• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

I.S.I.S has Nothing to Do With Islam?

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟183,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
The OP is technically correct, but Islamophobes use its arguments in disingenuous and hypocritical ways.

When we see malicious offshoots of our specific world view (be they religious, political, cultural, or whatever), of COURSE we are tempted to argue that they are not "true" [insert name]: their views do not line up with ours, their reading of authoritative or fundamental concepts diverges wildly from what we see there, and it is perfectly plain to us that they must be "wrong".

I'm pretty sure the same people who are eager to point out that ISIS = (one form of) Islam will absolutely refuse to acknowledge the KKK as (one form of) Christianity.
(Or, if they happen to be atheists, that the French Reign of Terror, the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, or the Stalinist purges were motivated by (one form of) atheist world views.)

And technically, they are not entirely wrong to assess it like that, either: ISIS is a dirt-poor reading of Islam, just as the KKK is a horrible perversion of Christianity, and the Khmer Rouge would make Karl Marx spin in his grave.


Here's the kicker:
In the end, it doesn't matter how well or how poorly a specific interpretation of a world view lines up with the source material - what matters is that there's a community of believers who embraces it in this form.
Why? Because people in the KKK or ISIS can just turn around and say: "Nope, all of these others aren't TRUE muslims/Christians, because my reading of scripture says so."

Also, what does it matter that Evangelical Christianity sounds beautiful on paper when its adherents then support putting brown-skinned toddlers in cages, venerate a billionaire con man like a messianic figure and promote the most dog-eat-dog economic system imaginable?
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Occams Barber
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
The OP is technically correct, but Islamophobes use its arguments in disingenuous and hypocritical ways.

When we see malicious offshoots of our specific world view (be they religious, political, cultural, or whatever), of COURSE we are tempted to argue that they are not "true" [insert name]: their views do not line up with ours, their reading of authoritative or fundamental concepts diverges wildly from what we see there, and it is perfectly plain to us that they must be "wrong".

I'm pretty sure the same people who are eager to point out that ISIS = (one form of) Islam will absolutely refuse to acknowledge the KKK as (one form of) Christianity.
(Or, if they happen to be atheists, that the French Reign of Terror, the Khmer Rouge Killing Fields, or the Stalinist purges were motivated by (one form of) atheist world views.)

And technically, they are not entirely wrong to assess it like that, either: ISIS is a dirt-poor reading of Islam, just as the KKK is a horrible perversion of Christianity, and the Khmer Rouge would make Karl Marx spin in his grave.


Here's the kicker:
In the end, it doesn't matter how well or how poorly a specific interpretation of a world view lines up with the source material - what matters is that there's a community of believers who embraces it in this form.
Why? Because people in the KKK or ISIS can just turn around and say: "Nope, all of these others aren't TRUE muslims/Christians, because my reading of scripture says so."

Also, what does it matter that Evangelical Christianity sounds beautiful on paper when its adherents then support putting brown-skinned toddlers in cages, venerate a billionaire con man like a messianic figure and promote the most dog-eat-dog economic system imaginable?
You missed the essence of 'what is X' in the above.

The essence of an ideology X, Y or Z [Maxism, Nazism, Christianity, Islam, whatever set of organized ideas] is fully represented in its specific constitution and to be be objectively verified and confirmed with what is practiced.

Re: Islam. I.S.I.S and Muslims

Within the ideology of Islam, a Muslim is a person who have entered into a covenant with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms stipulated within the core Constitution of the Quran and supported the Ahadith. with a promise of salvation.

The covenanted terms [6236 verses] contain 55% of verses with loads of evil and violent elements.

To be more religious meant complying with more the 6236 verses.

Because the convenanted terms contains loads of evil and violent elements [3400++] evil and violent concepts against disbelievers, then being more religious, i.e. more compliant as a dutiful Muslim would meant the Muslims must be more evil and violent, for fear of missing the passage to paradise and ending hell.

It is so obvious, there are so much empirical evidences where Muslims turned violent when they get more serious with the religion of Islam, i.e. compliant to more toward 100% verses either by their own reading & understanding or preachers.

The Muslims of IS do comply with more of the 6236 verses of the Quran, thus are more Islamic than the moderates who would sidestep the 3400++ verses with evil and violent elements.

Therefore IS has more to do with Islam than the moderate Muslims.
Re Christianity and the KKK

Within the ideology of Christianity, a Christian is a person who have entered into a covenant with God via Jesus Christ to comply with the covenanted terms stipulated within the core Constitution of Christianity, i.e. the Gospels* only, with a promise of salvation.
* the epistles, acts and verses from OT are only appendixes to the covenant.

The covenant terms that Christians must comply with contain an overriding pacifist maxim, i.e. 'love all -even enemies.' Thus Christianity in essence to not condone killings of or any violence upon any human being.

The KKK cannot claim to be acting on behalf of Christianity if they do not comply with the above overriding pacifist maxim.
Btw, I understand the KKK regularly burn the cross +, so I wonder the KKK ideology is the same as Christianity's.
Marxism and Pol Pot

I am not very familiar with the ideology of Marxism and what is terms of the core constitution of Marxism.
But the point is for Pol Pot to be a true Marxism as Marx intended he has to comply with the central ideology of Marxism. If Pol Pot did not comply Marx's ideas, then he is not a Marx's Marxism but he is inventing his own Marxism.
Another point is we cannot compare with Marxism or Communism with Islam and Christianity which the former are political ideologies while latter are theistic ideologies.

The difference is theistic ideologies which is from an all powerful God is supposed to be immutable. If they are changed they will be cult and cannot be claimed to the original religion from God as supported in the holy texts sent by God via messengers.

Political ideologies are invented by humans and thus can be morphed into various forms. The variations of the original ideologies will be specified to the new constitutions or manifestos.

Why IS is more Islamic is thus objectively verified to the original immutable Quran [the core constitution of Islam] delivered via Prophet Muhammad without change to the present.

Note for example;

The core of Islam has the following dictates in the Quran, e.g.

3:118. O ye [Muslims] who believe! Take not for intimates [friends biṭānatan بِطَانَةً ب ط ن ] others [infidels] than your own folk, who [these infidels] would spare no pains to ruin you [Muslims]; they [infidels] love to hamper [ʿanittum عَنِتُّمْ ع ن ت ] you [Muslims]. Hatred is revealed by (the utterance of) their [infidels] mouths, but that which their [infidels] breasts hide is greater. We have made plain for you [Muslims] the revelations if ye will understand.​

There are many verses that command Muslims not to befriend Muslims.
Therefore the moderates Muslims who DO Not befriend non-Muslims would have fewer doctrinal/merit points down on the IS members who comply with 3:118 above and the many other similar verses.

Note there are 3400++ verses in the Quran that exhort contempt and hatred towards non-Muslims. Objectively, if the moderates do not comply with these and show contempt to non-Muslims, then they are already 3400 point lesser than the IS Muslims, not seen as favorable Muslims in Allah's eyes and may not gain as much merits in Paradise with eternal life.

Thus, objectively IS has a lot to do with pure Islam per se, while the moderates has less to do with Islam.

Note this,
in Islam, Everyone Goes to Hell First then only Heaven later.
In a sense, all will go to hell first and be punished accordingly to one sins and performance before going to heaven.
Martyrs, e.g. suicide bombers and terrorists go to heaven direct.
The moderates who do not comply with more of the covenanted terms may be punished in hell for a period before going to paradise.

 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟183,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
No, Islamism is no more the essence of Islam than KKK is the essence of Christianity.
(And if we were to measure violent and/or questionable content in both holy books, the Bible would not fare that much better even if we omitted the entirety of the Old Testament with its dashed in babies' heads, plagues and executed sabbat breakers. As fundamentalists like to point out - even the gospels mention violent punishment a lot more often than forgiveness and love.)

While Islam clearly qualifies as the most unpleasant branch of the Abrahamic family (in my opinion), due to its blunt legalism, systemic sexism and overall authoritarian mode of thought, to measure it by its most insane outgrowths simply won't do.

Also, while I do worry about Islamists, I find that evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity poses a much more immediate and tangible threat to my personal well-being and to the kind of society I want to live in, and their policies are virtually indistinguishable from the worst kind of "sharia": in some of the Southern states in the US, rape victims may soon face a longer prison sentence than the men who raped them, unless they carry their ill-begotten seed to term. And don't get me started on what demographic supports putting brown-skinned toddlers in cages the most, or wants to sell discrimination of LGBT* as "religious freedom".
It's almost ironic that the "religious right" in Western countries focus so strongly on fear and hatred of Islam, since their ethos is not all that different.
 
Upvote 0

Zoness

667, neighbor of the beast
Site Supporter
Jul 21, 2008
8,384
1,654
Illinois
✟490,929.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Married
There's this weird thing where people assume concern about these things is a binary one or the other but you can be concerned about both. The political implication seems to be that if you're really concerned about Islam that should push you into the camp of supporting Christianity which I think is a ridiculous dichotomy.

Contextually, I'm more worried about Christian interference in my life than Muslim even though I find Islamic conquest to be very troublesome. Christian political capital is massive relative to me and is constantly being asserted in American Halls of power. My concerns about Islam are dwarfed by the continuous outslaught of challenges to Secularism that I see daily and makes the concerns of Islam feel more distant and neutered.

Monotheistic religions are big on expanding their power no matter what so I hold them at arm's length. I can be concerned about both major religions at the same time.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Jane_the_Bane
Upvote 0

Ignatius the Kiwi

Dissident
Mar 2, 2013
8,978
4,724
✟357,231.00
Country
New Zealand
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
No, Islamism is no more the essence of Islam than KKK is the essence of Christianity.
(And if we were to measure violent and/or questionable content in both holy books, the Bible would not fare that much better even if we omitted the entirety of the Old Testament with its dashed in babies' heads, plagues and executed sabbat breakers. As fundamentalists like to point out - even the gospels mention violent punishment a lot more often than forgiveness and love.)

While Islam clearly qualifies as the most unpleasant branch of the Abrahamic family (in my opinion), due to its blunt legalism, systemic sexism and overall authoritarian mode of thought, to measure it by its most insane outgrowths simply won't do.

Also, while I do worry about Islamists, I find that evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity poses a much more immediate and tangible threat to my personal well-being and to the kind of society I want to live in, and their policies are virtually indistinguishable from the worst kind of "sharia": in some of the Southern states in the US, rape victims may soon face a longer prison sentence than the men who raped them, unless they carry their ill-begotten seed to term. And don't get me started on what demographic supports putting brown-skinned toddlers in cages the most, or wants to sell discrimination of LGBT* as "religious freedom".
It's almost ironic that the "religious right" in Western countries focus so strongly on fear and hatred of Islam, since their ethos is not all that different.

What is Islamism? How does it differ from Islam as it was practiced in the early centuries and is still practiced by those we deem terrorists today?

You want to compare the KKK as an example of radical Christians but the comparison doesn't exactly work given what we know of the egalitarian nature of the Gospel and it's call to all nations. It's been this way since the Apostles allowed non-Jews to participate fully within the Church.

Why is ISIS an aberrant form of Islam? They seem to only want to accomplish what the early Muslims did, which is nothing less than the submission of the unbeliever to Allah's law and to punish those who speak against it or go against it.

Can you tell us why what Isis does, is actually against historic Islamic ideology? Seems to me they were completely justified given they had a self proclaimed Caliph whose authority it was to declare war on the world.
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
4,546
4,473
Davao City
Visit site
✟306,424.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I wish more Muslims would condemn them as Christians do white supremacy.
Here are some examples of Muslims condemning groups like ISIS and other acts of Islamic related terrorism. There are several found at this link. Islamic Statements Against Terrorism – Charles Kurzman

And some more below:
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
4,546
4,473
Davao City
Visit site
✟306,424.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
What is Islamism? How does it differ from Islam as it was practiced in the early centuries and is still practiced by those we deem terrorists today?
Here is the definition of Islamism given by the author found at the link in the OP.

Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines. Islamism is only one of many possible interpretations of such doctrines, of course, but it is by far the most intolerant, aggressive, belligerent, and imperialistic of all of those interpretations... Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic... these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

Source: The Darkest Sides of Politics, II and here: Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
No, Islamism is no more the essence of Islam than KKK is the essence of Christianity.
(And if we were to measure violent and/or questionable content in both holy books, the Bible would not fare that much better even if we omitted the entirety of the Old Testament with its dashed in babies' heads, plagues and executed sabbat breakers. As fundamentalists like to point out - even the gospels mention violent punishment a lot more often than forgiveness and love.)
I note you missed out my point re the COVENANT [divine contract] a Christian had entered into with God to comply with the covenanted terms in the Gospels as contractual. The OT for the Jews is abrogated for the Christians except where in alignment with the Gospel's central ethos of love all - even enemies.

Note this specific thread on the Covenant as a Watertight Defense against Christianity as evil and violent in nature.
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

One point is you need to separate the ideology/doctrine of Christianity from the believers/Christians as human beings who are given free will and they come in all types from good to bad, ugly and to evil.

The point is if a Christian who had entered into a contract with God and the overriding term stipulated the Christian cannot kill even his enemies, then one cannot blame Christianity, the religion itself but the faulty has to lie on the Christian [the human beings] who broke the overriding term of the divine contract.

While Islam clearly qualifies as the most unpleasant branch of the Abrahamic family (in my opinion), due to its blunt legalism, systemic sexism and overall authoritarian mode of thought, to measure it by its most insane outgrowths simply won't do.

Also, while I do worry about Islamists, I find that evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity poses a much more immediate and tangible threat to my personal well-being and to the kind of society I want to live in, and their policies are virtually indistinguishable from the worst kind of "sharia": in some of the Southern states in the US, rape victims may soon face a longer prison sentence than the men who raped them, unless they carry their ill-begotten seed to term. And don't get me started on what demographic supports putting brown-skinned toddlers in cages the most, or wants to sell discrimination of LGBT* as "religious freedom".
It's almost ironic that the "religious right" in Western countries focus so strongly on fear and hatred of Islam, since their ethos is not all that different.
You cannot blame Christianity per se as represented in the Gospels for the evil and violent acts evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who did not comply with the overriding term of the covenant, i.e. love all - even enemies.

In this case, it is up to the all-wise God to judge then punish or forgive the Christians depending the circumstances.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I wish more Muslims would condemn them as Christians do white supremacy.
There is a problem here with Islam and Muslims.
The fact is the extremists Muslims are more Islamic than the moderate Muslims. The extremists Muslims are 90% Islamic since the comply with > 90% of their contractual terms [6236 verses] within the Quran - the core of Islam.

The moderate Muslims comply with <60% of the contractual terms with the Quran as a Muslim.

Therefore the moderate Muslims do not qualify to comment on the extremist Muslims on the subject of being a good Muslims.

In any case, no Muslims nor any one on earth can judge another Muslim's acts whether they are good or bad Muslims. Only Allah can do that.

What is needed is in view of the regularity of evil and violent acts from Muslims who claim they act on behalf of the Islamic God, humanity must research and critique on Islam and Muslims rationally and objective.
It would be too subjective for Muslims to critique themselves.

Note White supremacy is a racial issue not a religious issue.

However Christians can refer the white supremacists who are Christians to the overriding term of the Christian's covenant with God to "love all -even enemies". In this case, the good Christians can warn the bad Christians of their obligation to the covenanted terms of love all even enemies, thus if they do not comply with it, they will be judged by God if they commit evil and violent acts on whoever.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
I've read most of the above in the News.
Most of the Muslims above are the so-called moderates Muslims.
Some I presume are pretending to condemn IS otherwise they would be exposed as violent -note the concept of Taqiyah [lying] is condoned in certain circumstances. It is very likely they are 75% Islamic while IS is 90% Islamic which in essence is contemptuous and of hatred against non-Muslims.

Re my challenge of one verse of unqualified or unconditional love for non-Muslims from the Quran, I did further research.
Note for example this;

Two Hundred Verses about Compassionate Living in the Quran
Two Hundred Verses about Compassionate Living in the Quran

I read through all of the above 200 verses [extended to 290], and they are all conditional to the Muslims only or abrogated.
The rest listed 7, 10, 20 of peaceful verses to non-Muslims which can be easily countered as invalid to the point.

Therefore if there is not even one verse in the Quran that is unqualified and unconditonally positive to the non-Muslims and that there are 3400++ of contemptuous verses against non-Muslims in the Quran,
how can Islam be a religious of peace as claimed by those in the long list above??

Note my response above, repeated for you.

The fact is the extremists Muslims are more Islamic than the moderate Muslims. The extremists Muslims are 90% Islamic since the comply with > 90% of their contractual terms [6236 verses] within the Quran - the core of Islam.

The moderate Muslims comply with <60% of the contractual terms with the Quran as a Muslim.

Therefore the moderate Muslims do not qualify to comment on the extremist Muslims on the subject of being a good Muslims.

In any case, no Muslims nor any one on earth can judge another Muslim's acts whether they are good or bad Muslims. Only Allah can do that.

What is needed is in view of the regularity of evil and violent acts from Muslims who claim they act on behalf of the Islamic God, humanity must research and critique on Islam and Muslims rationally and objective.
It would be too subjective for Muslims to critique themselves.​
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
Here is the definition of Islamism given by the author found at the link in the OP.

Islamism is an extreme right-wing, intrinsically anti-democratic, and indeed totalitarian 20th-century political ideology deriving from an exceptionally strict and puritanical interpretation of core Islamic religious and legal doctrines.

Islamism is only one of many possible interpretations of such doctrines, of course, but it is by far the most intolerant, aggressive, belligerent, and imperialistic of all of those interpretations...

Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic... these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.
If you read the above properly, Bale claimed "Islamism" is derived from

-core Islamic religious and legal doctrines.
-hence arguably legitimate

The author [Jeffrey Bale] then qualify his opinion and views, whilst the above are legitimate from the core core Islamic religious and legal doctrines, they are not the only possible interpretation.
Thus Jeffrey Bale admitted "Islamism" has something to do with Islam itself, the core Islamic religious and legal doctrines

However Bale is reasonably balanced, i.e. while condemning "Islam Bashers' he also condemned "Islam apologism" which are people like you! So that note!

Indeed, one might say that anyone endeavouring to learn more about radical Islam will soon find themselves caught between the Scylla of ‘Islam bashing’ and the Charybdis of ‘Islamist apologism’, two conceptual ‘monsters’ that have only served to obscure the real nature of Islamism and jihadism.
In between, but much closer to the latter interpretive pole, lies the problem of Islam apologism’.2 It is the purpose of this article to highlight these complex issues and, above all, to help clarify the nature of Islamism itself
.
-Jeffrey Bale​

Despite his two prongs critique as above, from my perspective, Bale had not researched the Quran thoroughly and had not taken other deeper factors into account.

My argument is, IS and other extremist groups are complying with >90% of the Islamic tenets in the Quran as devoted Muslims exercising their expected divine duty according to pure Islam. His so-called "Islam Bashers" critiques are more objective than the subjective emotional "Islam apologists", like you.

In any case, I had argued WHO IS Jeffrey Bale to make any final doctrinal judgment on the point??

Thus we end up with a STALEMATE where IS have a free reign to act what they deemed is their divine duty, of which the real consequences are evil and violent acts on non-Muslims.

Therefore the religion of Islam is at fault for being shoddy and unable to rein in their followers doctrinally. It is not the fault of the 320 evil prone Muslims who were born naturally with an active evil tendencies.

Note the current status of evil and violence in the movies, games, sports, ideologies and the media, there is the PG, censorship and banning of the sources to ensure the vulnerable 20% of evil and violent prone of all humans [1.4 billion from 7 b] are not influenced by these evil and violent elements.

The same should be applied to Islam, there should be censorship or banning of the ideology to prevent the 20% of vulnerable 20% or 320 million of evil prone Muslims from being influenced by the 3400++ or 55% evil and violent elements in the Quran.

This is why researching and critiquing the truths of the ideology of Islam OBJECTIVELY and rationally is critical for humanity. Note my forte is Philosophy which has the default onus to be objective and rational.

You are somehow running away from the truths re the ideology of Islam.
I suggest you read the Quran again and thoroughly to note the truths I have highlighted.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
JosephZ,

You linked the following article,
http://www.investigativeproject.org/documents/testimony/387.pdf
but it seem you did not read it thoroughly just as you did not read the Quran thoroughly.

Note this from Jeffrey Bale;

A third form of ‘Islam apologism’ is the argument that Islamism has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. Marc Sageman, for example, has asserted that ‘global Islamist terrorism [is] utterly distinct from Islam’.16
Although Sageman has made some useful contributions to understanding jihadism, this particular argument is completely absurd inasmuch as Islamism is a radical political ideology that is explicitly based upon an unusually strict, puritanical interpretation of Islamic doctrine.
Hence Islamism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.
Bale however missed on the truth of Christianity. Note my argument for Christianity;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

This is why I accuse Bale's view as shallow and narrower. In addition to the above, he did not take into account the other deeper factors I had discussed here.

To further counter your views, Bale added;

If ‘Islam bashing’ and ‘Islam apologism’ are both unwarranted and problematic, even less justifiable are the inexplicable and often tortuous attempts by both Westerners and Muslims to whitewash and apologise for Islamism, a tendency that is all too common amongst academic specialists on the Middle East. The most common form of ‘Islamist apologism’ is the insistence that there are ‘moderate’ forms of Islamism as well as radical forms.17
In the notes to the article, note the following;

I prefer to use the term ‘Islam bashing’ to describe this particular anti-Islamic phenomenon, primarily because the term ‘Islamophobia’ has nowadays become a loaded word, like ‘Orientalism’ or ‘racism’, which Islamists, other Muslim activists and dogmatic ‘multiculturalists’ regularly use as a virtual epithet to try and de-legitimise, if not slander, all those who criticise, no matter how justifiably, Islamism or aspects of Islam.

At least Bale agrees with me on the bastardized word 'Islamophobia' or Islamophobe. Do you use this term?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
JosephZ,

Note this conclusion from Jeffrey Bale in his article,
Jihadist Ideology and Strategy and the Possible Employment of WMD;

In the final analysis, there is one seemingly insurmountable difficulty that faces any state or society that is confronted by hostile, violence-prone religious extremists: their stubborn maintenance of faith that their agendas and actions are “divinely sanctioned,” even in the face of looming defeat and disaster.

This is because when things are going their way, they attribute all of their good fortune to the support and will of God, but when things cease going their way, they rarely draw the equally logical but opposing conclusion—that God, in his supposedly infinite wisdom, has decided to withdraw that favor because they have sinned or are otherwise no longer worthy of it. On the contrary, they almost invariably conclude that God is increasing their suffering and misfortune precisely in order to test their faith, and then respond by renewing and redoubling their efforts to achieve their goals.

In short, to the extent that they are absolutely convinced that God is on their side and that the enemy is inherently evil and ungodly, they are unusually hard to deter or permanently undermine the morale of.

Such an attitude is particularly problematic if such extremists are determined, however long it may take them, to acquire, produce, and deploy CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radioactive, Nuclear] weapons, as some global jihadists seem to be.

I have raised this point on why humanity must be critical of the ideology of Islam within the notable factors which Jeffrey Bale had not dug into, i.e.

1. The existential crisis or dilemma
2. The psychology of evil of the 20% or 320 million evil prones
3. The imperative covenant
4. The 55% or 3400++ of evil laden verses
5. The Stalemate dilemma
6. Many more deeper factors​

You accused me of condemning everyone who disagree with me. But the point is no one I have read had dug deep into the above deeper root cause factors. Most of them are tackling the symptons, thus fire-fighting and not identifying the ultimate root causes.
 
Upvote 0

Jane_the_Bane

Gaia's godchild
Feb 11, 2004
19,359
3,426
✟183,333.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
Politics
UK-Greens
What is Islamism?
In short, it's Islamic fundamentalism, and indeed is almost like a twin of its Christian equivalent:
- Both reject (post-)modernism, science, secular human rights, the separation of religion and state, and all of the social progressive developments that we've established over the course of history.
- Both *claim* to not only aspire, but embody the earliest, "purest" form of their respective religion, fetishizing the foundational era of their world view (usually without actually knowing that much about the historical context of the same).
- Both hold that all other interpretations of their respective faith are corrupt and heretical deviations from the "pure" doctrine they believe to represent.
- Both embrace a morality that is best described as authoritarian, violent, and extremely hostile to outsiders or people who do not fit into their narrow definition of legalistic morality.

And you really, *really* do not want to look at Christianity's historical (or even contemporary) track record. Even if we were to omit the "classical" issues like witch hunts or crusades, the Colonial era alone provides such ample examples that we could practically see the blood dripping out of the ledger. And no, this did not happen *in spite* of faith. It was a direct result of certain strains of religious thought, including the commandment to assimilate the whole world into the religion.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: JosephZ
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
In short, it's Islamic fundamentalism, and indeed is almost like a twin of its Christian equivalent:
- Both reject (post-)modernism, science, secular human rights, the separation of religion and state, and all of the social progressive developments that we've established over the course of history.
- Both *claim* to not only aspire, but embody the earliest, "purest" form of their respective religion, fetishizing the foundational era of their world view (usually without actually knowing that much about the historical context of the same).
- Both hold that all other interpretations of their respective faith are corrupt and heretical deviations from the "pure" doctrine they believe to represent.
- Both embrace a morality that is best described as authoritarian, violent, and extremely hostile to outsiders or people who do not fit into their narrow definition of legalistic morality.

And you really, *really* do not want to look at Christianity's historical (or even contemporary) track record. Even if we were to omit the "classical" issues like witch hunts or crusades, the Colonial era alone provides such ample examples that we could practically see the blood dripping out of the ledger. And no, this did not happen *in spite* of faith. It was a direct result of certain strains of religious thought, including the commandment to assimilate the whole world into the religion.
The terms 'Islamism,' & "moderates" do not reflect what is Islam-proper.

Within Islam-proper a Muslim entered into covenant with God to comply with the stipulated covenanted terms in the Quran.
The covenanted terms exhort Muslims to kill non-Muslims within vague definition of threats [fasidan] and through various commands in the Quran, e.g. 9:5, 9:29 and others.
Therefore when Muslims killed non-Muslims they are doing it accordingly in the name of the religion.
As such, the religion of Islam must be blamed for the acts of SOME Muslims.

On the other hand, within Christianity proper, the covenanted terms do not permit Christians to kill non-Christians, rather love all - even enemies.
Therefore if Christians killed non-Christians, it has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Christianity may have its negative views towards non-Christians but Christianity itself do not condone the killing and violence upon non-Christians.
 
Upvote 0

Joyousperson

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
May 1, 2019
619
102
49
Beijing
✟70,743.00
Country
China
Gender
Male
Faith
Freethinker
Marital Status
Married
There's this weird thing where people assume concern about these things is a binary one or the other but you can be concerned about both. The political implication seems to be that if you're really concerned about Islam that should push you into the camp of supporting Christianity which I think is a ridiculous dichotomy.

Contextually, I'm more worried about Christian interference in my life than Muslim even though I find Islamic conquest to be very troublesome. Christian political capital is massive relative to me and is constantly being asserted in American Halls of power. My concerns about Islam are dwarfed by the continuous outslaught of challenges to Secularism that I see daily and makes the concerns of Islam feel more distant and neutered.

Monotheistic religions are big on expanding their power no matter what so I hold them at arm's length. I can be concerned about both major religions at the same time.
Don't be too selfish, you need to be more empathy to the wider community of humanity as a whole.

Note this I posted above re the threat of WMDs from the ideology of Islam itself;

Note this conclusion from Jeffrey Bale in his article,
Jihadist Ideology and Strategy and the Possible Employment of WMD;

In the final analysis, there is one seemingly insurmountable difficulty that faces any state or society that is confronted by hostile, violence-prone religious extremists: their stubborn maintenance of faith that their agendas and actions are “divinely sanctioned,” even in the face of looming defeat and disaster.

This is because when things are going their way, they attribute all of their good fortune to the support and will of God, but when things cease going their way, they rarely draw the equally logical but opposing conclusion—that God, in his supposedly infinite wisdom, has decided to withdraw that favor because they have sinned or are otherwise no longer worthy of it. On the contrary, they almost invariably conclude that God is increasing their suffering and misfortune precisely in order to test their faith, and then respond by renewing and redoubling their efforts to achieve their goals.

In short, to the extent that they are absolutely convinced that God is on their side and that the enemy is inherently evil and ungodly, they are unusually hard to deter or permanently undermine the morale of.

Such an attitude is particularly problematic if such extremists are determined, however long it may take them, to acquire, produce, and deploy CBRN [Chemical, Biological, Radioactive, Nuclear] weapons, as some global jihadists seem to be.

The above refer to the possibility of Muslim jihadists using WMDs, which is very possible given the sanction [inferred from the relevant verses] of such from their God in the Quran.

I don't believe Christians of Christianity with the overriding pacifist maxim will turn to WMDs in the name of Jesus Christ. In recent times, for Christians, there is a greater and greater separation of their religion from politics.

It may be possible, Christians in politics [from US, Russia, Europe, and elsewhere] may be involved in WMDs, but that has nothing to do with Jesus Christ commanding them to do so. This would be a political issue not a religious issue.
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
4,546
4,473
Davao City
Visit site
✟306,424.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The fact is the extremists Muslims are more Islamic than the moderate Muslims. The extremists Muslims are 90% Islamic since the comply with > 90% of their contractual terms [6236 verses] within the Quran - the core of Islam.
The fact is the extremists Muslims are more Islamic than the moderate Muslims. The extremists Muslims are 90% Islamic since the comply with > 90% of their contractual terms [6236 verses] within the Quran - the core of Islam.
This is not true.

Here is some information on what has been discovered about people who join Islamic extremist groups.

From the UN:

UN study finds foreign fighters in Syria 'lack basic understanding of Islam'

“Most saw their religion in terms of justice and injustice rather than in terms of piety and spirituality,” said the authors of the report, which was based on interviews with 43 people from 12 countries.

Religious belief seems to have played a minimal role in the motivation of this sample,” the report found, saying economic factors had become more important as terrorist groups promised wages, homes and even wives.


From MI5 in the UK:

Research, carried out by MI5's behavioural science unit, based on in-depth case studies on "several hundred individuals known to be involved in, or closely associated with, violent extremist activity" ranging from fundraising to planning suicide bombings in Britain found that far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practise their faith regularly. Many lack religious literacy and could actually be regarded as religious novices. Very few have been brought up in strongly religious households, and there is a higher than average proportion of converts. Some are involved in drug-taking, drinking alcohol and visiting prostitutes. MI5 says there is evidence that a well-established religious identity actually protects against violent radicalisation.

In the Philippines:

Cocoy Tulawie, a politician and member of an influential family in Sulu, said this has long been the norm and local government officials have been in connivance with Abu Sayyaf for decades.

He said younger members are ignorant of Islam, yet they are extremely fanatical about representing it. Their version of Islam is flawed simply because the dawas - or Islamic schools - are usually in the main towns and they do not get the chance to study the Quran "properly".

That ignorance, he said, is what makes them dangerous.



Here's another report:

Thousands of leaked Islamic State documents reveals most of its recruits from its earliest days came with only the most basic knowledge of Islam. A little more than 3,000 of these documents included the recruits’ knowledge of Shariah, the system that interprets into law verses from the Quran and “hadith” — the sayings and actions of the Prophet Muhammad.

According to the documents, which were acquired by the Syrian opposition site Zaman al-Wasl and shared with the AP, 70 percent of recruits were listed as having just “basic” knowledge of Shariah — the lowest possible choice. Around 24 percent were categorized as having an “intermediate” knowledge, with just 5 percent considered advanced students of Islam.

The group preys on this religious ignorance, allowing extremists to impose a brand of Islam constructed to suit its goal of maximum territorial expansion and carnage as soon as recruits come under its sway.


As can be seen in the above articles, Most recruits of Islamic extremists groups are not well versed in Islam and ignorance of Islam is a common theme.

Most terrorist also live worldly lives; drink alcohol, use drugs, like to party, have multiple sex partners, etc., all of which are forbidden in Islam. Here in the Philippines many of the ISIS inspired terrorists drink alcohol and are meth addicts. Many fighters for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria also use drugs.


Hardly devout Muslims.

If you read the above properly, Bale claimed "Islamism" is derived from

-core Islamic religious and legal doctrines.
-hence arguably legitimate

The author [Jeffrey Bale] then qualify his opinion and views, whilst the above are legitimate from the core core Islamic religious and legal doctrines, they are not the only possible interpretation.
Thus Jeffrey Bale admitted "Islamism" has something to do with Islam itself, the core Islamic religious and legal doctrines
I agree with Dr. Bale.

However Bale is reasonably balanced, i.e. while condemning "Islam Bashers' he also condemned "Islam apologism" which are people like you! So that note! Indeed, one might say that anyone endeavouring to learn more about radical Islam will soon find themselves caught between the Scylla of ‘Islam bashing’ and the Charybdis of ‘Islamist apologism’, two conceptual ‘monsters’ that have only served to obscure the real nature of Islamism and jihadism.
His so-called "Islam Bashers" critiques are more objective than the subjective emotional "Islam apologists", like you.
Note this from Jeffrey Bale; A third form of ‘Islam apologism’ is the argument that Islamism has nothing whatsoever to do with Islam.
Doesn't sound like me at all.

Muslims and Islamic extremists read the exact same Qur'an and Islamic texts, yet they come to different conclusions as to what they teach.
Extremist teachers and preachers of Islam have been around since time immemorial
Islamic related violence
Christianity and the Bible are being hijacked by extremists in the same way that Islam and the Qur'an are.
When have I ever said we shouldn't be alarmed about Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is a serious threat just like terrorism from many other ideologies and sources.
There is only a tiny minority in Islam who interpret the Qur'an in the way you describe here,
You are cherry picking the same verses that have been singled out of the Qur'an by Islamic terrorists to justify their actions.
Yes, it's like a cancer and it's spreading because Saudi Arabia is spending billions of dollars sending out missionaries, providing scholarships, and building schools around the globe teaching this brand of Islam.

As can be seen from my quotes above, I don't separate Islamism from Islam and I agree with Dr. Bale when he says "Islamism is inconceivable without reference to Islam."

Hence Islamism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.
I agree 100%. See above.

Bale however missed on the truth of Christianity. Note my argument for Christianity;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity
It's funny how you post a quote from Dr. Bale in an attempt to show that I'm in error, and then discount the part that shows where you actually are in error. Once again, "Islamism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity."

In any case, I had argued WHO IS Jeffrey Bale to make any final doctrinal judgment on the point??
Who are you to make final doctrinal judgment on the point? You have been doing this for several years on several different forums.

You are somehow running away from the truths re the ideology of Islam.
No, Unlike you, I know the difference between Islam and Islamism (Extremism).

To further counter your views, Bale added; If ‘Islam bashing’ and ‘Islam apologism’ are both unwarranted and problematic, even less justifiable are the inexplicable and often tortuous attempts by both Westerners and Muslims to whitewash and apologise for Islamism, a tendency that is all too common amongst academic specialists on the Middle East. The most common form of ‘Islamist apologism’ is the insistence that there are ‘moderate’ forms of Islamism as well as radical forms.17
Once again, I agree with Dr. Bale. There is Islam and there is Islamism. Islamism wouldn't exist if it weren't for the religion of Islam.

You argument here fails because you are not making a distinction between Islam the religion and Islamic Extremism.
it [This course] will clear up a lot of the misconceptions you have about Islam and Islamic extremism.

Islamism is the problem that needs to be addressed, not the religion of Islam.

I'm not saying that Islamic terrorism isn't a global problem, it most certainly is. It's also why we have incorporated Countering Violent Extremism into our ministry here in Mindanao. So I'm not trying to sugar coat the problem at all, I'm just trying to ease your fears of this evil. But your fears that Islamic ideology may someday "exterminate the human species" are not based on any type of reality.
I'm not suggesting we ignore any type of extremism and we need to address all forms of extremism regardless of the ideology behind it. You seem to be the one who is singling out Islamic extremism and ignoring the other types of religious extremism.
I am strongly against the barbaric practices imposed by the governments that impose them as are many of the Muslims that live in those countries. Those laws are based on the hard-line Wahhabi interpretation of Shar'ia.
When have I ever said we shouldn't be alarmed about Islamic terrorism? Islamic terrorism is a serious threat just like terrorism from many other ideologies and sources.


At least Bale agrees with me on the bastardized word 'Islamophobia' or Islamophobe. Do you use this term?
No, I don't. We have been debating this for weeks now, have you ever seen me use those terms? I will save you the trouble of looking back at our discussions. I haven't.

You accused me of condemning everyone who disagree with me. But the point is no one I have read had dug deep into the above deeper root cause factors. Most of them are tackling the symptons, thus fire-fighting and not identifying the ultimate root causes.
Experts in the field of terrorism and counter terrorism have found that the countries that experience high levels of terrorism also share one or more of the following characteristics: occupation, authoritarianism, repression, tyranny, and/or corruption and when it comes to terrorism and violent extremism, it's historical and political factors, not religious or even militant religious ideologies that are the primary driving forces.

Conflict remains the primary driver of terrorism in most countries throughout the world. The ten countries with the highest impact of terrorism are all engaged in at least one conflict. These ten countries accounted for 84 per cent of all deaths from terrorism in 2017. When combined with countries with high levels of political terror the number jumps to over 99 per cent. Political terror involves extra-judicial killings, torture and imprisonment without trial.

In countries with high levels of economic development, factors other than conflict and human rights abuses are more strongly correlated with the impact of terrorism. Social alienation, lack of economic opportunity, and involvement in an external conflict are the major factors associated with terrorist activity in Western Europe, North America, and other highly economically-developed regions.
(PDF)

Ninety-three per cent of all terrorist attacks between 1989 and 2014 occurred in countries with high levels of state sponsored terror – extra-judicial deaths, torture and imprisonment without trial.

Over 90 per cent of all terrorism attacks occurred in
countries engaged in violent conflicts.

Only 0.5 per cent of terrorist attacks occurred in
countries that did not suffer from conflict or political terror.

Terrorism is more likely to occur in OECD member
countries with poorer performance on socio-economic factors such as opportunities for youth, belief in the electoralsystem, levels of criminality and access to weapons.
(PDF)

A five-month survey commissioned by the United States last year in four southern Muslim provinces that showed which issues were helping spark extremism and radicalization the most.

‘‘It’s not about religion; it is about living conditions. There is an economic component to this,’’ -- Denise Natali US Assistant Secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Conflict & Stabilization Operations


I will go with the expert consensus and my person experiences and education on this subject rather than some anonymous person on the internet who parrots the talking points of anti-Islamic propagandists and uses them as sources to support their position.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
4,546
4,473
Davao City
Visit site
✟306,424.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
I've read most of the above in the News.
Most of the Muslims above are the so-called moderates Muslims.
Some I presume are pretending to condemn IS otherwise they would be exposed as violent -note the concept of Taqiyah [lying] is condoned in certain circumstances.
Taqiyya is a concept used to discredit Muslims and most Muslims have never even heard of it.


The word taqiyya isn't found anywhere in the Qur'an, but here is the definition:

Takiya (taqiyyah, taqiyya); “The principle of dissimulation of one’s religious beliefs in order to avoid persecution or imminent harm, where no useful purpose would be served by publicly affirming them.”

That definition is very specific as to when a lie is permissible.

Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that suggests that lying is acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:

"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)

"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

The following hadiths make it clear that lying is forbidden:

Verily, truthfulness leads to righteousness and righteousness leads to Paradise. A man may speak the truth until he is recorded with Allah as truthful. Verily, lying leads to wickedness and wickedness leads to the Hellfire. A man may tell lies until he is recorded with Allah as a liar. (Sahih al-Bukhari 5743, Sahih Muslim 2607)

"Avoid falsehood, for falsehood leads to wickedness, and wickedness to Hell; and if a man continues to speak falsehood and makes falsehood his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as a great liar. And adhere to the truth, for truth leads to good deeds, and good deeds lead to Paradise. If a man continues to speak the truth and makes truth his object, he will be recorded in God's presence as eminently truthful." (Sunan Abu Dawood vol. 3, no. 4971)

Aisha reported: There was no behavior more hateful to the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, than dishonesty. A man would tell a lie when speaking in the presence of the Prophet and he would not be satisfied until he knew that he had repented. (Sunan al-Tirmidhī)

The following hadith says it is one of the greatest of sins.

"Beware I inform you regarding the greatest of the mortal sins: Associating anything with Allah, disobeying parents and lying!" (Wasaelush Shia)

There you have it plain as day, lying is forbidden in Islam; and only when a Muslim faces harm and persecution and only as a last resort is lying permissible.

There are exceptions where a Muslim can tell a minor lie to keep peace and harmony among others, an example of this would be like if a wife asks her husband if a certain dress makes her look fat, and he answers "no" even when it's obvious that it does. Flat out lying and deceit is not acceptable though.

So based on the above, what do you thing the average Muslim's position is on lying? Do you really believe Muslims are pretending or lying when they condemn groups like ISIS?
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
4,546
4,473
Davao City
Visit site
✟306,424.00
Country
Philippines
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
The terms 'Islamism,' & "moderates" do not reflect what is Islam-proper.

Within Islam-proper a Muslim entered into covenant with God to comply with the stipulated covenanted terms in the Quran.
The covenanted terms exhort Muslims to kill non-Muslims within vague definition of threats [fasidan] and through various commands in the Quran, e.g. 9:5, 9:29 and others.
Therefore when Muslims killed non-Muslims they are doing it accordingly in the name of the religion.
As such, the religion of Islam must be blamed for the acts of SOME Muslims.

On the other hand, within Christianity proper, the covenanted terms do not permit Christians to kill non-Christians, rather love all - even enemies.
Therefore if Christians killed non-Christians, it has nothing to do with Christianity itself.

Christianity may have its negative views towards non-Christians but Christianity itself do not condone the killing and violence upon non-Christians.
Why would you start a thread linking to an article by a person who completely disagrees with your position? You fail to see the connection between Christianity and Christian extremism which the author points out is necessary, and you fail to separate extremism from the religion of Islam which he has much to say about.

Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism [Extremism]... or, to be more precise, ‘Islam bashers’ tend to attribute all of the regressive, bellicose and other undeniably negative characteristics associated with Islamism and its jihadist components to Islam in general. The allegation is, explicitly or implicitly, that such characteristics are intrinsic to Islam itself, and therefore that Islamism and jihadism are simply logical extensions – or simple applications in practice – of the authentic tenets and core values of Islam. Although it is certainly true that Islamism and its jihadist variants do indeed derive from specific interpretations of Islam, some of which are quite orthodox and hence arguably legitimate whereas others are instead highly idiosyncratic, what the ‘Islam bashers’ fail to acknowledge is that these particular interpretations are by no means the only possible interpretations of core Islamic doctrines, traditions and values, much less the most authentic, valid or widely shared interpretations.

For good examples of the conflation of Islam in general with Islamism, see the article that appeared on the ‘Stop Islamization of America’ (SIOA) website (and was subsequently reprinted on Bill Warner’s ‘Political Islam’ website), wherein D. L. Adams, in the course of describing a demonstration held in Copenhagen by a Danish sister organisation called Stop Islamisation of Denmark (SIAD), insisted that ‘Islam is a political ideology’, thereby collapsing the crucial distinction between Islam the religion and Islamism the modern political ideology; this article is available at http://sioanetwork.com/?p=101 . See also the film Fitna, which was produced at the behest of Geert Wilders, a right-wing Dutch politician who considers Muslim immigration to be a threat to Holland and other Western societies. In that film, various citations from the Qur’an and the ahadith (i.e. written collections of oral reports, canonical and otherwise, about what Muhammad allegedly said and did) are juxtaposed with statements by jihadist leaders and spokesmen, in order to suggest that the latter are not only following authentic Islamic injunctions but faithfullyapplying Islamic tenets by carrying out their violent actions. Ironically, although the jihadists themselves would make the very same claim in other contexts, they have bitterly attacked the film in their propaganda broadsides as an example of ‘Islamophobia’. The film can be accessed at http://www.break.com/usercontent/2009/2/Fitna-Documentary-about-Islam-660675.html.

For examples of this ‘Islam bashing’ tendency, see Serge Trifkovic, The Sword of the Prophet: Islam – History, Theology, and Impact on the World (Boston, MA: Regina Orthodox Press, 2007); Gregory M. Davis, Religion of Peace? Islam’s War against the World (Los Angeles, CA: World Ahead, 2006); several pamphlets by Bill Warner and his colleagues, including Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI), The Political Traditions of Mohammed: The Hadith for the Unbelievers (Nashville, TN: CSPI, 2006), and Mohammed and the Unbelievers: A Political Life (Nashville, TN: CSPI, 2006); a number of books by Mark A. Gabriel (a Muslim convert to Christianity), including Culture Clash: Islam’s War on the West (Lake Mary, FL: FrontLine, 2007); and several works by Robert Spencer, including Islam Unveiled: Disturbing Questions about the World’s Fastest-Growing Religion (New York: Encounter, 2003), and The Truth about Muhammad: Founder of the World’s Most Intolerant Religion (Chicago, IL: Regnery, 2007). The thrust of these books, most of which were written by ‘concerned’ conservative Christians with a theological as well as a political axe to grind, is that Islam per se is the problem, not merely Islamism... they are clearly not disinterested or neutral observers.


I have also given you examples of terrorists groups and individuals that are active today using the Bible to justify their atrocities.

The NLFT

The NLFT manifesto says that they want to expand the kingdom of God and Christ in Tripura. They have been accused of funding terrorism and forcing local tribals to convert to Christianity at gunpoint.

The government in India's north-eastern state of Tripura says it has evidence that the state's Baptist Church is involved in backing separatist rebels.


At least 20 Hindus in Tripura have been killed by the NLFT in two years for resisting forced conversion to Christianity. A leader of the Jamatia tribe, Rampada Jamatia, said that armed NLFT militants were forcibly converting tribal villagers to Christianity, which he said was a serious threat to Hinduism. It is believed that as many as 5,000 tribal villagers were forcibly converted from 1999 to 2001. These forcible conversions to Christianity, sometimes including the use of "rape as a means of intimidation,"

The NSCN

307449_e986008550330ea7c1fca42b4903a91c.jpg

Equally disturbing is the NSCN faction’s dubious claim of being the torch bearers of Christ’s gospel. Isak Chishi Swu the NSCN-IM chairman has on records said that Nagalim will send out 10,000 missionaries around the world when it achieves independence. “Our intention is that Nagalim is for Christ. We have proclaimed it. Nagalim is for Christ. God has got his plan for Nagalim,” he said. “We were evangelized by the American Baptist missionaries back in 1839, and we don’t have the adequate words to thank the American missionaries.”

There have been reports from North east region that the Naga insurgents have used threats and intimidation in areas where they operate all the name of Lord Jesus Christ...


The LRA, which has killed and maimed as many people as ISIS, claimed it was fighting for the establishment of the rule of the Ten Commandments in a theocratic Uganda. Their activities covered a large swath of Africa committing atrocities in not only Uganda, but also South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic.

"The LRA is fighting in the name of God. God is the one helping us in the bush. That’s why we created this name, Lord’s Resistance Army. And people always ask us, are we fighting for the Biblical Ten Commandments of God. That is true because the Ten Commandments of God is the constitution that God has given to the people of the world. All people. If you go to the constitution, nobody will accept people who steal, nobody could accept to go and take somebody’s wife, nobody could accept to innocently kill, or whatever. The Ten Commandments carries all this.” -- Vincent Otti, LRA Commander

Anti-Balaka Militias in the Central African republic

After the Muslims were baptised into the Apostolic Church in a ceremony attended by the village headman, they “had to show the anti-balaka [their] baptismal cards to not be killed,”

“We had no choice but to join the Catholic Church,” the oldest brother told Amnesty International. “The anti-balaka swore they’d kill us if we didn’t.” Another brother said that the family members have to attend church services every Sunday. “We have to confirm that we’re really Catholic,” he explained.

“The anti-balaka told us to go to church,” recalled Abdoulaye A. “‘If you don’t want to, we’ll kill you,’ they told us.”

“If you refuse to be baptised you have to pay a fine,” said Hassan I., age 61, who lived in Balego until recently

“It is effectively illegal for us to pray,” said Abdou Y., in Mbaiki. “We have to hide, do it quickly, and do it by ourselves. Collective Friday prayers are impossible.”

Besides massacres, sectarian killings, and wholesale ethnic cleansing, one of the clearest signs of the intensity of sectarian animus was the destruction of the country’s mosques. In town after town, village after village, mosques were looted, vandalized, damaged or destroyed in early 2014, at the same time that the Muslim population was driven out. Some have estimated that more than 400 mosques were destroyed.



The NPA/Communist ideology is a form of Christian Communism like what is found in Latin America. This is why you see many of it's members who also belong to the Church.

''They begin to see God as a historical process, Christ as a liberator and faith becomes commitment to the Communist Party. ''It used to be the church said killing could only be justified in self-defense,'' the priest said. ''But in our case, where there is what we call structural injustice, we believe you don't have to wait for the other person to kill you first before you kill them.''

There have been two serious attacks in just the past several months in the US where the Bible has been quoted by terrorists to justify their actions.

“Jews are the children of Satan. (John 8:44) — —- the Lord Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.” -- Robert Bowers, before killing 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, PA

I did not choose to be a Christian. The Father chose me. The Son saved me. And the Spirit keeps me... My God does not take kindly to the destruction of His creation. Especially one of the most beautiful, intelligent, and innovative races that He has created. Least of all at the hands of one of the most ugly, sinful, deceitful, cursed, and corrupt. My God understands why I did what I did.

“I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan”
(Revelation 2:9).

“Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee” (Revelation 3:9). -- From the Manifesto of John Earnest, gunman who entered a synagogue in California killing 1 person and injuring 3 others.

Under "The Doctrine of Discovery" and "Manifest Destiny." The Bible was used to justify the conquering of non-Christian lands and Christianizing the native populations.

This is one of the primary verses used in support of Christian Imperialism:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.(Genesis 1:28)

Notice its similarity to the statement below:

“free and ample faculty…to invade, search out, capture, vanquish, and subdue all Saracens [Muslims] and pagans whatsoever, and other enemies of Christ wheresoever placed, and the kingdoms, dukedoms, principalities, dominions, possessions, and all movable and immovable goods whatsoever held and possessed by them and to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery, and to apply and appropriate to himself and his successors the kingdoms, dukedoms, counties, principalities, dominions, possessions, and goods, and to convert them to his and their use and profit." (Romanus Pontifex, 1455)

This was also sited in the US Supreme Court:

We maintain that the principle declared in the fifteenth century as the law of Christendom, that discovery gave title to assume sovereignty [a right of domination] over and to govern the unconverted [infidel] natives of Africa, Asia, and North and South America, has been recognized as a part of the national law [law of nations], for nearly four centuries, and it is now so recognized by every Christian power in its political department and its judicial….Our claim is based on the right to coerce obedience. (State v. Foreman, Supreme Court of Tennessee, 1835)

The above doctrine lead to the deaths of countless millions throughout the world and the suffering of even more.

It's impossible to have any kind of serious dialog about violent extremism and religious violence with someone who claims the above examples have nothing to do with Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0