3-Mar-15 World View -- Why did ISIS release 19 Assyrian Christian hostages? / Iran aids Iraq's army attack on Tikrit

[John]

vincecate and nooneimportant: You're saying that 1.57 billion Muslims
in the world are all cretinous sub-human monsters. That's exactly how
the Nazis characterized the Jews, and how some people characterize the
Jews today. You're right that I disagree with you, and furthermore it
sickens me to hear someone claim that 1.57 billion Muslims in the
world are all cretinous sub-human monsters. No wonder there's no way
to prevent a world war.

[vincecate]

vincecate and nooneimportant: You're saying that 1.57 billion Muslims
in the world are all cretinous sub-human monsters. That's exactly how
the Nazis characterized the Jews, and how some people characterize the
Jews today. You're right that I disagree with you, and furthermore it
sickens me to hear someone claim that 1.57 billion Muslims in the
world are all cretinous sub-human monsters. No wonder there's no way
to prevent a world war.

I have never said that. What would make you try pin those words on me? That I claim Obama is wrong and Bagdadi really is following the Koran?

Nooneimportant was clearly talking about al-Baghdadi-and-friends when he said monsters. You have said, "Like Dahmer, Manson and Gacy, al-Baghdadi is simply a cheap thug, ". Nooneimportant even said he agrees with you that he is a thug. Saying al-Baghdadi is like Dahmer and Mason is not much different than saying he is a monster.

Neither of us has tried to claim all Muslims are bad.

By the way, the Muslims and the Nazis were on the same side.

https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/20 ... onnection/

[John]

Well, perhaps NoOneImportant will clarify what he meant, but I'm
looking at this paragraph:

> Sorry John, you have a Western mind-set, and you just don't
> understand the evil this ideology represents - these people are
> monsters (Sunni, or Shiite), there is no evil that is beyond
> them. Perhaps one day you will come to realize, or perhaps not --
> environmental conditioning is difficult to overcome.

I'm interpreting the words "this ideology ... Sunni or Shiite" as
meaning all Muslims. As I said, perhaps he'll clarify.

In your case, you've quoted the Koran, and although you didn't
explicitly say so, I interpreted you to be referring to anyone who
believes in the Koran - i.e., all Muslims. Perhaps you can clarify as
well.

And now you're implying that the Muslims and the Nazis are equivalent.
The Italians were also on the side of the Nazis. Perhaps you can also
clarify what point you were making about the Muslims and the Nazis.

[vincecate]

In your case, you've quoted the Koran, and although you didn't
explicitly say so, I interpreted you to be referring to anyone who
believes in the Koran - i.e., all Muslims. Perhaps you can clarify as
well.

And now you're implying that the Muslims and the Nazis are equivalent.

The politically correct, or Obama, point of view is that ISIS has corrupted Islam and so does evil things like initiating violence against innocent people. They even go so far as to say it is "not Islamic". The reality is that ISIS much more closely follows what it says to do in the Koran to Infidels than the average Muslim does. We are lucky that the billion+ people who follow the Koran (and also Bible) are good enough people not to do all it says in these books.

Many Arabs and Muslims have a hate for Jews and now Israel that was/is rather compatible with Hitlers hate for Jews. If you take a survey of Muslims asking them if they think Israel has a right to exist, the numbers are not very good.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/view ... sp?id=1413
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... tudes.html

[JULLIEN1]

To John and Vincecate:
You're both wrong.
Go to the basics: Islam is supposedly the original religion of mankind and the most perfect law because it claims to come from God. The hierarchy of norms in islamic law is this one: first the Koran (the "constitution"), second the hadiths (sayings of the prophet Mohammad), third human decisions based on reasoning by analogy.
The important point is the Koran doesn't set all the rules. So, Muslims have to know (or imagine) what Mohammad did or told. That's why there are long collections of hadiths, i.e stories reporting what Mohammad said when he was alive. In the VIIIth and IXth century CE the hadiths were codified by scholars. Those collections are the basis of all schools of islamic law. The trouble is Muslims disagree on which hadiths are the true ones. Shias and Sunnis don't have the same collections. Nowadays Sunnis are divided in four "madhhabs" (schools of islamic law) with slightly different collections of hadiths. All have established the authenticy of hadiths by "ismah", the chain of transmission: "Someone remembered that someone remembered that ... that the Prophet (peace and blessings on him) one day said...". It's important for them because Mohammad was not just a prophet but also a lawgiver.
So, Vincecate is wrong: Al-Bagdadi really bases his claims on islamic law, not just the Koran.
John is wrong or more exactly not precise: he should have indicated the site where he found the hadith in order to make sure which "madhhab" is used.

[JULLIEN1]

In fact John did. The trouble is Ahmadiyyas aren't recognized as a serious muslim movement. For someone as Al-Bagdadi, they are "takfir", apostates.

[vincecate]

So, Vincecate is wrong: Al-Bagdadi really bases his claims on islamic law, not just the Koran.

I don't disagree. My point is just that he is doing what the Koran says to do and that for him the Koran is the highest source of truth. He is working from a game plan that has already been able to take over around 1/4th the planet. He is not just some random thug doing whatever he feels like. The percentage Muslim in the areas he has been operating in has been going up. So in some sense the plan is still working.

[NoOneImportant]

John, you continue to attempt to draw logical conclusions that simply don't apply, or were not intended. Not all Germans in Nazi Germany were Nazis, nor were all Russians Soviet, nor were all Red Chinese Reds. There can, however, be no question that between the three they caused the deaths of over 110 - 120 million people -- mostly innocents, interested only in the daily conduct of their lives. It made no difference that the lion's share of those who did the dieing were not the ideologues driving those societies. Those ideologue monsters who drove those societies commanded either directly, or the conditions that caused the deaths of those, largely innocent, people indirectly. Your attempt to impute nefarious intent to all Muslims is, in the main, disingenuous, and is a large part of the problem. I am old enough to have seen the time when Muslim women in America, and Western Europe eschewed the Hajib for Western garb. With the spread of the of the prevalence of Islam in the West came the mandate that Muslim women adopt the Hijib -- no choice involved on the part of those Muslim women; and it made no difference whether those women were Shiite, or Sunni.

To deny a problem assures that there is never a solution. Islam is a study that does not live in peace with anybody, or any culture. The monsters of ISIS are, on the one hand Sunni, while the "monster" Assad (your words, not mine), Hezbollah, and Iran are Shiite on the other. Which monster do you choose to be murdered by?

John, you either choose not see, or cannot see the jeopardy presented by an ideology that permits no ability to freely choose a personal course in the daily conduct of your life. It is easy to understand your position. We have all lived the last 40 years in an America repeatedly saying to itself: "there are no monsters, there are no monsters, there are no monsters", and America has come to believe the idiocy of that statement; for any lie repeated often enough eventually becomes the "truth," for the hearer. History, on the other hand, is replete with the monstrous deeds perpetrated by actual real life actual monsters. Reality is screaming, daily, that there really are monsters. Yet many cannot come to grips with that fact; probably, though I really don't know for sure, through a lifetime of Pavlovian conditioning that they have endured. It's easy to see your position. You are directly unaffected by the radical/fundamentalist ideology of Islam, as you live in a place where you may, for the present, freely choose the conduct of your life -- the continuation of that freedom, which you fail to either understand, or accept, is not assured.

As noted previously, Islam represents one of the combatants in local or civil strife/conflicts in the following: Nigeria, Denmark, Mali, Holland, Morocco, Tanzania, Philippines, Tunisia, China, Afghanistan, Georgia, Egypt, East Timor, Bosnia, India, France, Thailand, Brittan, Sweden, Holland. If you believe the proponents of Islam it is Islam who has it right, and all the others who have it wrong. It is interesting to note that there is no conflict with Islam in Japan, for example, as the Japanese do not permit Islamic immigration.

Vinecate cited numerous occasions within the Koran where the initiation of conflict between Islam and the non-believer is commended to the follower of Islam. You simply dismissed those verses out of hand -- you addressed none of them specifically. Muslims do not dismiss them. Muslims take each of them seriously. There are over 100 such verses in the Koran that incite Muslims to conflict with the non-believer. Muslims do not dismiss these verses as so much rhetoric. A portion of Muslims take these violent verses literally; not all Muslims to be sure, but if (and we'll take your numbers) 1% of the 1.5 billion Muslims take these verses literally, we are dealing with 15 million Muslims willing to incite conflict wherever they may be. If those numbers are closer to 10% the problem becomes a much more significant 150 million Muslims willing to engage in conflict for Islam.

John, you may deny the problem for as long as you desire. The fact is that you make no attempt to relocate to an Islamic country. Actions always belie true belief. You may say what you will, what you do denotes, without equivocation, what you really believe. If, in fact, Muslims are just like us why not conduct your blog from an Islamic location? And I give you Charlie Hebdo.

[John]

Apparently the point I've been making is way too nuanced for either of
you to understand. Yes, ISIS is killing some Western "infidels" --
Christians and Jews. Mostly for publicity and to create hysteria
among people like you two, as far as I can tell, and it seems to be
working.

What ISIS is REALLY doing is killing tens of thousands of devout
Muslims. The Koran does not permit ISIS to kill tens of thousands of
devout Muslims. Nor does the Koran permit ISIS to unilaterally
declare tens of thousands of devout Muslims to be non-Muslims, in
order to have an excuse to kill them. If it did, then any Muslim
could kill any other Muslim simply by declaring him to be a non-Muslim
under some phony pretext.

I said that I interpreted what you both were saying is that you
consider all 1.7 billion Muslims to be cretinous sub-human monsters.
Neither of you addressed that point directly, but evaded the point and
beat around the bush.

So I'm asking you directly: Of the 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, how
many of them do each of you consider to be cretinous sub-human monsters?
Please don't answer with BS. Provide an actual number. It doesn't
have to be exact -- the nearest 100 million will be close enough.

By the way, I'll give you my own answer to that question: somewhere
between 5,000 and 25,000. Let's have your numbers.

[John]

> The fact is that you make no attempt to relocate to an Islamic
> country. Actions always belie true belief.

You must be completely desperate to use as a totally idiotic argument
like this one.