ISIS!

[youtubehd]u7TfAhfgQ3w[/youtubehd]

 

[youtubehd]89wLa-qe9Zs[/youtubehd]

Edited May 26, 2015 by data

  On 5/26/2015 at 3:31 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 5/26/2015 at 2:37 AM, usagi said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 7:28 PM, Npoess said:

The human brain hardwired for religious thinking and faith, this have been proven in many studies, even some atheists reflects this with the deification of rationalism and sciences - so saying religion is evil is like saying that humans are inherently evil.

 

Islam is an old and static religion, just like societies, this religion should have gone through a developing reformation process that follows societal evolution, which obviously haven't happened, support of sharia law says that a reformation is long overdue.

 

Then are the really extremist muslims, they are obviously only a very small percentage of the overall muslim population of the world, most muslim are completely normal and balanced people like the rest of us, but obviously we almost exclusively hear about the extreme and fundamentalists through the western media, which paints the picture of a culture of destructive and villainous character. From a historical perceptive that's highly hypocritical, since a lot of gloomy characteristics were the case for own culture, and even today we see that right extremism (for example) is much more prevalent in western cultures than it's ever discussed and portrayed by our own media, it's just disconnected from religion here, but it is still here - obviously just to say that labelling a specific culture as particularly evil is moronic and ignorant.

 

All that being said, a reformation and modernization of Islam, I think, would suppress some aspects that make some extremism morally legitimatized (for the very few that are obviously drawn to it to begin with), it might not eradicate extremism completely from the world, but some of the medieval aspects of Islam are just not calibrated for the modern world. Like when death penalty for infidelity is considered necessary by sharia law, there are definitely aspects that needs to be modernized, that simply can't be acceptable anymore and Muslims should rebel against it and distance themselves from it (this I genuinely believe), especially when they migrate to cultures where it's not acceptable anymore. They don't need assimilate to their new culture in any way, or give up on their religious beliefs, but certain aspects of the Islamic religion are simply things of the past that doesn't belong in the modern world.

 

best post itt. sheeit, best Islam-related post I've ever seen on WATMM.

 

 

I'm going to add a caveat here by the way to do with the bit about "sharia law", and that is that there is a serious misunderstanding about what sharia actually is, both on the part of extremist Muslims and non-Muslims. sharia is not some kind of unholy codex for pillaging, plunder and oppression, as much as Western dialogue likes to use it to inspire fear of the Other. "sharia" means simply means rule of law as guided by the basic Islamic principles laid down in the Quran and the ahadith, the word itself implies nothing about how liberal or how conservative or how progressive or how backwards those laws are.

 

it's like people saying "chai tea" in English, when "chai" just means "tea" in Urdu.

 

 

You're right, admittedly I might not have the deepest understanding of Sharia law. It's mostly a moral codex of living that doesn't have to have negative consequences at all. This is also maybe a common mistake by many westerners not to completely apprehend it, so I probably shouldn't really even comment on it to begin with to be honest.

 

Obviously you hear the stories of gruesome and horrid capital punishment of low-level and personal crimes (like infidelity for example) that are unsuitable of brutal sanctions like death penalty and other atrocities (and infidelity obviously shouldn't even be considered a crime from a modern and secularized perspective).

 

But that doesn't mean brutality is commonly accepted as a part of Sharia. I actually heard a Muslim talking about it (Sharia law in general) some time ago, and it didn't seem an awful thing at all like it is sometimes portrayed, so in this case I was very ignorant, forgetful and slightly generalizing in my writing, which is not very smart of me.

 

When I'm talking about Sharia in the negative tone, it is when it is expressed as medieval punishment methods and as something that's supposed to be forced on other cultures. But that's not to say everybody who are supportive of Sharia are supportive of such methods, but there is a minority who is, and those are the ones that I'm referring to when I talk about Sharia as something negative - the ones with extreme interpretations of Sharia who does exist in parts of the Islamic culture, this is pretty indisputable I think, and this minority is definitely not insignificant in size, at least what from I tell from my own culture, but I obviously don't have the exact numbers (also why I definitely shouldn't generalize).

 

But I really don't think this minority (however the size might be) is to be ignored because there's a moderate majority who are not supportive of the extreme interpretations. But obviously the moderate majority shouldn't be considered as part of the more extreme minority either, this is essential when talking about it. And it's only the extreme interpretations of Islam that's should be alienated by a modernized reformation of the religion, not Islam itself (just to be clear). And the only ones that can make this reformation happening are Muslims themselves (obviously not by Western cultural imperialism and other shit like that). The moderate Muslims have to take the responsibility for making this happening, otherwise it will literally never happen.

Edited May 26, 2015 by Npoess

  On 5/26/2015 at 5:24 AM, Lane Visitor said:

Can someone just please export punk rock to the region? I'm conviced that's all it will take. An underground punk rock movement within Islamic culture... As soon as ISIS hears the "Syrian Suckers'" "Bio Chem Street" 7 inch split with "Radical E-Moms", they'll put down their beheading weapons to drink Pabsts and shoot some pool.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqwacore

  On 3/18/2015 at 2:48 AM, Redruth said:

all those who do violence and all those who do violence in the name of spirituality, whatever that spirituality may be; are incorrect in their translation, their source of wisdom, of knowledge - they are wrong in understanding the essence of their humanity. violence and spirituality are not compatible, violence is not ever compatible with being a true humane being. if God does violence or has in the past then in our hearts (even then) maybe we should express our distaste or disagreement with it, but humans taking it upon themselves to do evil in the name of God; this is th divergence, this is imo where everything has gone horribly, horribly wrong. violence in all of life and even in nature itself should be questioned and contemplated with the heart.

 

many belief systems have done violence, maybe all of them (?) and they are all guilty in my opinion. they must all atone for their behavior and be changed in understanding. this violence must stop!

 

i agree with this. however i don't believe that the actions of this group are down to any particular religious beliefs but that they are using it as justification.

 

Muslims around the world have condemned that actions of this group and agree that their actions have "nothing to do with Islam"

 

http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/commonwordcommonlord/2014/08/think-muslims-havent-condemned-isis-think-again.html

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/08/21/muslim-leaders-have-roundly-denounced-islamic-s/200498

 

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/19/the_atlantics_big_islam_lie_what_muslims_really_believe_about_isis/

 

in terms of responsibility for the situation, the consensus of the most informed parties is that the US sewed the seeds for this situation with their foreign policy.

 

as a result western intervention is really not a viable option, and most like would acerbate the situation further. effectively throwing petrol on the fire.

 

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/3/3/noam_chomsky_to_deal_with_isis

 

http://grahamefuller.com/articles/

 

and finally some people were asking about sharia law and those who call for it's application in various countries across the globe, here is an interesting report on it.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/01/study-where-do-muslims-really-stand-on-shariah-law/

  On 5/26/2015 at 10:28 AM, Npoess said:

 

 

 

You're right, admittedly I might not have the deepest understanding of Sharia law. It's most a moral codex of living that doesn't have to have negative consequences at all. This is also maybe a common mistake by many westerners not to completely apprehend it, so I probably shouldn't really even comment on it to begin with to be honest.

 

 

Yep a lot of Sharia is fairly banal religious code for dealing with family issues and disputes, economic transactions, etc. There's some Jewish communities in London that self-police according to traditional Talmud laws, right? No one is up in arms about that, and Sharia within Muslim communities needn't be any different. So if some communities internally adopt some aspects of sharia, why's it different to the Jews in London?

 

When most people hear "sharia", their imaginations seem to jump straight to death by stoning. Really, Sharia law should sit alongside Common Law or Napoleonic/Roman Civil Law, since IMO to a first approximation they're equivalent concepts. All of them have decent ideas mixed in with a healthy dose of gobshite. Sure, there are some hardcore punishments in traditional Sharia, and there are barbarous nutters in some Dark Age statelets that put them to use. But really that's more to do with the barbarous nutters themselves.

 

Personally I think some Sharia is fantastic, e.g. the prohibition on ursury

Most of Europe saved itself by banning religion from getting involved with the state affairs, that has to be done in order to progress, and if anyone thinks otherwise obviously has no good sense at all

  On 5/26/2015 at 3:37 PM, Barung said:

Most of Europe saved itself by banning religion from getting involved with the state affairs, that has to be done in order to progress, and if anyone thinks otherwise obviously has no good sense at all

 

meh what would i know, i'm just a ladyhole.

Just keep yourself smelling fresh, we'll do all the thinking for you.

  On 5/26/2015 at 4:44 PM, doublename said:

Just keep yourself smelling fresh, we'll do all the thinking for you.

 

  On 5/26/2015 at 1:19 PM, IrisAndTheLens said:

 

Muslims around the world have condemned that actions of this group and agree that their actions have "nothing to do with Islam"

 

This nothing to do with Islam line is nonsense, it has nothing to do with their interpretation of Islam, fine, good for them; but it does have a lot to do with other people's interpretation of Islam. If it was just the actions of a lone group of nutters it might be acceptable to ignore the religious aspect, but when we're talking about the religious beliefs of around 100 million people, then we need to include it in the debate.

 

The notion that ISIS would be carrying on exactly as they are if they weren't Muslims, that a 'corrupted' interpretation of Islam is just an excuse for what they do, is completely farcical. One obvious example of this is their destruction of archeological sites, which is a direct consequence of their beliefs on idolatry. Another example is their wiping out and enslaving of the Yazidis for being pagan devil worshippers, while allowing Christians to live as long as they pay the Dhimmi tax; this stuff is direct from the Koran, where the monotheistic religions were originally the only people allowed to be considered Dhimmi, this changed over time to become more inclusive, but ISIS are fundamentalists, so no polytheists are to be considered as Dhimmi.

  On 5/26/2015 at 3:37 PM, Barung said:

Most of Europe saved itself by banning religion from getting involved with the state affairs, that has to be done in order to progress, and if anyone thinks otherwise obviously has no good sense at all

 

Are you sure? Many political parties today still have a religious basis (CDU in Germany for instance). Although not explicit today, 30-50 years ago the religious undercurrent was still pretty explicit in "modern democratic" politics. So in a way, the separation between state and religion is still a fairly recent invention. And in some ways still not completed. How many countries do currently have laws regarding blasphemy? I'm pretty sure there are more than you'd assume.

  On 5/26/2015 at 7:03 PM, goDel said:

 

  On 5/26/2015 at 3:37 PM, Barung said:

Most of Europe saved itself by banning religion from getting involved with the state affairs, that has to be done in order to progress, and if anyone thinks otherwise obviously has no good sense at all

 

Are you sure? Many political parties today still have a religious basis (CDU in Germany for instance). Although not explicit today, 30-50 years ago the religious undercurrent was still pretty explicit in "modern democratic" politics. So in a way, the separation between state and religion is still a fairly recent invention. And in some ways still not completed. How many countries do currently have laws regarding blasphemy? I'm pretty sure there are more than you'd assume.

 

I actually live in one, but I think it's treated as public vulgarity, but even if not it would be a step ahead to death penalty. What I meant was that when treating laws there should never be influence from sacred textes or processions, and (even if that sounds uncompromisable to some) that perpetuating the idea of a state as secular as possible is still a necessity for social advancement

Do any of you anti-islam nutbags realise that there's a strong relation between authoritarian regimes and the kind of barbarisms you are wailing against? It's not the religion but the type of regime. Take away the religion, keep the authoritarian regime, and see how much of it is still left.

 

I thought you liberated atheists understood that institutionalised religion is nothing but an instrument for those in power to control the masses. Ever thought of getting the idea in your head that it's not the religion which blocks the road to democracy in the middle eastern countries, but those in power?

  On 5/26/2015 at 8:31 PM, goDel said:

Do any of you anti-islam nutbags realise that there's a strong relation between authoritarian regimes and the kind of barbarisms you are wailing against? It's not the religion but the type of regime. Take away the religion, keep the authoritarian regime, and see how much of it is still left.

 

I thought you liberated atheists understood that institutionalised religion is nothing but an instrument for those in power to control the masses. Ever thought of getting the idea in your head that it's not the religion which blocks the road to democracy in the middle eastern countries, but those in power?

 

People will really go to any length to absolve religious belief of responsibility, here. It's quite alarming.

 

 

I think, deep down, we liberals don't actually believe that religious people actually believe what they say they believe. If someone says they believe in a heaven-type place, and they also believe that killing infidels will get one into such a place...then this person goes and blows himself up in a crowd...liberals will say "it's oppression, it's socio-political, it's mental illness, whatever...

 

You will never hear a liberal say "yup, that guy believed in heaven the way I believe in gravity, and he acted perfectly consistently with that belief."

 

It's alarming that liberals have this blind spot.

Edited May 26, 2015 by LimpyLoo

OK, smartass, what's your take on those revolutionary tendencies in Iran from a while back? Lots of young people who, despite their religion, went on the streets to create a better world? They are still religious, right? They all believe. But somehow they didn't agree with what was happening at that (and this) point in time? As far as I can tell, their thinking was far more liberated than many in the west thought was possible. But why o why is Iran still that conservative religious place it is today? Because of religion? Or are there other powers which maintain the status quo?

 

And if former president Bush goes to war in the name of religion, do you actually think that had anything to do with religion?

 

 

People believe in things for a number of ways. It's mostly a social construct creating bonds, especially when it comes to religious beliefs. If people stop "believing", they can take the risk to destroy these social bonds. And loosing social bonds can bring heavy prices.

 

So if you happen to see some screaming people on TV shouting Jihad, you might start to think about a number of things:

- who put those people there and why are they being filmed?

- are these people actually free? what would happen if they would shout the opposite?

- do they actually believe what they are shouting, or is something else happening?

Edited May 26, 2015 by goDel

  On 5/26/2015 at 9:07 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/26/2015 at 8:31 PM, goDel said:

Do any of you anti-islam nutbags realise that there's a strong relation between authoritarian regimes and the kind of barbarisms you are wailing against? It's not the religion but the type of regime. Take away the religion, keep the authoritarian regime, and see how much of it is still left.

 

I thought you liberated atheists understood that institutionalised religion is nothing but an instrument for those in power to control the masses. Ever thought of getting the idea in your head that it's not the religion which blocks the road to democracy in the middle eastern countries, but those in power?

 

People will really go to any length to absolve religious belief of responsibility, here. It's quite alarming.

 

 

I think, deep down, we liberals don't actually believe that religious people actually believe what they say they believe. If someone says they believe in a heaven-type place, and they also believe that killing infidels will get one into such a place...then this person goes and blows himself up in a crowd...liberals will say "it's oppression, it's socio-political, it's mental illness, whatever...

 

You will never hear a liberal say "yup, that guy believed in heaven the way I believe in gravity, and he acted perfectly consistently with that belief."

 

It's alarming that liberals have this blind spot.

 

 

Limpy the only alarming thing going on in this thread is the level of hypocrisy you are displaying to be honest. How you can passionately say in other threads that you firmly believe people should be allowed to do whatever they like with their bodies and not see that that obviously also extends to religion and people being allowed to believe whatever they want with their own minds is honestly baffling to me. The only 'blind spot' here is in your logic dude. You've been told again and again that religion is not the cause of the violence. The cause is political, not religious. Religion is being used as a tool to manipulate, brainwashing vulnerable angry young people both at home and abroad into joining their cause. These people often only realise too late exactly what it is they're letting themselves in for. The religion aspect is nothing more than a red rag being waved in front of a bull - it is a distraction. Usagi made a very poignant plea for you to stop and take a look at what you are saying, and you really need to listen to him. He said it costs. By doing what you are doing you are playing right into the hands of the people who are trying to drive the wedge between Islam and the rest of the world. It serves no purpose.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Timothy Forward

  On 5/26/2015 at 9:40 PM, goDel said:

OK, smartass, what's your take on those revolutionary tendencies in Iran from a while back? Lots of young people who, despite their religion, went on the streets to create a better world? They are still religious, right? They all believe. But somehow they didn't agree with what was happening at that (and this) point in time? As far as I can tell, their thinking was far more liberated than many in the west thought was possible. But why o why is Iran still that conservative religious place it is today? Because of religion? Or are there other powers which maintain the status quo?

 

And if former president Bush goes to war in the name of religion, do you actually think that had anything to do with religion?

 

 

People believe in things for a number of ways. It's mostly a social construct creating bonds, especially when it comes to religious beliefs. If people stop "believing", they can take the risk to destroy these social bonds. And loosing social bonds can bring heavy prices.

 

So if you happen to see some screaming people on TV shouting Jihad, you might start to think about a number of things:

- who put those people there and why are they being filmed?

- are these people actually free? what would happen if they would shout the opposite?

- do they actually believe what they are shouting, or is something else happening?

 

I'm not saying religious beliefs cause everyone to be a monster. Or that religious beliefs are the only thing that motivates people.

I'm not saying you're an idiot, but I'm having a hard time to stop myself from religiously believing it if that's your response.

  On 5/26/2015 at 10:02 PM, goDel said:

I'm not saying you're an idiot, but I'm having a hard time to stop myself from religiously believing it if that's your response.

 

lol

  On 5/26/2015 at 10:02 PM, goDel said:

I'm not saying you're an idiot, but I'm having a hard time to stop myself from religiously believing it if that's your response.

 

I said "religious beliefs is the reason these particular people are doing bad things"

 

and you said "oh yeah? then how do you explain these people over here doing good things?"

 

and you're saying i'm an idiot, godel?

 

you're being a silly-head

Edited May 26, 2015 by LimpyLoo

Let's keep the insults out of it, please. Not directed at anyone in particular.

  On 5/26/2015 at 6:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/26/2015 at 6:08 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 9:34 PM, LimpyLoo said:

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

Edited May 26, 2015 by luke viia

  On 5/26/2015 at 10:38 PM, luke viia said:

 

  On 5/26/2015 at 6:20 AM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 5/26/2015 at 6:08 AM, luke viia said:

 

  On 5/25/2015 at 9:34 PM, LimpyLoo said:

2) differencing moral attitudes doesn't mean that everybody's right

that's like saying differencing attitudes on 2+2=[?] means that 2+2 has multiple answers

 

by god, it's all arithmetic? how did I not see this before? It's self-evident: in general, three equidistant secular philosophy interjections yields 180 degree religious beliefs - all terrorists are muslims but not all muslims are terrorists - and the root of a muslim is always irrational

 

well

i see i've hit a nerve with quite a few WATMMers here

 

 

(i had some critical things to say about witchcraft and astronomy

but i'll bite my tongue so as not to offend anyone here)

didn't strike a nerve, I just loled at the silly comparison between moral philosophy and arithmetic. I can hardly think of a worse comparison tbh. I hope you see why!

 

and slam astronomy all you want, no skin off my back

 

i do see why

but my point wasn't about the math-ness of math

but rather about how multiple attitudes does not mean multiple correct answers

  On 5/26/2015 at 12:37 AM, caze said:

lol, the US government has funded ISIS?!?!

sheesh, us funding in any way ISIS..thats a tin foil hat conspirtard theory Bro! All the money that was designed to go only to the FSA moderate syrian rebels? that money ONLY went straight to them, zero of it ended up spilling out to more extremist groups like ISIS, ZERO i tell ya!

 

 

I support the FSA just like Anonymous does because that's how fucking rad I am

 

but once again if you think any of the FSA funding got to ISIS you need to fuck off with your conspiracy theory bullshit

Edited May 26, 2015 by John Ehrlichman