"Moderate" Muslims are not taking on ISIS ideologically. Why?

A snowflake in a blizzard.
I'll applaud when I see the blizzard.

 

I've never heard of anyone (even less a statistically significant general effect of) changing from one side to another by relentless criticism.

We may not have blamed the Nazis very much (I don't actually know) but that doesn't convince me that things would have been very different if we did. In Sweden, we're now having a movement with ties to neo-nazi movements and they're suffering very harsh criticism for that, yet they're gaining many members by portraying themselves as underdogs.

IS are not recruiting from uninformed agnostics, they're recruiting from devout-but-not-yet-extreme Muslims. They will not be convinced by these kinds of arguments, because they will have access to teachings which address these issues (even if by circumventing them) and smart believers whom they trust to not be wrong. However, they may very well pick up on the hostilities. Similarly, a non-Muslim may become more likely to support the kind of actions which cause Muslims to believe they have to defend themselves.

The information needs to exist, I agree, I have no problem with the idea of morality compared with different texts. Such a message would be welcome if it does not also convey hostilities. Note that I do not care whether the information was intended to be hostile, only if it comes across as being, and humans tend to be bad at writing on the internet without sounding hostile (with that in mind, please read this post in an understanding, pleasant voice, rather than the arrogant know-it-all voice that most posts unintentionally end up with).

 

I'll admit I can't argue with that.

 

Partially right, there are environmental controls on Muslim centers and Mosques [I know in US they are matter of discussion, but in Italy our intelligence uses these methods without troubles] which allow to detect some activities of a certain kind which can suggest the presence of "Jihadists" [or whatever is the right definition of these loonies]. Overall [it happens also in Italy] when a Western citizen begins to go to a Muslim center known for "odd" cultural activities, that Western citizen becomes a "interesting subject".

But this is not enough [this is why I've used that "partially"]. Italian citizens have joined the army of the loonies of the Caliph as well, escaping all the controls [actually there is the suspect that our intelligence leaves them go ... better a potential terrorist who fights in Middle East than a potential terrorist in Italy and if he dies fighting ... good news for all].

And the subjects who remain here?

Eh, it's like when we faced the Red Terrorism. They were embedded in the population of the workers of the firms and really difficult to detect with accuracy, but our authorities begun to control the circles of the workers, places where communists gathered ... we recorded bloody attacks, but at the end we won the war. Communist terror today is reduced to a limited endemic presence [don't hope to erase terrorism] under control.

Can we do the same with Islamists? It depends if there is a way to change the social context of Muslim communities [if a young guy has got reason to hate our society he could decide to join the loonies, if he lives well in Italy ... may be he could realize that to be an Italian citizen is better that to be a loony of the Caliph, one never knows ...].

If this is not possible ... the alternative is clear. Mortality rate among Muslim communities in Italy could arise because of not so clear reasons ...

 

Perhaps they understand that religion is the ISIS crutch, not the actual problem.

 

Pakistan is not under Sharia law.
Execution for murder of innocents is not a shahid's death, you'd know that if you knew much about Islam.

Just like Christians they will be judged by God on judgement day and sent to Hell for all eternity.

Firstly, beheading is a form of execution, nothing more. How can CHRISTIANITY refute injecting drugs into somebody that takes them hours to die?

Secondly, its amazingly easy to refute "rape of captives", since it is religiously forbidden.

Thirdly, killing apostates is something Christians justified for 1600 years or so, before the reformation, (with some pockets of sectarian warfare continuing well into the 20th century) so it should be no surprise that some Muslims take it upon themselves to declare who is an apostate and who is not. This sectarian bullcrap has been going on since the 7th century for muslims.

There are as many contradictory passages in the Quran as there is in the bible.

That is the double edged sword of all religion, one can "religiously" justify almost any and all kinds of behavior - before or after the fact.

I believe that Islamoignorant is even more accurate.

 

Yeah they are taking on ISIL ideologically.. You are just out of the loop.. Try reading the Arab News from any country.. You might also try read the Koran since you seem to know almost nothing about it.

 

Yes, they do present theological arguments to counter the bullcrap of ISIS et.al.

are you a muslim? do you read muslim media? do you post on muslim religious sites?

Amazing how remarkably informed you are about how muslims are reacting to this latest upsurge in the 1400 year old sectarian war, without being exposed in any way to what mainstream contemporary muslim thinking and expression.

Might want to read the bible some time.

 

Yes, we agree that both the Qur'an and Bible are quite horrific, and the cause of many many problems over the years.

Yes, rape of captives is allowed in Islam, as ISIS/Boko clearly show.
Abu Said al-Khudri said: "The apostle of Allah sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of the apostle of Allah were reluctant to have intercourse with the female captives in the presence of their husbands who were unbelievers. So Allah, the Exalted, sent down the Quranic verse, "And all married women (are forbidden) unto you save those (captives) whom your right hands possess". That is to say, they are lawful for them when they complete their waiting period." [The Quran verse is 4:24]
Abu Dawud 2:2150


This practice of raping war captives was practiced by Islam’s very own prophet Muhammad, in his life. On two occasions, he married (for the sake of sexual gratification only) war captives and raped them. Those victims were namely Safiyah and Juwairiyah.


More about how rape is allowed in Islam: http://www.wikiislam.net/wiki/Rape_in_Islam

 

Show me where they advocate removing Q4:24, and then we'll talk. Until then, they DON'T.

Am I a Muslim? No, since I disapprove of raping captives, and beating women (Q4:34.)

Chapter 4 of the Qur'an is a living hell for women.

2:282 is also pretty bad too....says they are only worth half a man.

 

Along with all the Jews, all the Hindus, all the Buddhists, all the Modern Secular Humanists like me, all the Jainists, all the Mormons, etc......because Allah is so kind and loving and tolerant, apparently. The Qur'an teaches hatred of non-believers.

- - - Updated - - -

With the internet, people are becoming "Islamoinformed", finally. Mohammad's time is coming to an end.

 

don't bear false witness, it's a sin... most Muslims do not support fanatical Muslims like ISIS

there were some Christians that supported Hitler, but most did not...

.

 

With things like this happening in Pakistan, they have a long way to go before being considered modern 21st century non-savages:
"Pakistan: Christian couple burned, buried alive after allegedly burning Qur'an pages"
http://www.christiantoday.com.au/ar...nd.buried.alive.in.angry.mob.attack/18849.htm

The Islamic texts (and ISIS knows this in Syria/Iraq too) say to kill those who dare criticize Islam/Mohammad, so until those texts are improved, we'll continue to have problems with Mohammad's minions. Keep in mind that THESE minions have NUKES.

- - - Updated - - -

Great, so when ISIS/Boko use a verse in the Qur'an to rape, or torture, or be-head, or kill infidels, these "moderates" remove said offending verse, is that correct?

 

Worrying about ideology is something only idle westerners do when not playing Pinochle. Syrians and Iraqis are worried about food and medical care. That's why it is so easy for folks like ISIS to make a big splash.

 

AND they have the Islamic texts backing up their atrocities, as they follow in Mohammad's footsteps.

 

Difference is that the more violent, intolerant verses of the Old Testament are contradicted by the more peaceful and tolerant New Testament verses in Christianity, while in Islam it is the earlier, more peaceful and tolerant Meccan verses that are contradicted by the more violent, Medinan verses.

[2.106] Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?

 

Oh, you mean this verse?

Q4:24

Q4:34

.

Striking a "disobedient" wife after first advising them, and throwing them out of one's bed. Actually a comparatively reasonable approach considering 7th century social norms found in Europe and Asia.



Q2:282

the above is totally in keeping with the status of women in the bible from which the Quran is derived.

You really should be examining what Muslims have to say about Quranic interpretation in addition to sites like wikiislam and answeringIslam.
But I do understand that balance is not within the purview of haters.

 

Yes exactly like it says in the Jewish and Christian holy texts.

Yes some are becoming more informed. And many more are becoming even more misinformed.
Mohammed's time came to an end 1400 years ago.

 

Correct, to be fair, all the Abrahamic faiths are about the same, morally.

 

You just defended wife beating.....incredible.
Hopefully, people can see what I've been saying for years now: that religions sucks the morality right out of people.

 

Excellent point, as those sites are INDEED biased, no question, I'll admit.
That's why I don't put too much faith (did I just say "faith"?) in their interpretation/propaganda, but rather I use those sites to assemble the VERSES of the texts that support my argument. No pro-Islam site is going to say "hey, let's assemble all the verses that talk about [slavery, or rape, or whatever] in one spot so people can see how warped our religion really is!". I don't think I've ever written things like: "see, see, this web site's opinion is that ____________, so it must be true!!".

So yes, on links I give, feel free to disregard much of that site's commentary/propaganda, and look at the VERSES that they use to justify said propaganda, and decide for yourself.

MSH has the truth on its side, so no slight-of-hand is needed to show people which belief system is better for the world.

 

I agree.

And there in lies an telling indicator that religious scripture and its dogma are man made.
When Mo had a modest stake in the Meccan pilgrimage racket, all was sweetness and light and when he fled to Yathrib he was plenty peeved at just about everyone and more or less remained so even when he returned triumphant and in complete control.

 

No I didn't.

apparently you aren't a fan of history. I put that particular verse into a then contemporary context for comparative purposes.

Look around the globe. Wife beating is not the exclusive domain of Islam. It is a sad fact that historically it has been entrenched in virtually all societies.

Its only been in the last few decades that its become a social issue in a few mostly western cultures.

Some aspects of the feminist movement are highly commendable, and bringing spousal abuse into the spotlight is one of them.



I partial agree that religion can suck the morality out of some people, while many "believers" never truly possessed it in the first place

 

The Qur'an says Mohammad is the best role model for all time. So that's clearly not true (Q4:34), don't you agree? (Especially for all time....or are our standards so low that a wife beater would be the best role model TODAY?)

 

One would expect that a religions scriptures would put their gods/prophets on a pedestal for all time.

I wholly agree that by today's standards large swathes of the ancient religions' "teachings" on morality and social intercourse are outrageous. But then that applies equally to secular society as it has evolved.