewhat economically/politically/morality hamstrung kind of response serves in many ways to allow the hydraesque status quo to persist.

As it's impossible to simply wipe every muslim from the world and allowing the 'we are devout' and 'you'll get your reward in heaven' style of evangelical propaganda to pass by with out being able to nail it down as wrong only allows it to do so.

 

I can't say it's wrong or even simply a perversion of islamic tenets, can you? can anyone?

 

No, I can't and wouldn't even try. I'm not sure how much point there is in trying to show IS Islam as the wrong kind of Islam when Muslims everywhere make great efforts to maintain all sorts of variations and sects which have been at odds with each other for more than a millenium. There's no shortage of Imans and thinkers lining up to condemn IS

 

In my opinon trying to undermine IS as the wrong type of Islam is a hiding to nothing.

 

The whole world has been trying hard to deradicalise Islam for 15 years and in that meantime they have grown in numbers, capibility, wealth, support, have started a holy war, occupied two sovereign states and we're now going to have to give them what they want because they aren't going away any other way.

 

IS has to be wiped out, the Caliphate eliminated and Muslims, radical, impressionable or otherwise, released from the religious duty to be part of it. I hate having to say it but that's my current conclusion after giving it a fair bit of thought.

 

Or we could get rid of religion. Good luck with that.

[El Cid]

Sinners are not innocent so can be killed and when you look at the list of sins there can't be many innocents.

War is justyfied because they believe it is self defence.

 

 

I briefly watched a discussion program this morning, one of the guests discussing, and in favour of the UK dropping bombs on Syria was some sort of clergyman. I am sure the Christian church can justify war too.

[betterman]

I briefly watched a discussion program this morning, one of the guests discussing, and in favour of the UK dropping bombs on Syria was some sort of clergyman. I am sure the Christian church can justify war too.

 

I am also sure they can, I also watched that discussion and I liked the idea of pacifists parachuting into ISIL's territory to talk instead of dropping bombs.

[dangerousedd]

I am also sure they can, I also watched that discussion and I liked the idea of pacifists parachuting into ISIL's territory to talk instead of dropping bombs.

 

 

hmm ISIL seem to like to murder people so I wouldn't fancy a pacifists chances unless they're amazing orators.

[exxon]

I am also sure they can, I also watched that discussion and I liked the idea of pacifists parachuting into ISIL's territory to talk instead of dropping bombs.

 

There's one or two who post on here who would be good for that role. In the real world though I have my doubts about bombing Syria. There are enough folk who IS are bothering. I hear the Chinese want a bit of it too. Why not leave Russia and a few others to bomb the crap out of IS in Syria whilst we get on with doing the same in Iraq.

I don't think the Russians have our levels of scrutiny and are likely to do a far better job when every bomb blast has to be shown on TV.

[cassity]

hmm ISIL seem to like to murder people so I wouldn't fancy a pacifists chances unless they're amazing orators.

 

Which is 'bettermans' whole point likely..he would revel in their death..maybe even support pay per view.