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

Ignatius the Kiwi said:

What exactly is the Christian twin of Islamic Fundamentalism? I assume you mean Christian Fundamentalism in which case we're talking about a narrow brand of Christianity that cannot hope to represent broader Christendom in the past or even in the present.

I'm not sure I even buy your comparison. Put me in a room with a Christian Fundamentalist. We may yell at each other but I doubt he would cut off my head If I said something about the blessed virgin he disagrees with.

Still you only isolated one aspect of my question, which was to suggest that Isis is a legitimate interpretation of Islam that to me doesn't seem at all contrary to how Islam has historically worked. Why is it wrong for ISIS to seek to conquer the world?

Comparing that with Christendom is different, though you aren't the only one with a working knowledge of how the Christian world dealt with others in the Crusades or other events. I happen to think the Crusades were partly Justified, not all of them, nor all their actions, but they were not some tragedy against human dignity. Also, yes, they did happen due to Catholic zeal, but this is not inherently a bad thing. The crusades unlike the Jihads were limited in scope and stopped. They were a peculiar historical movement which did not appear with Christianity at the beginning but emerged much later down the line and due to factors and influences beyond a return to basic Christianity. Certainty few think the Fourth Crusade Justified or an act of pious Christianity.

Still, how do you determine that Islamism is distinct from early Islam based on the actions of Muhammad (who conquered much of Arabia) and the early Caliphs (who conquered Persia, Egypt, North Africa, Syria, Central Asia and Palestine? Does bringing up Christianity's historical record (which can be debated) actually disprove anything I've said or that others have said, when it comes to Islam and Isis being a legitimate interpretation thereof?

Click to expand...

Instead of explaining and justifying certain evil and violent acts of certain Christians in the past, present or future, what do you think of my thesis;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

With the concept of the covenant, a Christian enter into a individualized covenant [divine contract] with God to comply with the stipulated covenanted terms that prohibit the Christian from killing or committing evil acts upon non-Christians and all others.
With such a blanket prohibition, Christianity cannot be blamed for the evil and violent acts committed by Christians who are human beings given free will.

With the above, Christians on their own free will may have committed evil and violent acts by their own evil nature or by being morally responsible in doing some greater good or justified wars. These such acts has nothing to do with Christianity itself condoning them.

Ultimately God will judge those acts to either punish or forgive them depending on the circumstances of each case.

The point is, if Christians act outside the stipulated covenanted terms of Christianity [e.g. killing, raping, etc.], it has nothing to do with Christianity per se.

JosephZ said:

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.

Click to expand...

What I read is those Muslims who "drink alcohol, use drugs, like to party, have multiple sex partners, etc." and then turned to become terrorists is because Islam provide instant redemption if they take the martyrdom path to salvation and all their past sins will be forgiven by Allah. e.g.

From Hip Hop Dancer to Jihadist
From hip-hop dancer to jihadist: How dad tracked down son in Syria - CNN

I have read of many of such cases, but difficult finding them again in google.

I agree many of the individual terrorists may not have a good grounding on the doctrines of Islam themselves.
However the group they belonged to [with scholars and clerics] are well grounded on the central ethos of Islam-proper. E.g. Dr. Baghdadi the head of IS has a PhD in Islamic Studies.
In addition, there are also many individuals who had been serious with Islam from their own self-study of the Quran and Ahadiths.

One critical point is, no Muslims would dare to deliberately twist the interpretation of the words of Allah [all-knowing] else they will end up being punished severely in hell.
Therefore those Muslims who committed evil and violent acts were being sincere in their divine duty in accordance with Allah's command.

However one thing is very clear, those Muslims who killed non-Muslims for being disbelievers and had committed 'fasidan' [corruption, wrongs] against Islam are complying with the commands of Allah in the Quran, thus very Islamic.

I agree with Dr. Bale.

Doesn't sound like me at all.

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."

I agree 100%. See above.


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."

Click to expand...

Note Islam perfected from Allah [5:3] is immutable and cannot be edited nor changed in anyway.

So, if you agree Islamism is part and parcel of Islam, why are you not condemning Islam itself as a whole?

Note in general if a thing is contaminated with very dangerous poison in part and the poison cannot be gotten rid of, then we have to get rid of the whole thing.

What error?
Dr. Bale is ignorant [from what I have read] of the significance of the concept of covenant within Christianity. I have argued we need to separate the ideology/doctrine of Christianity from Christians as human being in relevance to this issue.

Who are you to make final doctrinal judgment on the point? You have been doing this for several years on several different forums.

Click to expand...

I did not insist my judgment is final but it is subject to the objective arguments I have presented with evidence from Islamic sources.
If Allah in the Quran exhorts Muslims to kill disbelievers upon vague definition of threats [fasidan], that is very objective with reference to the verses in the Quran.

No, Unlike you, I know the difference between Islam and Islamism (Extremism).

Click to expand...

Note my objective arguments with evidence from Islamic sources that 'Islamism' is part and parcel of Islam-proper. I have argued 'Islamism' is 90% Islam.

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.

Click to expand...

Then why are you not condemning Islam as a whole.

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

Click to expand...

I have argued Islamism is part and parcel of Islam.
Re immutability of the Quran, you cannot edit nor change the Islamism bits of the Quran.
So how you resolve Islamism without resolving Islam first.

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.

Click to expand...

I have argued the so-called experts have not dug into the deeper root causes as I had highlighted in here.

Note I have written to Jeffrey Bale to highlight to him of the omissions that he had not dug deeper to the ultimate and proximate root causes. Hope he respond to my email on the issue.

JosephZ said:

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?

Click to expand...

I stated SOME [not all] of those who condemned IS are likely to lie for political correctness reasons. The rest are merely being ignorant of the true inherent nature and ethose of Islam per se in accordance to the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Note the Saudi Government is already practicing 90% of what IS had done and is doing except for the more horrific acts, like burning disbelievers in cages, throwing of homosexuals from tall buildings, and the likes. So their condemning of IS has little significance.

It may not be specifically Taqqiyah which is more for the Shia, but there are provisions for Muslims to lie, especially when Allah is the greatest deceiver;


Note the term l-mākirīna is extended to deceiving, lying, and the likes;

The above all involve lying and deceit.
Note the Stalemate dilemma, i.e. who is to judge in such interpretation to the meaning on hand.

JosephZ said:

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


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.

Click to expand...

Why not?
I started the thread with that article as a basis for a discussion for posters to agree or disagree and giving their views.

The point is Bale agreed Islamism is part and parcel of Islam.
I agree with Bale on this point but I argued Islamism is 90% Islam based on objective evidences from the contents of the 6236 verses of the Quran.

Re Christianity itself as having nothing to do with the evil and violent acts of Christians, I have already argued strongly in this thread;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

You have not provided any effective countered against my thesis.

Note this analogy, for example;
The above analogy is the same with the divine agreement a Christian of Christianity who had entered into an agreement with God to comply with the covenanted term that prohibit Christians from committing evil and violent acts upon non-Christians and others. Note the overriding pacifist maxim of love all - even enemies.

Therefore in principle any Christian and those Christians who had committed evil and violent acts had done them on their own free will and not in accordance to any commands from Jesus Christ.

Note you as a Christian, you must respect, have faith and revere your own God's omnipotence and omniscient such that your wise God knows best on how to ensure Christianity is absolved from blame by the independent evil and violent acts by Christians who were given free will to act on their own.
In your counter arguments above, you are insulting your own God as incompetent and stupid to allow Christianity to be blamed.
What kind of Christian are you??

JosephZ said:

Not a single study I have read or any course I have taken on the subject of violent extremism mentioned this as a reason as to why people join Islamic terrorist groups. I have read where this was not a factor though. Below are two examples.

Eli Berman, Radical, Religious, and Violent 9-13, 212 (2009) (relying upon Israeli study of Muslim suicide bombers, among other evidence, to demonstrate that “religious terrorists, even suicide bombers [are] not particularly motivated by heavenly rewards”)

“Most saw their religion in terms of justice and injustice rather than in terms of piety and spirituality,”

Where are you reading that people become terrorists because Islam provides instant redemption if they take the martyrdom path to salvation and all their past sins will be forgiven by Allah? Can you provide a source?

Here is yet another study to go along with the many others that have concluded that religion is not the primary factor when it comes to people joining Islamic terrorist groups.

From Cradle to Grave: The Lifecycle of Foreign Fighters in Iraq and Syria
Combating Terrorism Center at West Point United States Military Academy

Less than 15% of fighters coded by religious background had any formal religious education. Additionally, individuals who made the decision to become a foreign fighter tended not to be lifelong strict adherents to Islam, but also rarely appeared to be recent converts. Those who were Muslims since childhood (but not overly religious), as well as those who were converts (but not too recent), were well-represented in the data.

One other way to parse out the role of religion is to try to assess the level of each fighter’s religious education. In an attempt to code religious education, we asked coders to code both formal types of religious education (at a madrasa or other religious institute of higher education) as well as informal types (indications that they had been part of a study group or sought religious guidance at a local mosque). Much like the data related to the coding of an individual’s conversion to the Islamic faith, the sample in the case of religious education was also very small (n = 203). The results of this breakdown can be seen in Figure 3.9, which shows that a small minority of the foreign fighters had any formal religious education (less than 15%), while the majority of them had no religious guidance (or just basic guidance) before their travel.

Both findings indicate that the majority of the foreign fighters had limited familiarity with the tenets of the Islamic faith. This is consistent with the findings from the CTC’s earlier report, which showed that very small numbers of foreign fighters reported having any religious education and that approximately 70% of fighters reported having a basic knowledge of Shari`a law.

Given these findings, it seems that the ability of the foreign fighters to develop an emotional and cognitive attachment to the jihadi community is based on other factors, which may be more related to cultural and political dimensions of their identities as Muslims in non-Muslim societies than religious triggers. The ability of jihadi groups to recruit foreign fighters is thus based on creating a narrative that is focused on the ongoing deprivation of Muslims, both in specific Western polities, as well as in the international arena. While convincing them that joining the jihadi movement based on specific religious imperatives may be important, it seems to play a secondary role. Moreover, our findings also correspond with primary sources indicating that jihadi groups in general prefer to recruit individuals who have limited religious education since they are less capable of critically scrutinizing the jihadi narrative and ideology, in addition to being less familiar with contrasting Islamic schools of thought.

While it is difficult to ascertain whether the recruiter or potential foreign fighter initiates the connection, it seems that religious figures play a relatively minimal role in this process, a fact that provides support for previous findings indicating that political and cultural aspects of jihadi ideology play a greater role in the radicalization of foreign fighters than strictly religious ones. (PDF)

Click to expand...

Note there are many verses that assured martyrs of paradise with eternal life. e.g.



As I had stated I am a very vociferous readers and I have read of many claims by jihadists and writers who claimed the jihadists past sins are forgiven for being a martyr.
(Islam in general do not condone suicide in general, but martyrdom is not suicide in general).

Here is an academic paper [for sale] which give a glimpse to the point.

a fact that provides support for previous findings indicating that political and cultural aspects of jihadi ideology play a greater role in the radicalization of foreign fighters than strictly religious ones.

Click to expand...

'Mischief' [fasidan] is a basis for Muslims to kill non-Muslim [note 5:32-33].


There are many such verses [a quick find re above] where the occupation and interfering in Muslims' land [political, war, social, cultural] is a mischief [fasidan] and preachers will influenced potential jihadists to rely on this permission to kill non-Muslims as a martyr and provide them the expeditious passage to paradise.

Yes, many of the leaders of these extremists groups do have a solid foundation in Islamic studies, but this doesn't mean they are teaching Islam properly to their followers. These groups prey on the religious ignorance of its followers, 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.

I have also mentioned this in the past on this forum:

Click to expand...

Note what is Islam-proper is objective represented by the 6236 verses of the Quran supported by the Ahadiths.
I had argued the so-called extremists are 90% Islamic in compliance with the Quran. They believe they are obeying the commands of Allah and the Messenger. Note no Muslim would dare to do things their own way against the all powerful and all knowing Allah to gain the priceless salvation.
In addition, WHO ARE YOU or anyone to judge them and note the STALEMATE dilemma.

If you are going to use this measure of judgement against Islam, then you will have to do the same with Christianity. I have provided you with examples of how individuals and governments have perverted the teachings found in Christianity and the Bible to commit atrocities, enslave people, and conquer lands. The poison isn't found in the religion its self, the poison is found in the individuals who twist the scriptures and teachings of these religions to push their personal agendas and to achieve their goals.

Click to expand...

Christianity is only confined to the Gospels and within the Gospels do not permit Christians to kill any human but to love all -even enemies.

Btw, at the worst even if I agree Christianity is the same [if at all] that will not absolve Islam from the evil and violent acts committed by SOME Muslims inspired by the doctrine of Islam itself. So don't use this Tu Quoque Fallacy.

Hopefully he will write back and maybe he will be able to reach you better than I and many others have been able to do on this subject.

Click to expand...

Note Dr. Bale stated Islamism is part and parcel of Islam.
What we disagree is, he believe Islamism is not the full of Islam. I will demonstrate to him objectively with evidence, why Islamism is 90% Islamic in accordance to the Islamic sources. Being an academic, I am sure he will not ignore objective evidences.

There is no legitimate/well accepted translation of the Qur'an that interprets the word "l-mākirīna" as deceiver. Here are some of the more popular translations:

Sahih International: And the disbelievers planned, but Allah planned. And Allah is the best of planners.

Pickthall: And they (the disbelievers) schemed, and Allah schemed (against them): and Allah is the best of schemers.

Yusuf Ali: And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.

Shakir: And they planned and Allah (also) planned, and Allah is the best of planners.

Muhammad Sarwar: The unbelievers plotted and God planned, but God is a much better planner;

Mohsin Khan: And they (disbelievers) plotted [to kill 'Iesa (Jesus) ], and Allah planned too. And Allah is the Best of the planners.

Arberry: And they devised, and God devised, and God is the best of devisers.

Click to expand...

None, you are very sure??

Note this;

Btw, the deception of Allah is supported by various contexts within the Quran.

I have mentioned before, I have access to >50 Englilsh Translations of the Quran.

This is one test of my intellectual integrity, i.e. I don't simply pull views out of the blue but always support my views with references or rational arguments.

In the context that this verse is used it's telling the story of Jesus and how those who didn't believe Him were planning to kill Him, but God had another plan to protect Him from those people. When put in context, it is obvious that l-mākirīna isn't to be interpreted as deceiver.

When Jesus sensed disbelief on their part, he said, “Who are my allies towards God?” The disciples said, “We are God’s allies; we have believed in God, and bear witness that we submit.”

“Our Lord, we have believed in what You have revealed, and we have followed the Messenger, so count us among the witnesses.”

They planned, and God planned; but God is the Best of planners.

God said, “O Jesus, I am terminating your life, and raising you to Me, and clearing you of those who disbelieve. And I will make those who follow you superior to those who disbelieve, until the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is your return; then I will judge between you regarding what you were disputing. (Qur'an 3:52-55)

Click to expand...

This is irrelevant and off topic because the Allah in the Quran condemned the present Bible and NT on hand as corrupted.

First you pulled the "taqiyya" card and now the "Allah is the great deceiver" card. The only place you will find these terms and content is from anti-Islamic sources which is obviously where all of your material is coming from.

Click to expand...

Note I have given you the source from the above referenced Quran.

Here is what Dr. Bale says:

Islamism, including jihadism, is inconceivable without reference to Islam, just as Christian Reconstructionism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.

I said this earlier in the thread, but here it is again, what Dr. Bale says in his article is that extremists and extremist groups like ISIS use the exact same religious texts as mainstream Muslims, yet they come to opposing conclusions as to what the religion of Islam teaches. The only thing ISIS has in common with the religion Islam are their use of the Qur'an and other Islamic religious texts to justify their actions just the same as Christian terrorist groups like the NSCN, NLFT, and LRA use the Bible to support theirs. Neither Islamic extremists nor Christian extremists represent the true teachings of the religions that claim to represent.

He clearly disagrees with you as the following shows:

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... ‘Islam bashing’ nowadays normally takes the form of conflating Islam, one of the world’s most historically important and influential religions, with Islamism... ‘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... 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.

Click to expand...

You have not read Bale's article - which you yourself referenced - thoroughly.

Bale's analogy or correlation to Christianity is false because Christianity-proper [overriding pacifist maxim] do not condone evil and violent acts as Islam does in the Quran and the Ahadith.

In your OP here is what you said about Dr. Bale.

I guess he only deserves praise from you when he says something that agrees with your point of view. Almost everything in his full article disagrees with what you have been saying on this forum.

Click to expand...

What is that - "almost everything -disagrees with mine view?

Mine is an objective view on a point to point basis.
I will agree to his points which are well substantiated objectively but not on point which I believe he has omitted critical factors,e.g. his critique of 'Islam Bashers' and other factors omitted.

JosephZ said:

But individuals use Christianity and the Bible to justify their evil and violent acts as I have shown.

The Bible says the following, but individual Christians still choose to ignore the word of God.

The LORD tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence (Psalm 11:5)

There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil,a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community. (Proverbs 6:16-19)

As for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur. (Revelation 21:8)

Envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:21)

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’ (Matthew 7:21-23)

Click to expand...

That is my point.

When Christians do not obey the Gospels, it is not Christianity-the-religion's fault.

The same exact sins are forbidden in Islam, but many Muslims choose to ignore the teachings found in their religion as well.

Click to expand...

Islam and Quran forbid Muslims to consume drinks with alcohol, to gamble, accept interest charges and other negatives, but there are Muslims who drink and gamble. In this case we cannot blame Islam for condoning drinking alcohol and gambling.

But as far as the killings and violent acts of non-Muslims by Muslims [divinely driven], they are complying with the commands of Allah as stipulated in the verses in the Quran. In these cases, these Muslims do not view their acts as evil and violent but as good and a divine duty to please Allah to gain salvation in paradise with eternal life.

Btw, there is no way YOU, me or anyone who can judge them on those acts, only Allah can judge. They will continue to kill, murder, rape, enslave, etc. unhindered doctrinally, to pursue their salvation and eternal life in paradise.

How have I insulted God or blamed Christianity? I have clearly put the blame on individuals or governments.

Click to expand...

Note you have not defended Christianity against accusations that Christianity is associated with evil and violent acts in the strongest sense when such a watertight argument is available.

The point that you keep the accusation loosely, that is an insult to your all knowing and all-wise God. Note your usual Tu-Quoque Fallacy, i.e. your very often counter, "what about Christianity?"
You must have faith in your own Christian God without wavering with the above excuses.

The point is whenever Christianity is accused with the slightest indication, you must stamp your feet and insist it is 100% certain there is no way, Christianity can be blamed for the evil and violent acts of Christians as human beings with free will.

Islam on the other hand do not have a fool proof argument to defend itself against evil and violent acts committed by SOME evil prone Muslims who obeyed Allah and his Messenger precisely in accordance to the verses in the Quran and Ahadith.

Note I had challenged you;
-show one verse in the Quran that is positive to non-Muslims which is unconditional and unabrogated.
You can google and search for them. Whichever are listed [usually less than 10 - the usual 2:256, 5:32, 109:6, 41:34] can be countered by some conditions or are abrogated with an evil laden verse.

Just imagine it is less than 10 in the Quran, against the overwhelming tsunami of 3400++ verses [objectively proven] with negative elements that are contemptuous, antagonistic, derogatory, filled with hatred directed at non-Muslims.
It is 1000 times worst in the Ahadith.

JosephZ said:

I will add some context to these verses:

O you who believe! Shall I inform you of a trade that will save you from a painful torment? That you believe in God and His Messenger, and strive in the cause of God with your possessions and yourselves. That is best for you, if you only knew.

He will forgive you your sins; and will admit you into gardens beneath which rivers flow, and into beautiful mansions in the Gardens of Eden. That is the supreme success. And something else you love: support from God, and imminent victory. So give good news to the believers.

O you who believe! Be supporters of God, as Jesus son of Mary said to the disciples, “Who are my supporters towards God?” The disciples said, “We are God's supporters.” So a group of the Children of Israel believed, while another group disbelieved. We supported those who believed against their foe, so they became dominant. (Qur'an 61:10-14)

Here is a cross reference to the above:

God has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties in exchange for Paradise. They fight in God’s way, and they kill and get killed. It is a promise binding on Him in the Torah, and the Gospel, and the Quran. And who is more true to his promise than God? So rejoice in making such an exchange—that is the supreme triumph.

Those who repent, those who worship, those who praise, those who journey, those who kneel, those who bow down, those who advocate righteousness and forbid evil, and those who keep God’s limits—give good news to the believers. (Qur'an 9:111-112)

The verses you quoted are telling the Muslim that if they are willing to sacrifice their wealth, worldly possessions, and even their life, for their faith, that they will receive in return a forgiveness of their sins, avoid punishment, and spend an eternity in paradise.

This applies to all Muslims. It's not exclusive to those who are martyred for their faith or defending their faith. For those who are fighting unjustly, committing, murder, or other sins, they will not be rewarded.

Click to expand...

Yes the above applied to all Muslims.
But note the pool of 320 millions evil prone Muslims.
If 1% are susceptible to the suicide strategy, that is 16 million, 0.1% = 160,000 and 0.01% = 16,000.
But from evidence, the actual numbers of suicide bombers could perhaps be around 1000+ but they have caused terrible evil and violent acts.

Note the point 'strive with your lives for the cause of Allah' which the jihadists would interpret 'sacrifice one live' with a bombs tied to themselves or driving a vehicle with bombs towards the infidels. I had stated, they do not interpret such a war strategy as suicide as suicide-in-general, i.e. self inflicted dying for no reason.

Then you should have no problem providing some examples.

Click to expand...

I did not state this a common strategy, it is one of the strategy to search from such sinful people to influence them to be 'suicide bombers' thus I had difficulty finding the reference from google.
Note I referenced on Belgium hip hop dancer who turned jihadist after two months of being serious with Islam.

I read the article. Below is the part you quoted above in context:

View attachment 257914
As can be seen, it doesn't support the point you are trying to make. In the example above where your quote originates, those who were dying were fighting for their country, and not for rewards from Allah. Also, the man responsible for this concept didn't recognize suicide bombings as a form of martyrdom.

Here is some more from the article:

View attachment 257917

View attachment 257920 View attachment 257919
View attachment 257918
Source for the above screenshots: Moghadam, Assaf. "Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaida, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide Attacks." International Security 33, no. 3 (2008): 46-78. Motives for Martyrdom: Al-Qaida, Salafi Jihad, and the Spread of Suicide Attacks on JSTOR.

Click to expand...

As I stated, I did not have access to the full article, thus thought it is most likely.
There is no reference to Abdullah Azzam in that article so I will have to read up what is his actual views.

In any case, the jihadists had interpreted 'striving for the cause of Allah with your live' as a war strategy and not as a suicide. Note I stated the Quran itself do not condone suicide-in-general, but this is a war strategy which is no difference in going to the front line of any battle and facing the greater possibility of getting killed.

Note the STALEMATE dilemma, who is Abdullah Azzam to judge the jihadists' interpretaiton which has been very effective in their eyes toward the cause of Allah, e.g. 911 was a great morale booster for Islam.

Here is what a couple of other studies have found:

Instead of religion, what over 95 percent of all suicide terrorist attacks since 1980, all around the world have in common is a specific strategic goal, to compel modern democracies to withdraw combat forces from territory the terrorists prize greatly.

What we've seen is that some of these terrorist organizations have become very innovative in digging deep in Islamic histories to find traditions, perhaps archaic traditions, to justify the killing of civilians, to justify Muslims killing Muslims, and to justify killing yourself, as an Islamic, you're strictly prohibited from suicide.
The Motivations of Suicide Bombers

The evidence from the database largely discredits the common wisdom that the personality of suicide bombers and their religion are the principal cause. It shows that though religion can play a vital role in recruiting and motivating potential future suicide bombers, the driving force is not religion but a cocktail of motivations including politics, humiliation, revenge, retaliation and altruism.
What Motivates the Suicide Bombers? | YaleGlobal Online

Eli Berman, Radical, Religious, and Violent 9-13, 212 (2009) (relying upon Israeli study of Muslim suicide bombers, among other evidence, to demonstrate that“religious terrorists, even suicide bombers [are] not particularly motivated by heavenly rewards”)

Study after study have come to the same conclusions.

While the vast majority of Islamic suicide bombers are primarily motivated by something other than rewards from Allah, those who feel that they will be rewarded for carrying out such attacks have been mislead by the leaders of Islamic terrorist groups. These terrorist groups use their knowledge of Islam to manipulate and radicalize those who are ignorant of Islam with a perverted version of the religion in order to pursue their agenda.

Click to expand...

Note Islam is a way of life for a Muslims thus cover all aspects of life including political and everything else.
I do agree there are elements of exploitation for political reasons but that is because Islam itself allows it, thus the ideology of Islam is the problem, which is the point I am asserting.

Note I have argued the Islamist terrorists and other evil prone Muslims who committed evil and violent acts are >90% Islamic based on an objective assessment of their compliance to the 6236 verses of the Quran, i.e. the core of Islam.

Christianity and Islam are the same in that they are both monolithic religions, there is a distinct separation between believers and non-believers, and both religions have a mandate of its followers to spread their religion to all corners of the globe and the all mankind. Naturally, this is going to lead to conflict among some followers of these two religions.

I have given you examples of where empires and even the United States justified their atrocities based on Biblical principles and how Christian terrorist organizations justify their actions by using the Bible and some have a desire to create Christian states based on the gospel of Christ. I also gave two recent examples where terrorist quoted the words of Jesus to justify their slaughter of Jews.

Islam and Christianity aren't the problem, it's the individuals and extremist groups that pervert these religions that are the problem.

Click to expand...

Note my argument;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

Islam on the other hand is inherent evil and violent as represented by the loads of evil elements in the Quran, note the 3400++ evil laden verses.

I'm sure whatever it is you are going to try to convince him of, he has heard it before. He has been researching this subject for as long as you have been alive and so far what you have been sharing here can be found on the numerous anti-Islamic sites online. It's not exactly earth shattering.

Click to expand...

Show me why has Jeffrey Bale discussed in details, the following, i.e. the existential crisis, the psychology of evil, the covenant, a detailed analysis of the Quranic verses and other elements I mentioned.

Here is what I said:

I stand by that comment. There are no legitimate/well accepted translations of the Qur'an that interpret the word "l-mākirīna" as deceiver.

The source you provided is not a legitimate/well accepted translation of the Qur'an.

View attachment 257910
https://www.islamawakened.com/quran/3/54/default.htm

How many of those 50+ English versions interpret "l-mākirīna" as deceivers?

Click to expand...

Your challenge was there are no translations that interpret "l-mākirīna" as deceivers?

Can you give some examples?

Click to expand...

Note the issue was re Taqqiyah which I had side stepped to "l-mākirīna" as deceivers?
But the concept is still effected in the Quran.

Taqiya - Wikipedia

Sunni Islam view

I have read it. I have read several article from Dr. Bale over the years.

Click to expand...

Bale condemned "Islamic Apologism" heavily, but you are practicing it in the manner you posted.

That Islam is the root cause of violence and that ISIS represents the religion of Islam for starters.

Click to expand...

You disagreed.
Note my objective argument, the Islamist jihadists are >90% Islamic in compliance with the 6236 verses of the Quran, i.e. the hate non-Muslims, do not befriend them and kill them for reasons of fasadin [wrongdoings, corruption] against Islam.

Exactly, and this is also the case with Islam.

Click to expand...

Nope.
When the evil prone Muslims commit terrible evil and violent acts against non-Muslim in terms of hatred and fasadin, they are complying with the tenets of Islam.

No they are not, because the Qur'an doesn't command Muslims to kill, rape, or wage war on non-believers.

Click to expand...

Basically the Quran is anti-non-Muslims with an impulse of hatred against them starting with the 3400++ or >55% of verses that create an 'us versus them' atmosphere of antagonism and contempt against non-Muslim.

Generally the Quran condone the killing of non-Muslims upon vague definitions of threat against Islam, e.g. the various terms under 'fasadin', i.e. even drawing of cartoons is the threat thus has caused mobs to kill non-Muslims.

There are over 300++ verses related to war on non-Muslims that catalyze Muslims to kill non-Muslims within the antagonistic mood re 'us versus them'.

Btw, note the STALEMATE dilemma where no one can insists those evil prone Muslims interpretations are wrong.

Read what I have said again:
Christianity isn't the problem.

Click to expand...

Note you do not assert with confidence and absoluteness, Christianity has nothing to do with it in contrast to Islam.

When Muslims do this in defense of Islam, why do you choose to ignore them? You instead take the words of the terrorists as being right about Islam and suggest that the world's 1.6+ billion Muslims are wrong about their religion. You say you are objective, but you reject what the vast majority of Muslims have to say along with scholars in religious studies and Islam, and experts in the fields of violent extremism and terrorism.

Click to expand...

I did not state 1.6+ billion of Muslims are wrong about their religion. Where did I that specifically if you insist?
Note I stated 80% of Muslims only comply with <60% of the verses within the Quran.
Whereas the other 20% of Muslims comply with >90% of the verses within the Quran.

Note the vast majority of scholars and experts had not done a thorough analysis of the Quran the way I did.
After having done a thorough literature review, I am very confident no scholars had done such an extensive analysis of the Quran in the approach I did.

I have not discussed the details of my finding in full but have only pointed out glimpses of it.
Since you claimed to be some sort of scholar of Islam, show me any scholars who had done deep research into Islam as a religion and Muslims as believers, in terms of the critical points I highlighted, e.g. those to Jeffrey Bale.

Note my challenge,
show me one verse within the 6236 verses of the Quran that is favorable to non-Muslims and is unconditional and unabrogated?

Note the famous 5:32 - "kill one = kill all of mankind" verse but it give room for killing if there is fasadin, i.e. corruption, wrongdoings, mischief which are vaguely defined, culminating in mobs of Muslims killing non-Muslims for drawing cartoons of Prophet Muhammad.

JosephZ said:

It seems you have already responded to your own challenge.

Your response to the article you linked to was to be expected.

Why should anyone accept your challenges if you aren't going to accept the response they give in the same way you rejected the article you quoted?

Several days ago and on more than one occasion I challenged you to show evidence of your research on the below:



You have been repeating this exact claim for several years on several other forums besides this one, yet you have never shared the data that you claim to have that shows that there are "3400++ verses [objectively proven] with negative elements that are contemptuous, antagonistic, derogatory, filled with hatred directed at non-Muslims."

Click to expand...

I stated it is too tedious for me to do that at the present.
I had referred you to Bill Warner's reference on a Story Basis which is more accurate.

In addition, you can easily do it yourself by reading the Quran and noting the pronouns that are relevant to disbelievers. While reading note the mounting and tsunami of hatred pounded on non-Muslims.

Just try reading the whole of Chapter Two and note the number of verses directed at disbelievers which in general are in a negative and derogatory mode.

My analysis of Chapter 2 indicated there are 150 verses related to disbelievers [non-Muslims, 105 on Jews and Christians] out of 286 verses, 20 related to war and 16 to jihad against disbelievers.
I have a detailed analysis for every of the 114 chapters of the Quran.

hedrick said:

It seems to be going too far to say that there's no connection between ISIS and Islam. It is uses an interpretation of Islam. It may be wrong, it may be that ISIS followers aren't religiously motivated, but surely there is some connection. The same applies to racist hate groups in the US. They misrepresent Christianity badly. I don't believe that people are motivated by Christ. But they do often have a particular interpretation of Christianity as part of their ideology.

One unfortunate effect of religion is that it allows people to claim the authority of God for their ideology. It's not clear how important that is to maintaining the groups, but it surely has at least some effect.

Click to expand...

Not 'some connection' but rather IS is >90% Islamic on an objective basis.

Note this Premise;
Islam is represented 100% by the 6236 verses in the Quran.

Objectively, if you use this 6236 verses as a checklist of compliance, Yes/No, the members of IS will tick YES to >90% of the verses, probably could be 100%.

The so-called moderate Muslims will likely tick "yes" to <60% of the verses in the checklist based on the 6236 verses of the Quran.
For example the non-compliance of this verse;


Allah commanded Muslims not to be intimate friends with non-Muslims but most of the moderate Muslims will not obey this command, are ignorant of it, or pretend to be friends with non-Muslim.
Note there are many other verses where Allah commanded Muslims not to befriend [awliya] with non-Muslims or to pretend if there is a ultimate gain for the Muslims.

There are many others verses where the moderate Muslims do not comply [or are ignorant] with the commands and views of Allah in the Quran,

This is a very objective basis and I have done such an exercise and if we were to get all Muslims to do it, the results will be the same [thereabout] as my conclusions above.

One unfortunate effect of religion is that it allows people to claim the authority of God for their ideology. It's not clear how important that is to maintaining the groups, but it surely has at least some effect.

Click to expand...

Not with Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism and some others which has an overriding pacifist maxim.
Jainism's pacifism is so extreme that some Jains will wear a mask to prevent swallowing insects or even sweep the path they walk, so they do not step on any small living things. Therefore if any Jain were to kill due to some reason, we cannot blame the religion of Jainism.

People and believers can make all sorts of claims, but what counts is the principles within the constitution as the authorized grounds of the religion or ideology.

The point with Christianity is Christians can claim with absolute certainty based on the words of Jesus Christ [with God] that Christianity itself has nothing to do with the evil and violent acts committed by SOME Christians for whatever their own reasons. Note this thread of mine;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity

JosephZ said:

No where does that article support your claim that extremists join extremists groups or carry out acts of terrorism because it provides "instant redemption if they take the martyrdom path to salvation and all their past sins will be forgiven."

There are several articles to be found online about Jejoen Bontinck, and none that I read even hint at that as being a reason as to why he went to Syria.

I was looking for examples of this, and more specifically, examples of Muslims who have made the claim that this is the reason they decided to become a martyr.

Click to expand...

As I had stated, I have read of the point, many wayward Muslims are easy targets for the jihadist prone to influence them to sacrifice their lives because Allah offers;
instant redemption if they take the martyrdom path to salvation and all their past sins will be forgiven."

I will dig deeper on this to find the supporting evidences.

Abdullah Azzam is known as the Father of Global Jihad was a Palestinian Sunni Islamic scholar and theologian and founding member of al-Qaeda. He's probably a pretty good judge of the jihadist's interpretations of suicide terrorism and the extremists ideology of Islam.

Click to expand...

Note my argument, Islam do not condone suicide-in-general as committed by the depressive and suicide prone people.
However sacrificing one live [martyrdom] for the cause of Allah is not considered suicide-in-general but something of merit.

In your usage of the term you were suggesting that Muslims who condemn ISIS are lying.

Lying is forbidden in Islam.

Click to expand...

Depends on lying under which circumstances.

Note I stated many are ignorant of the central message and commands of Allah in the Quran to be antagonistic to non-Muslims.
My point was for those who are aware to the need for contempt towards non-Muslims as condone by Allah, they are likely to pretend, thus my reference to Taqiyyah, thus lying in some cases.

How so? I don't separate Islamism from Islam and I agree with Dr. Bale when he says "Islamism is inconceivable without reference to Islam;" and in the same way, I will say that Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity. One can not exist without the other. The Islamic extremists are using the same text from the Qur'an as mainstream Muslims, so of course their is a direct connection to Islam. This, however, doesn't mean that the religion of Islam is the problem or the root cause of extremist violence. This is also one of the things Dr. Bale points out in his article and of which I also agree.

Click to expand...

If you do not separate Islamism from Islam, then you should be condemning the part where Islam [verses] contribute to Islamism. But you don't.

Note I have argued strongly evil and violent acts by Christians on their own freewill has nothing to do with Christianity itself. Note my argument;
The Covenant as a Watertight Defense for Christianity
So far you have not countered the above argument effectively.

Here is your problem. You fail to recognize that the Qur'an was written to specific audiences, who were facing specific circumstances, at specific points in history. Some of the Qur'an is addressed to Muslims, some of it to the people of Israel, some of it to Muhammad at times when he was under threat, some of it to the wives of Muhammad, and some of it to all people. Much of what is found in the Qur'an addresses very specific events like Qur'an 9:5 which says: "When the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. And capture them, and besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush." This was a very specific command, with specific conditions, given during a time of war. That war ended centuries ago and that command doesn't apply in any way to Muslims today. Much of what's in the Qur'an was written to Muslims living in the 7th century and doesn't apply to Muslims living in the 21st century. It's incorrect to read the Qur'an with the mindset that everything written is addressed to the same audience and extends across all time from the 7th century until today.

If you fail to recognize the audience being addressed and fail to put what you are reading into historical context, you will not get the correct meaning or interpretation. This is what leaders of extremists groups do to deceive their recruits.

Click to expand...

The Quran is not a historical book.

In the context of the whole of the Quran, the disbelievers are a threat to Islam as perfected to Muslims [5:3].

Therefore whenever there are threats to Muslims whether it is then [7th century] the same principles toward the non-Muslims should apply eternally.

Note the Quran are full of stories "plagiarized" from the Bible with reference to incidents that happened 3000++ years ago re Torah and 600++ re Gospels.
Why are these historical stories kept in the Quran?
They are there to support the eternal principles of Islam just as 9:5 and others are reflecting those eternal principles.

Therefore verse 9:5 and other any verses are embedded with principles that are eternal and will be effective where the same circumstances of threats to Islam exists.

Btw, WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone to judge those Muslims who adopt these divine principles
as wrong?

"Christianity isn't the problem."
Seems absolute to me.

Click to expand...

Then why do you insist,

You are the one who keeps saying groups like ISIS (The extremists) are correctly following Islam. You even quote them to support your position, therefore, the 1.6 billion Muslims who don't follow the extremist are wrong by default.

Click to expand...

IS is a convenient reference but my main point is to the pool of 20% or 320 million evil prone Muslims who will naturally be inclined to the evil and violent laden verses.

Nothing you have shared here is new. The type of material you have been sharing here can easily be found on many of the anti-Islamic websites online. The real Islamic scholars, religious scholars, and experts on violent extremism have been debunking theories like yours for years.

Click to expand...

Note,
WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone to judge those Muslims who adopt these divine principles as wrong?

So the point is, as long as Islam exists actively within 1.6 billion with 20% or 320 million evil prone Muslims, there will ALWAYS be violent and evil acts by SOME Muslims.

It is critical that humanity recognize the above facts and act according. This is what Bale had advised but he did not offer any specific solutions nor dig deeper into the root causes. Refer to the "conclusion" of his article;
Denying the Link between Islamist Ideology and Jihadist Terrorism: “Political Correctness” and the Undermining of Counterterrorism | Bale | Perspectives on Terrorism

You could upload your files to a free hosting site in less time than it takes to respond to a post on this forum. It seems that you would be anxious to share your research since you feel that it's so important.

Click to expand...

I have my own reasons not to do it in that manner for various reasons.
Note, I suggested you can read them for yourself directly in the Quran and noting the relevant pronouns.

Note my challenge,
show me one verse within the 6236 verses of the Quran that is favorable to non-Muslims and is unconditional and unabrogated?

Click to expand...

JZ said:

I have read the same Qur'an you claim to have read and didn't come to the same conclusion.

Click to expand...

Whatever you have presented, i have already countered them effectively.

JosephZ said:

The Qur'an doesn't teach Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims unless you take verses out of context. There are only certain non-Muslims that Muslims can't befriend.

As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable.

But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends—these are the wrongdoers. (Qur'an 60:8-9)

O you who believe! Do not befriend those who take your religion in mockery and as a sport, be they from among those who were given the Scripture before you, or the disbelievers. And obey God, if you are believers.

When you call to the prayer, they take it as a joke and a trifle. That is because they are people who do not reason. (Qur'an 5:67-58)

As you can clearly see from the verses above, there are conditions as to who Muslims can't be friends with.

Even the verse you quoted tells which non-Muslims not to befriend.

First we find that not all non-Muslims are alike, so we immediately know that the verse you quotes does not apply to all non-Muslims.

They are not alike. Among the People of the Scripture is a community that is upright; (Qur'an 3:113)

O you who believe! Do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm. They love to see you suffer. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is worse. We have made the messages clear for you, if you understand. There you are, you love them, but they do not love you, and you believe in the entire scripture. And when they meet you, they say, “We believe;” but when they are alone, they bite their fingers in rage at you. Say, “Die in your rage; God knows what is within the hearts.” (qur'an 3:118-119)

You will also notice in the above verses the following statement "you love them." This is just additional evidence against your claim that Islam doesn't teach Muslims to love others that I addressed earlier.

Click to expand...

Note whatever that has inkling of a peaceful gesture to non-Muslims in any verse in the Quran they are all subsequently abrogated by the contemptuous verses against non-Muslims.

This is crazy, Muslims are not allowed to be friends even with their fathers, brethren, as friends if they are disbelievers'


As for friends with others;



The above is a very general principle of not to befriend non-Muslims because they are disbelievers, i.e.


The above override all the other verses if they have any vague points and circumstances. e.g. 60:8-9.

Note there are many such verses [in addition to the overall 3400+ verses] that support the general antagonistic attitude toward non-Muslims because 'disbelieving' is a threat to Islam the religion.

Note there are other verses in the Quran that support my point above.

Muslims "LOVE THEM"??
But that is very conditional, i.e. with the condition and hope the non-Muslims must ultimately convert to Islam, else 60:1 applies.

Note the contrast with pure Christianity [which you have reservations re acts of some Christians] where Christians are exhorted to love all - even enemies. without those flimsy qualifications and conditions as in Islam.

Finally, if Muslims are taught not befriend non-Muslims, then the below verse would be contradictory to that.

Today all good things are made lawful for you. And the food of those given the Scripture is lawful for you, and your food is lawful for them. So are chaste believing women, and chaste women from the people who were given the Scripture before you, provided you give them their dowries, and take them in marriage, not in adultery, nor as mistresses. But whoever rejects faith, his work will be in vain, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers. (Qur'an 5:5)

Since Muslims are allowed to marry non-Muslims, then common sense should tell us that there is no prohibition for Muslims to befriend non-Muslims.

Click to expand...

Note Muslims will be seemingly "friendly" in any initial phase for purpose of marriage, proselytization, and in various intention to deceive or killing of non-Muslims.
Ultimately, the non-Muslims must convert to be Muslims without exception, else there is no friendship thus no marriage except the possibility of being killed for disbelieving in Allah and his messenger.

The above prove your ignorance and lack of depth in understanding the Quran.

Note this;

Joyousperson said:

As I had stated, I have read of the point, many wayward Muslims are easy targets for the jihadist prone to influence them to sacrifice their lives because Allah offers;
instant redemption if they take the martyrdom path to salvation and all their past sins will be forgiven."

I will dig deeper on this to find the supporting evidences.

Note my argument, Islam do not condone suicide-in-general as committed by the depressive and suicide prone people.
However sacrificing one live [martyrdom] for the cause of Allah is not considered suicide-in-general but something of merit.

Click to expand...

Matryrdom is not suicide in general, but rather it is a war strategy of Islam for the cause of Allah. Note this where a Muslim mother having no hesitation in sacrificing his sons as martyrs;

Mom joyous at son's Martyrdom for Allah



Here is the Quranic verse that support my point where Muslims are offered;
instant redemption if they take the martyrdom path to salvation and all their past sins will be forgiven.


The the wayward Muslim sinner would readily accept the offer of martyrdom to for all his/her past sins to be forgiven by Allah.

Here is a video why the jihadists are highly motivated to be martyrs;


Note, there are many such videos on why the martyrs is highly respected and rewarded by Allah in paradise.

JosephZ said

Click to expand...

: ↑
The Qur'an doesn't teach Muslims not to befriend non-Muslims unless you take verses out of context. There are only certain non-Muslims that Muslims can't befriend.

Click to expand...

Your references to 5:57-58 [you missed out 5:55-56] and 60:8-9 is very selective and intended to deceive or is a cover up.

Here are the relevant verses [Pickthall's] related to Allah commanding Muslims not be befriend non-Muslims even if they are their fathers, bethren, and kins.


Note your mentioned verse 60:9 is very conditional and for 5:57-58, you missed out the overall command in 5:56-57.
All the other verses are overwhelming and specific that Muslims cannot befriend non-Muslims and disbelievers even their fathers, bethrens and kins.

Do you have any counter to the above?