• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ISIS as Salafī, or why this label is accurate

74x12

Well-Known Member
While ISIS has generally been classified by outside observers as belonging to the tradition of “Salafī-Jihādism,” a term first coined in 2002, some, mainly Sunni (and often Salafī) Muslims themselves, have disputed such a label, and have instead advocated for the classification of ISIS as a “Khawārij” movement. Now, as a Shīʿī Muslim, I am going to offer my perspective on why it is incorrect to classify ISIS as Khawārij and why the term Salafī is indeed accurate when applied to them.

The main reason I take issue with calling ISIS a Khawārij movement is the nature of the term khawārij itself. But what does it mean? Literally, it means ‘those who exit,’ first referring to those who deserted from the army of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib after his arbitration with Muʿāwiyah. Later, however, the term became much more general and much more polemical in its usage, and heresiographers began to use it to refer to any group of Muslims who rebelled against a Muslim ruler. This is similar compared to the evolution of the word jihād. Originally, it had a very specific meaning, but now it is used generally to refer to any military action which is perceived as unjust or any act of terrorism perpetrated by self-declared Muslims. When we as Muslims are so careful with the word jihād, and so quickly rush to condemn the usage of it to refer to senseless murder (the Arabic word for that is istiʿrāḍ), then we should also be careful with our usage of the term khawārij as well.

The Khawārij were not engaged in the senseless murder (istiʿrāḍ) of which early Muslim heresiographers (namely Ibn Ḥazm) accused them, and frankly, neither is ISIS today. These groups acted and are acting according to a complex ideology and theology, which is obvious to anyone who has read al-Najī’s Management of Savagery (Idārat al-tawaḥḥush), but since this fact has already been explained by researchers much more knowledgeable and articulate than myself, I will not go into much detail about that. The simple reality is that these groups cannot truly be understood unless they are understood as rational actors, and it is in fact incorrect to portray them as irrational actors, as Michael Scheuer has pointed out in his book Imperial Hubris (p. 114):
The term khawārij, which, in the Muslim conscience, principally denotes a group on the path of istiʿrāḍ, only contributes to furthering such a misunderstanding of the terrorist as a “madman, bloodthirsty, and irrational” (Ibid., p. 110), ignoring not only the political context and motivations behind the terrorist act as well as the possible religious beliefs of the terrorist, which is especially applicable in this case. Moreover, we should be careful not to kid ourselves in saying, “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam,” (or in a more general sense, that religious violence has nothing to do with religion) since ISIS very much has a lot to do with Islam (and religious violence a lot to do with religion), and saying otherwise merely blinds us to the reality of the negative elements within this ummah. For such elements cannot be purged and prevented from further arising unless identified as they are, unless we are willing to call a spade, a spade.

Now, of course, if you are defining Islam from a religious point of view as submission to God, then there is of course a sharp distinction between “true Islam” and heresy and innovation (bidʿah), but from a critical, sociological perspective, such a definition does not work, since the researcher must be objective. ISIS certainly considers themselves as Muslims — in fact, as the only true Muslims (one reason for their classification as Khawārij) — but even from a religious standpoint, this definition is problematic within religious dialogue. To declare ISIS as Khawārij and therefore non-Muslim brings us to the problem of “Who is a Muslim?” which is yet to be truly resolved despite all efforts, and it also represents a tendency which is generally ascribed to the Khawārij. They, and ISIS, are infamous for their takfīr, and it is said that since they engage in such a practice they are linked to the Khawārij. However, if you declare ISIS as non-Muslim, you are thereby engaging in an act of takfīr yourself, even if they are engaged in clear-cut kufr. Almost every sect of Islam holds themselves to be the only true Muslims, hence the prevalence of the famous ‘Hadith of the Seventy-three Sects,’ which predicts that the ummah will divide into seventy-three principal sects of which only one will be saved. This is thus not an element unique to the Khawārij and the presence of such a characteristic within the theology of ISIS lends no credence to the Khawārij label. The very act of defining ‘Muslim’ according to any kind of definition stricter than “one who claims to be Muslim” is itself an act on the verge of takfīr, which is the declaration of a self-professed Muslim to be a non-Muslim.

Thus, if ISIS does not represent the Khawārij anymore than they represent Muslims as a whole, as we should agree, then who do they represent? The simple answer is that they represent none other than who they claim to be — Salafī-Jihādīs, since their doctrines are by no means no innovation in a purely historical sense. They have extracted these ideas directly from the writings of scholars so eminent among the Salafīs as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and in fact criticise the Saudi government and modern self-proclaimed Salafīs in their publications for not taking these ideas to their logical end.

One cannot label ISIS as Khawārij unless one also labels Salafīs as Khawārij, since the main three elements of the Khawārij as noted by scholars such as al-Yaʿqūbī in his book Refuting ISIS, namely: (1) khurūj (insurrection), (2) takfīr (excommunication), and (3) istiʿrāḍ (indiscriminate murder) are not unique at all to classified terrorist groups but prevalent among Salafīs of all stripes, particularly among the so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels and their armchair supporters in the West and elsewhere.

From their perspective, their rebellion against Assad is not an unlawful khurūj against a Muslim ruler, since they do not believe Assad to be a Muslim ruler at all but rather an apostate (murtadd), unbeliever (kāfir), and polytheist (mushrik), since Assad is from an Alawite family. Of course, by all indications, the Assad family does not hold any Alawite religious beliefs and are standard Sunnīs, and neither do many Syrian Alawites do to the ‘Sunnification’ project enacted by Hafez al-Assad. There are two problems, however: (1) Assad’s government is secular, and (2) he is nevertheless from an Alawite family and enjoys support from the majority of the Alawites in Syria. The Salafī rebels (including ISIS and al-Qaeda) have therefore declared him an apostate for his failure to implement the sharīʿah as the law of the land and have declared him guilty of shirk by reason of this and his association with the Alawite minority. Certain sects of the Khawārij had no different of a methodology. If a Muslim ruler was sinful, it was permissible to engage in khurūj against him, and the simple proof of this is their own actions in supporting the murder of ʿUthmān and in rebelling against ʿAlī. Likewise, the Salafīs engage in takfīr in claiming themselves to be the “saved sect” to the exclusion of all others, and their merciless violence and enmity towards the non-Sunnīs of Syria is well-known.

If, therefore, you desire to apply the label of Khawārij to ISIS, then you should also be comfortable in applying it to these Salafī-Takfīrīs, whose behaviour in Syria, where they actually back up their words with action unlike these armchair Salafīs in the West, is near-identical to that of the Khawārij as depicted by Muslim heresiographers.
Terrorist organisations can easily be controlled at the top by people with ulterior motives. Just like revolutions are easily controlled and steered from behind the scenes.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Is this a mainstream / common belief among Muslims: "It's not for you to Judge... but God"?
It's fairly common in the circles I move in.
@LuisDantas , @Audie,

Islam promotes and literally translates to "Surrender" to God. I know how both of you feel about theism. However I hope you will consider that:

If a person believes that part of Surrender to God means "Don't judge", that's a good thing.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
@LuisDantas , @Audie,

Islam promotes and literally translates to "Surrender" to God. I know how both of you feel about theism. However I hope you will consider that:

If a person believes that part of Surrender to God means "Don't judge", that's a good thing.


As soon as the terrorism ends some of that may
start to matter.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
@LuisDantas , @Audie,

Islam promotes and literally translates to "Surrender" to God. I know how both of you feel about theism.


About proselitist monotheism, in my case. Theism is fine in and of itself.

However I hope you will consider that:

If a person believes that part of Surrender to God means "Don't judge", that's a good thing.

Unfortunately, that is just not workable. Making judgements is a necessary part of practical life.

Maybe it would be a good thing for those God-surrenders to attempt not to judge, but in practice that is dicey at best. It is just too easy for God-surrenders to file that under "unattainable" and become vulnerable to hypocrisy or worse.

Many a terrorist or psychopath seems to sincerely believe to be doing God's will, you know.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Unfortunately, that is just not workable. Making judgements is a necessary part of practical life.

/QUOTE]

Now now, judge not lest thou be judged!
Drink not, lest thou be drunk
Eat not lest thou be eaten
Go not lest thou be gone
Think not lest thou be thunk
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Sounds like a race to the bottom.

Sounds like you are disinclined to examine
the nonsense of "judge not", which was itself
a dodge of the whole thing about how Islam
is the leading source of terrorist ideology.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Sounds like a race to the bottom.
To me it sounds like pointing out a serious, if often neglected flaw of some teachings.

I have met many Christians that attempted "not to judge". Frankly, that caused a lot of hurt, damage and unhealthy denial.

I have no reason to expect it to be any different in Islaam... which, after all, _has_ introduced the concept of Tariq.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Sounds like you are disinclined to examine
the nonsense of "judge not", which was itself
a dodge of the whole thing about how Islam
is the leading source of terrorist ideology.
Respectfully, Islam prohibits terrorism. I think you're casting too big a net.

We have a gun problem in America. High School and College students aren't safe. If all guns "vanished" then these students would be safer. But, many responsible gun owners would be caught up in that net. And the backlash would be huge. It's not practical or fair to wage a war on gun owners because students aren't safe in their classrooms.

The same is true for Islam.

We have a terrorism problem globally. If Islam "vanished" as you proposed maybe there would be less terrorism. But waging a war on Islam is not practical or fair. If a Muslim chooses not to judge a person, trusts God or a religious judicial system to perform that role, that individual is not a terrorist. By your standards they engage in an unsafe practice, but that's no different than a gun owner.

I have examined the terrorism issue. I understand you have more knowledge and experience, but that doesn't mean that I don't have something constructive to offer.

And that's this:

I think focusing on Islam as the root cause of terrorism is a mistake. I think there are too many good people that are included in the indictment. Good people who have done nothing wrong.

I think that claiming the world would be better without Islam is no different than claiming the State of Israel has no right to exist. Most people feel the Israeli Government has the right to defend itself against those who wish it to "vanish". I think if there are people who want Islam to "vanish", it makes sense for Muslims to become defensive when presented with this point of view.

That's why I think it's unfair and impractical to wish Islam would vanish in order to reduce terrorism: too many good Muslims are being blamed unfairly, and wishing Islam would "vanish" invites hostility.

That's what shouldn't been done, because, I think it makes the situation worse.

So I don't look like I'm dodging the issue, even though it's going to sound foolish, here's what I think would help.

I think open minded optimistic religious people should go out of their way to learn about Islam, read the Qur'an, learn Arabic, etc. In the process, some of us are going to convert. Islam will continue to grow, will become more diverse, and that diversity will bring broader understanding and less violence.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
While ISIS has generally been classified by outside observers as belonging to the tradition of “Salafī-Jihādism,” a term first coined in 2002, some, mainly Sunni (and often Salafī) Muslims themselves, have disputed such a label, and have instead advocated for the classification of ISIS as a “Khawārij” movement. Now, as a Shīʿī Muslim, I am going to offer my perspective on why it is incorrect to classify ISIS as Khawārij and why the term Salafī is indeed accurate when applied to them.

The main reason I take issue with calling ISIS a Khawārij movement is the nature of the term khawārij itself. But what does it mean? Literally, it means ‘those who exit,’ first referring to those who deserted from the army of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib after his arbitration with Muʿāwiyah. Later, however, the term became much more general and much more polemical in its usage, and heresiographers began to use it to refer to any group of Muslims who rebelled against a Muslim ruler. This is similar compared to the evolution of the word jihād. Originally, it had a very specific meaning, but now it is used generally to refer to any military action which is perceived as unjust or any act of terrorism perpetrated by self-declared Muslims. When we as Muslims are so careful with the word jihād, and so quickly rush to condemn the usage of it to refer to senseless murder (the Arabic word for that is istiʿrāḍ), then we should also be careful with our usage of the term khawārij as well.

The Khawārij were not engaged in the senseless murder (istiʿrāḍ) of which early Muslim heresiographers (namely Ibn Ḥazm) accused them, and frankly, neither is ISIS today. These groups acted and are acting according to a complex ideology and theology, which is obvious to anyone who has read al-Najī’s Management of Savagery (Idārat al-tawaḥḥush), but since this fact has already been explained by researchers much more knowledgeable and articulate than myself, I will not go into much detail about that. The simple reality is that these groups cannot truly be understood unless they are understood as rational actors, and it is in fact incorrect to portray them as irrational actors, as Michael Scheuer has pointed out in his book Imperial Hubris (p. 114):
The term khawārij, which, in the Muslim conscience, principally denotes a group on the path of istiʿrāḍ, only contributes to furthering such a misunderstanding of the terrorist as a “madman, bloodthirsty, and irrational” (Ibid., p. 110), ignoring not only the political context and motivations behind the terrorist act as well as the possible religious beliefs of the terrorist, which is especially applicable in this case. Moreover, we should be careful not to kid ourselves in saying, “ISIS has nothing to do with Islam,” (or in a more general sense, that religious violence has nothing to do with religion) since ISIS very much has a lot to do with Islam (and religious violence a lot to do with religion), and saying otherwise merely blinds us to the reality of the negative elements within this ummah. For such elements cannot be purged and prevented from further arising unless identified as they are, unless we are willing to call a spade, a spade.

Now, of course, if you are defining Islam from a religious point of view as submission to God, then there is of course a sharp distinction between “true Islam” and heresy and innovation (bidʿah), but from a critical, sociological perspective, such a definition does not work, since the researcher must be objective. ISIS certainly considers themselves as Muslims — in fact, as the only true Muslims (one reason for their classification as Khawārij) — but even from a religious standpoint, this definition is problematic within religious dialogue. To declare ISIS as Khawārij and therefore non-Muslim brings us to the problem of “Who is a Muslim?” which is yet to be truly resolved despite all efforts, and it also represents a tendency which is generally ascribed to the Khawārij. They, and ISIS, are infamous for their takfīr, and it is said that since they engage in such a practice they are linked to the Khawārij. However, if you declare ISIS as non-Muslim, you are thereby engaging in an act of takfīr yourself, even if they are engaged in clear-cut kufr. Almost every sect of Islam holds themselves to be the only true Muslims, hence the prevalence of the famous ‘Hadith of the Seventy-three Sects,’ which predicts that the ummah will divide into seventy-three principal sects of which only one will be saved. This is thus not an element unique to the Khawārij and the presence of such a characteristic within the theology of ISIS lends no credence to the Khawārij label. The very act of defining ‘Muslim’ according to any kind of definition stricter than “one who claims to be Muslim” is itself an act on the verge of takfīr, which is the declaration of a self-professed Muslim to be a non-Muslim.

Thus, if ISIS does not represent the Khawārij anymore than they represent Muslims as a whole, as we should agree, then who do they represent? The simple answer is that they represent none other than who they claim to be — Salafī-Jihādīs, since their doctrines are by no means no innovation in a purely historical sense. They have extracted these ideas directly from the writings of scholars so eminent among the Salafīs as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb and in fact criticise the Saudi government and modern self-proclaimed Salafīs in their publications for not taking these ideas to their logical end.

One cannot label ISIS as Khawārij unless one also labels Salafīs as Khawārij, since the main three elements of the Khawārij as noted by scholars such as al-Yaʿqūbī in his book Refuting ISIS, namely: (1) khurūj (insurrection), (2) takfīr (excommunication), and (3) istiʿrāḍ (indiscriminate murder) are not unique at all to classified terrorist groups but prevalent among Salafīs of all stripes, particularly among the so-called ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels and their armchair supporters in the West and elsewhere.

From their perspective, their rebellion against Assad is not an unlawful khurūj against a Muslim ruler, since they do not believe Assad to be a Muslim ruler at all but rather an apostate (murtadd), unbeliever (kāfir), and polytheist (mushrik), since Assad is from an Alawite family. Of course, by all indications, the Assad family does not hold any Alawite religious beliefs and are standard Sunnīs, and neither do many Syrian Alawites do to the ‘Sunnification’ project enacted by Hafez al-Assad. There are two problems, however: (1) Assad’s government is secular, and (2) he is nevertheless from an Alawite family and enjoys support from the majority of the Alawites in Syria. The Salafī rebels (including ISIS and al-Qaeda) have therefore declared him an apostate for his failure to implement the sharīʿah as the law of the land and have declared him guilty of shirk by reason of this and his association with the Alawite minority. Certain sects of the Khawārij had no different of a methodology. If a Muslim ruler was sinful, it was permissible to engage in khurūj against him, and the simple proof of this is their own actions in supporting the murder of ʿUthmān and in rebelling against ʿAlī. Likewise, the Salafīs engage in takfīr in claiming themselves to be the “saved sect” to the exclusion of all others, and their merciless violence and enmity towards the non-Sunnīs of Syria is well-known.

If, therefore, you desire to apply the label of Khawārij to ISIS, then you should also be comfortable in applying it to these Salafī-Takfīrīs, whose behaviour in Syria, where they actually back up their words with action unlike these armchair Salafīs in the West, is near-identical to that of the Khawārij as depicted by Muslim heresiographers.

I have heard them called Salafi since I was a kid. Where are all you experts from?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Respectfully, Islam prohibits terrorism. I think you're casting too big a net.

I said this-

Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology.

And you respond with American school violence.
Earlier I made reference to dodges.

Now, it may well be that you can find it
in the koran, that terrorism, however defined
is prohibited. *

"Islam" consists of zero except the koran, and
the people who practice the religion.

As Mohammed himself practiced terrorism,
attacking civilian commercial interests as a
way to weaken his enemies, it is not
real hard to draw a straight line to 911.

Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology

Are you just unable to acknowledge that?
I sure dont see any reform likely as long as
people pretend there is not a problem.

* the bible provides for whatever a person
wishes to find approved by god, so I expect
the koran does too. I'd guess your bin
laden sorts know the koran better than you do.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology

Are you just unable to acknowledge that?
I am open to the idea, but i simply haven't seen evidence to support it.

As Mohammed himself practiced terrorism,
attacking civilian commercial interests as a
way to weaken his enemies
I think this is a good point, but i would like to review the source.

I said this-

Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology.

And you respond with American school violence.
Earlier I made reference to dodges.
Respectfully, it's not a dodge. They are comparable and symetric problems. Both involve deadly violence. Getting rid of guns would reduce violence in the same manner as getting rid of Islam. Suggesting to get rid of guns results in a backlash; it's not a practical solution. Suggesting to get rid of Islam results in a backlash; it's not practical.

It's not a dodge, it's a common sense analogy explaining why it's counter productive to suggest the world would be better without Islam.
I'd guess your bin
laden sorts know the koran better than you do.
Indeed, I'm sure that he did. But I don't think he could justify his actions based on the Qur'an. I am 95% sure that the majority of Islamic jurists have concluded that crashing planes into the WTC was an act of terrorism, harming innocent people. So even if Bin Laden knew the Qur'an better than me, those actions were not supported by the Qur'an.

And that's the point I'm trying to make. Focusing on whether or Bin Laden's actions are in the Qur'an is a distraction. The majority of Muslims who spend time reading and memorizing the Qur'an do not become terrorists. I simply do not see evidence supporting that the Qur'an or the Islamic faith is the root cause. It's like treating a mental illness with chemotherapy.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I said this-

Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology.

And you respond with American school violence.
Earlier I made reference to dodges.

Now, it may well be that you can find it
in the koran, that terrorism, however defined
is prohibited. *

"Islam" consists of zero except the koran, and
the people who practice the religion.

As Mohammed himself practiced terrorism,
attacking civilian commercial interests as a
way to weaken his enemies, it is not
real hard to draw a straight line to 911.

Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology

Are you just unable to acknowledge that?
I sure dont see any reform likely as long as
people pretend there is not a problem.

* the bible provides for whatever a person
wishes to find approved by god, so I expect
the koran does too. I'd guess your bin
laden sorts know the koran better than you do.

OBL was Deobandi with influence from al Banna and Sayeed Qubt.. both outlawed in Arabia since the early 1970s.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
OBL was Deobandi with influence from al Banna and Sayeed Qubt.. both outlawed in Arabia since the early 1970s.

Uhh... so?
Those are socially backwards countries, some
ways similar to Europe in the middle ages.
"Wrong" ideas were outlawed, and
some who might stray paid a terrible price.
Not unlike what happens in some islmaic
countries now.

As for what is the point of my post-
Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Respectfully, Islam prohibits terrorism. I think you're casting too big a net.

We have a gun problem in America. High School and College students aren't safe. If all guns "vanished" then these students would be safer. But, many responsible gun owners would be caught up in that net. And the backlash would be huge. It's not practical or fair to wage a war on gun owners because students aren't safe in their classrooms.

The same is true for Islam.

We have a terrorism problem globally. If Islam "vanished" as you proposed maybe there would be less terrorism. But waging a war on Islam is not practical or fair. If a Muslim chooses not to judge a person, trusts God or a religious judicial system to perform that role, that individual is not a terrorist. By your standards they engage in an unsafe practice, but that's no different than a gun owner.

I have examined the terrorism issue. I understand you have more knowledge and experience, but that doesn't mean that I don't have something constructive to offer.

And that's this:

I think focusing on Islam as the root cause of terrorism is a mistake. I think there are too many good people that are included in the indictment. Good people who have done nothing wrong.

I think that claiming the world would be better without Islam is no different than claiming the State of Israel has no right to exist. Most people feel the Israeli Government has the right to defend itself against those who wish it to "vanish". I think if there are people who want Islam to "vanish", it makes sense for Muslims to become defensive when presented with this point of view.

That's why I think it's unfair and impractical to wish Islam would vanish in order to reduce terrorism: too many good Muslims are being blamed unfairly, and wishing Islam would "vanish" invites hostility.

That's what shouldn't been done, because, I think it makes the situation worse.

So I don't look like I'm dodging the issue, even though it's going to sound foolish, here's what I think would help.

I think open minded optimistic religious people should go out of their way to learn about Islam, read the Qur'an, learn Arabic, etc. In the process, some of us are going to convert. Islam will continue to grow, will become more diverse, and that diversity will bring broader understanding and less violence.

Before Islam raiding caravans for wives and livestock was pretty much the norm.... still is in parts of Sudan. Same deal in ancient Palestine. King David was referred to as the bandit king... after all it was on the trade route from
Egypt to Babylon.

Muhammed united the tribes by marrying women (and widows) from various families. From 1900 thru 1950 Abdulaziz Ibn Saud did the same thing. We used to call it Petticoat Politics.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Uhh... so?
Those are socially backwards countries, some
ways similar to Europe in the middle ages.
"Wrong" ideas were outlawed, and
some who might stray paid a terrible price.
Not unlike what happens in some islmaic
countries now.

As for what is the point of my post-
Islam is the leading source of terrorist ideology

Feel superior?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I am open to the idea, but i simply haven't seen evidence to support it.


I think this is a good point, but i would like to review the source.


Respectfully, it's not a dodge. They are comparable and symetric problems. Both involve deadly violence. Getting rid of guns would reduce violence in the same manner as getting rid of Islam. Suggesting to get rid of guns results in a backlash; it's not a practical solution. Suggesting to get rid of Islam results in a backlash; it's not practical.

It's not a dodge, it's a common sense analogy explaining why it's counter productive to suggest the world would be better without Islam.

Indeed, I'm sure that he did. But I don't think he could justify his actions based on the Qur'an. I am 95% sure that the majority of Islamic jurists have concluded that crashing planes into the WTC was an act of terrorism, harming innocent people. So even if Bin Laden knew the Qur'an better than me, those actions were not supported by the Qur'an.

And that's the point I'm trying to make. Focusing on whether or Bin Laden's actions are in the Qur'an is a distraction. The majority of Muslims who spend time reading and memorizing the Qur'an do not become terrorists. I simply do not see evidence supporting that the Qur'an or the Islamic faith is the root cause. It's like treating a mental illness with chemotherapy.

EVEN IF some other ideology doth surpass islam as
a source of terrorism, that hardly gets islam off of any
hook.

Comparing an ideology (islam) to a tool (gun, hammer)
is ridiculous.

AND, as you can show there is no correct reading of
the koran, nor can anyone else, and the boys of 911
and ISIS have been quite ready to give their lives for
the faith (doing so for family, country, faith is
considered quite the sign of virtuous sincerity)
I'd say their version is as good as the next.


harming innocent people. So even if Bin Laden knew the Qur'an better than me, those actions were not supported by the Qur'an.

How can you even push your fingers to post
such a blatant falsehood?

Criminal raids on civilian commerce was good
enough for the so called "Prophet" after all.
If someone now is civilized enough to be recovering
from Islam and seeing the problem with that, terrif.

Now, back to the source of ideology. WHAT, if not
Islam, IS the ideology that drives the terrorists?
I dont think they chant "Woodstock Uber Alles"
when diving their airplanes, or setting fire to
caged captives. What is it they chant?
What ideology is it about?
 

sooda

Veteran Member
EVEN IF some other ideology doth surpass islam as
a source of terrorism, that hardly gets islam off of any
hook.

Comparing an ideology (islam) to a tool (gun, hammer)
is ridiculous.

AND, as you can show there is no correct reading of
the koran, nor can anyone else, and the boys of 911
and ISIS have been quite ready to give their lives for
the faith (doing so for family, country, faith is
considered quite the sign of virtuous sincerity)
I'd say their version is as good as the next.


harming innocent people. So even if Bin Laden knew the Qur'an better than me, those actions were not supported by the Qur'an.

How can you even push your fingers to post
such a blatant falsehood?

Criminal raids on civilian commerce was good
enough for the so called "Prophet" after all.
If someone now is civilized enough to be recovering
from Islam and seeing the problem with that, terrif.

Now, back to the source of ideology. WHAT, if not
Islam, IS the ideology that drives the terrorists?
I dont think they chant "Woodstock Uber Alles"
when diving their airplanes, or setting fire to
caged captives. What is it they chant?
What ideology is it about?

I doubt the muscle on board even knew 9-11 was a suicide mission.
 
Top