Jump to content
Airbrush

Is IS the One True Islam?

Recommended Posts

Here is my question for experts of Islam. It appears to me that IS (the Islamic State, formerly ISIS or ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Levant means Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Lebannon, Cyprus, and Southern Turkey))) IS the ONE TRUE Islam since it most closely follows the literal Quran. Sunis, Shia, and other Islamic sects, follow a "watered-down" interpretation of the Quran, a peaceful version, and don't follow the encouragement to fight jihad against unbelievers, and unbelievers are ANYONE, including Muslims who don't follow the extreme, literal, Sharia-Law version of Islam. This reminds me of the Roman Catholic Church being the ONE TRUE Christianity, and the Protestants are reformers who "fell away from the Church", who don't follow the ONE TRUE message of Jesus Christ. And within that message is to join the one true religion, the Catholic Church, or so I was led to believe in Catholic grammar school and high school, before I "fell away from the Church" and became agnostic.

 

If 99% of Muslims are against these radicals, then the one true jihad for ALL Muslims is to fight against IS. Good, true Muslims should now begin a jihad against IS. They should infiltrate IS and give their locations to the US advisors so drone strikes can take them out, systematically. In fact, it appears to me, that to NOT fight jihad against IS would be an evil for ALL Muslims. It is not enough to just verbally denounce IS. True believers should follow Mohammed's example and infiltrate IS to destroy it from within! Now get to work believers!

Edited by Airbrush

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misinterpreted religion has always been a convenient anchorage for self-disenfranchised fools. And a convenient scapegoat for people who find complexity troubling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Muslims have an obligation to emulate their prophet and he, being a pathological narcissist, had no conscience at all. He massacred entire populations and killed people for the slightest criticism of his person with total ease of mind. Muslims share his psychopathology to the degree that they follow his examples.

 

Yes, I do think ISIS are very close to the purest form of Islam. Their actions are roughly consistent with both the behavior of Muhammad (who according to the Quran is the perfect man and an ideal example to follow) and the teachings of Islam as exemplified by the most authoritative clerics of all times.

 

Reading the works of men such as Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Qayyim, Al Ghazali, books about four Sunni schools of jurisprudence (Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki, Shafi) would be a good start in learning what makes ISIS (and all Islamists) who they are. These men are basically Islamic equivalents of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas. Reading works of contemporary clerics (Sayyid Qutb, Abu Ala Maududi, Abdullah Azzam, Anwar Al Awlaki and many others) would also clarify many things.

Edited by Irbis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Misinterpreted religion has always been a convenient anchorage for self-disenfranchised fools. And a convenient scapegoat for people who find complexity troubling.

 

Then again a lot of the evil and destruction arising from Islam needn't be misinterpreted. It's teachings plainly promotes ideologies specialising in those feats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Then again a lot of the evil and destruction arising from Islam needn't be misinterpreted. It's teachings plainly promotes ideologies specialising in those feats.

I imagine that the ability to oversimplify must be very comforting for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine that the ability to oversimplify must be very comforting for you.

 

Feel free to point out what, if anything I've oversimplified. I beg you. Your ambiguity seems ironically rather similar to oversimplification in its nature.

Edited by Iota

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now get to work believers!

 

!

Moderator Note

So far, there has been 0% Politics and 100% Religion in this thread, so we're packing up here and moving this show to the Religion section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Feel free to point out what, if anything I've oversimplified. I beg you. Your ambiguity seems ironically rather similar to oversimplification in its nature.

You said "a lot of the of the evil and destruction arising from Islam need not be misinterpreted".

 

You have, it appears, erected a strawman and introduced an emotive term (evil) that is ill defined. The destruction and chaos simplistically attributed to Islam are more accurately a consequence of centuries of complex social, cultural, political, military and economic interactions between nations, tribes, and ideologies. Certainly religion has played an important role here too, but to imagine that what we are seeing is the consequence of religion alone, or even principally, as you assert is gross oversimplification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evil is a subjective term, but by no means a default emotive. There's nothing wrong with my use of a subjective term in there, because I interjected a new point, clearly expressed as my opinion. You are the one who's erected a straw man here.

 

Consider revising your definitions, before throwing them around wrongly and at random, and wrongly dismissing others' arguments purely on that basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you skillfully choose to address a minor point (and defend your position inadequately, at that) and completely ignore the key point of my post.

 

You have attributed to religion what is the consequence of the interplay of may factors of which religion is only one.

 

That attribution has these characteristics:

 

It is a gross simplification.

It is offensive.

It is ill considered.

It is - using the word literally - ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you skillfully choose to address a minor point (and defend your position inadequately, at that) and completely ignore the key point of my post.

 

You have attributed to religion what is the consequence of the interplay of may factors of which religion is only one.

 

That attribution has these characteristics:

 

It is a gross simplification.

It is offensive.

It is ill considered.

It is - using the word literally - ignorant.

 

You're a mong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

 

1. Closed permanently.

 

2. If we are to address such emotive and potentially divisive issues can we please keep the opening questions as precise, balanced, and well constructed as possible. We would also ask that the debate that follows is reasoned, that members avoid jumping to conclusions, and that everyone temper their emotional reactions.

 

3. Iota - the use of derogatory terms to describe another member is against the rules and will not be tolerated. The use of slang terms describing the mentally disabled being utilised as a term of abuse is wholly unacceptable. Do not continue in this manner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.