My faith has been hijacked by extremists. After Alan Henning’s murder, we must reclaim it

First topic message reminder :

Could the senseless killing of Alan Henning lead to a watershed moment, a chance for a new narrative of hope?

How to respond to the inhumane, senseless and unjust murder of Alan Henning? Hoping against hope, I desperately wished that Alan would be reunited with his family. But at the brutal hands of Islamic State (Isis), his murder was sadly inevitable. There was no mercy. There was no compassion. Yet the news, even if expected, was heartbreaking.



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/05/unite-defeat-isis-revolting-perversion-islam



I commend her and this is what I have bee stated is needed, a stronger response from the Islamic community, one that is taking back the identity of their faith away from extremists:








This is why, last week, we launched #makingastand. The campaign encourages women to take the lead in exerting influence in their communities and to root out extremists who are preying on their children. But it is also designed to provide an alternative narrative for young British Muslims: to pledge their allegiance to their country, to respect human rights and to be a peaceful, thoughtful member of British society.

It is in stark contrast to what extremists preach. Our campaign is a “jihad against violence”, an attempt to reclaim the word jihad from those who have wrongly attributed it to mean holy war. Jihad means no such thing. Instead, it is a struggle for goodness, for truth, for justice, for compassion and for peaceful coexistence.

Muslims know that we have the principles in our faith to challenge the extremist outlook; we need, however, to reclaim our faith from these monsters. By succeeding in this war of ideologies, we can eventually turn off the tap of British jihadis leaving the UK to join Isis.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Your poor attempt at deflection based around emotions is not going to work anymore, it is pathetic mate.#
And you now give me your view on translations, where other Muslims view the fact that apostates should be executed, women should be beaten and back this view if they do not comply, that homosexuality is punishable and now you view sex before marriage as wrong, WTF, ha ha.
People and many animals copulate without marriage before such a binding came into being, please tell me what exactly is wrong with that? It was religion that hijacked marriage ti make it seem religious, when it never originally was.
So you never answered on homosexuality, you claim a different view on interpretation to wife beating, you make no view on apostates, even though it is a criminal act in just about every Muslim country, basically trying to avoid answering.


Try again

Lol! I addressed each verse in turn and answered all your questions.

No you failed to, I asked you for your view and if something should be criminal on four aspects, you part answered.
Your answers backed and proved my view that people make their own interpretation of your faith, which is why if you can do this, then so can any Muslims, which then begs the question as to what is correct in Islam.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Agreed-Upon Translations[edit]
As we can see below, almost all Qur'anic translators have translated the term as "beat them".

Yusuf Ali:

"....As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (Next), refuse to share their beds, (And last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them Means (of annoyance): For Allah is Most High, great (above you all)." [4]
Pickthal:

"...As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." [4]
Shakir:

"...and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." [4]
Al-Hilali & Mohsin Khan:

"....As to those women on whose part you see ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly, if it is useful), but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance). Surely, Allah is Ever Most High, Most Great." [4]
Dr. T.B. Irving:

"...Admonish those women whose surliness you fear, and leave them alone in their beds, and [even] beat them [if necessary]. If they obey you, do not seek any way [to proceed] against them. God is Sublime, Great." [5]
Muhammad Sarwar:

"...Admonish women who disobey (God's laws), do not sleep with them and beat them. If they obey (the laws of God), do not try to find fault in them. God is High and Supreme." [4]
Rashad Khalifa:

"....If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme." [6]
Abdul-Majid Daryabadi:

"...And those wives whose refractoriness ye fear, exhort them, and avoid them in beds, and beat them; but if they obey you, seek not a way against them; verily Allah is ever Lofty, Grand." [3]
E.H. Palmer:

"...But those whose perverseness ye fear, admonish them and remove them into bedchambers and beat them; but if they submit to you, then do not seek a way against them; verily, God is high and great." [7]
Muhammad Ayub Khan:

"...And those whose rebellion you fear, admonish them and leave them alone in the beds, and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; God is surely High, Great."
Ahmed Raza Khan:

"...the women from whom you fear disobedience, (at first) advise them and (then) do not cohabit with them, and (lastly) beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek to do injustice to them; indeed Allah is Supreme, Great." [8]
Hassan Qaribullah & Ahmad Darwish:

"...Those from whom you fear rebelliousness, admonish them and desert them in the bed and smack them (without harshness). Then, if they obey you, do not look for any way against them. Allah is High, Great." [4]
Mahmud Y. Zayid:

"...and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." [9]
Muhammad Asad:

"...And as for those woolen whose ill-will" you have reason to fear, admonish them [first]; then leave them alone in bed; then beat them and if thereupon..." [4]


http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Beat_your_Wives_or_Separate_from_Them_-_Quran_4-34

And even If you accept those translations, you still can't actually 'beat' your wife.

http://www.islamicfinder.org/articles/article.php?id=307

But here again other Muslim authorities disagree with you, so who is right Zack?
Just because you view it is wrong, shows you follow one interpretation, proving this is hardly a divine book, when people cannot agree on many aspects of it.
I have given you many actual translations by Muslim figures, so again, is the problem in Islam and other faiths, that they decide to follow what ever view suits their convictions?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:It has nothing to do with being progressive or non-literal.

What most non-Muslims and some Muslims don't realise, is that the Quran must be taken in its historical context.

For example, verse you said was about apostasy did not mention any earthly punishment. There is no other way to take that, literally or otherwise.

Just because some Muslim countries have these laws, doesn't mean Muslims and even imams (inside and outside those countries) think those countries are acting Islamically.

Many of these countries have their own version of Sharia law that is not necessaerily based on the Quran. But it is there to protect their own (mainly patriarchal) power base. Hence the subjugation of women, etc.

Zack, but you know your faiths is more than just translations are the Quran, all of which you are avoiding and you are avoiding answering my questions.
Never heard such a weak counter to say, now the majority of Muslims in these nations follow laws, and now think they are not Islamic, where is the proof to that?
This is why some of your views are sheer nonsense, if many Imans and scholars viewed different, then there would a change on consensus, but there is not and if you claim it is down to fear, then that is a contradiction also.

The point I made though which you have avoided, is that homosexuality, Apostasy and sex before marriage is seen as wrong, without explaining why, where my view is the book you follow, the Quran is nothing short of the invention of men, clearly based around out dated principles and the fact it contradicts, where as stated already, so many Muslims have differing views over what verses mean, all thinking their view is right.

Didge wrote:Well she is clearly wrong because it is about ideology, one of which you seem a tad lacking of knowledge about.

It’s not about me, Didge.  You are avoiding the subject…perhaps lacking assuredness in what you are saying??

Didge wrote:The reality is you need to read up on Salafism, you know, it is a very conservative Islamic movement, would be right up your street of thinking, as I posted earlier they wish to eradicate all those including many Muslims not following their discourse of Islam.

More evading the point…we don’t need all your fuddy-duddy detail about Islam to understand her point: ideology should not be permitted to trump humanism.

Didge wrote:Well if she is daft enough to use the approach of trying to reasoning with mass murders, maybe she needs to look at what happened when we tried to do that with Hitler. The signs were there and your approach was taken to try and reason, when he could have been stopped in his tracks, the moment he sent his troops into the Rhineland. You may want to ask the Tibetans about your approach, being the fact over 1 million have died under oppression.

My how warmongers love to use Chamberlain.  Every situation in which warfare is cautioned against brings up Chamberlain.  How about Hitler; he was pro-war.  Do you want to be like Hitler?  A more reasonable example for you would be GWB…or maybe Cheney.

Assumptions are not fact.  You are just being emotional, likening apples to oranges.  So far the ISIL folks are just good flim-flam men…they put on a good show, but really represent no more of a threat to us than a cloudy day.  You are freaking out about the symptoms, but doing nothing about the causes.

Didge wrote:The simple fact is war will be a necessity to counter genocidal war mongering loons, sitting back hoping they come to their sense is not a reality, but likely to allow millions to suffer unnecessarily.

War is always “necessary” to a conservative.  It tickles some antagonism nerve deep down inside them, and besides there’s all them war profits to be made if nothing else.  It’s a perfect situation for conservative businessmen.

Didge wrote:When humanity evolves enough (some have), then we can look at a future made of peace, simply put, humanity is not educated enough yet or advanced and until that time war is necessary.

In the meantime, fuck ‘em…let’s kill the mudderfuckers and their wimmen and children as well. Haha, listen to you Didge…all that education and you never learned beyond a 3rd-grade schoolyard brawl.  “War is the answer” sounds like a kinky song I heard:

Five Finger Death Punch wrote:This ain't a test, fuck the rest
Time to set the record straight
Talk your shit behind my back
Let's hear you say it to my face

I've heard the words roll out your lips
You little tricky fucking bitch
The time has come to get you some
'Cause I just do not give a shit

Do you take me for a fool?
How's it feel to be a tool?
See to me you're just a cancer
Motherfucker, war is the answer

As of now the end begins
I want to laugh but there's no joke
To eat with the beasts and run with the wolves
On the ashes you must choke

I know it's got to chap your ass to think
I just won't go away
Affects me not, I'm writing you off
I got nothing more to say

Do you take me for a fool?
How's it feel to be a tool?
To me you're just a cancer
Motherfucker, war is the answer, the answer

You wanna disrespect me you little fucking punk
Everything I've done to be who I am
As far as I've fucking come
I'll slap you so fucking hard it'll feel like you've kissed a freight train
Fuck you

Do you take me for a fool?
How's it feel to be a tool?
Talk your shit behind my back
See to me you're just a cancer
The time has come to get you some
Motherfucker, war is the answer

Five Finger Death Punch - War Is The Answer Lyrics | MetroLyrics

Feel at home, Didge?

Yes I feel very at home, nice cup of tea, where you failed to address any of my points, except post a poem, which failed to do the same, your views is where you stick your head in the ground and hope a problem goes away, it fails to look further ahead to what else happens, and is again why Hitler was able to rise to power, there is no escaping this fact.
Now in your own time counter my points you avoided and again you will find it is many more Democratic Presidents that have gone to war, making your views look utterly silly, where all political groups agree on a very real danger, which you are clearly in the minority over an thank goodness other shave better morals to help others, not take the racial view not to help.

Well she is clearly wrong because it is about ideology, one of which you seem a tad lacking of knowledge about.
The reality is you need to read up on Salafism, you know, it is a very conservative Islamic movement, would be right up your street of thinking, as I posted earlier they wish to eradicate all those including many Muslims not following their discourse of Islam.
Well if she is daft enough to use the approach of trying to reasoning with mass murders, maybe she needs to look at what happened when we tried to do that with Hitler. The signs were there and your approach was taken to try and reason, when he could have been stopped in his tracks, the moment he sent his troops into the Rhineland. You may want to ask the Tibetans about your approach, being the fact over 1 million have died under oppression.
The simple fact is war will be a necessity to counter genocidal war mongering loons, sitting back hoping they come to their sense is not a reality, but likely to allow millions to suffer unnecessarily.
When humanity evolves enough (some have), then we can look at a future made of peace, simply put, humanity is not educated enough yet or advanced and until that time war is necessary.

Didge wrote:Yes I feel very at home, nice cup of tea, where you failed to address any of my points, except post a poem, which failed to do the same, your views is where you stick your head in the ground and hope a problem goes away, it fails to look further ahead to what else happens, and is again why Hitler was able to rise to power, there is no escaping this fact.
Now in your own time counter my points you avoided and again you will find it is many more Democratic Presidents that have gone to war, making your views look utterly silly, where all political groups agree on a very real danger, which you are clearly in the minority over an thank goodness other shave better morals to help others, not take the racial view not to help.

Well she is clearly wrong because it is about ideology, one of which you seem a tad lacking of knowledge about.
The reality is you need to read up on Salafism, you know, it is a very conservative Islamic movement, would be right up your street of thinking, as I posted earlier they wish to eradicate all those including many Muslims not following their discourse of Islam.
Well if she is daft enough to use the approach of trying to reasoning with mass murders, maybe she needs to look at what happened when we tried to do that with Hitler. The signs were there and your approach was taken to try and reason, when he could have been stopped in his tracks, the moment he sent his troops into the Rhineland. You may want to ask the Tibetans about your approach, being the fact over 1 million have died under oppression.
The simple fact is war will be a necessity to counter genocidal war mongering loons, sitting back hoping they come to their sense is not a reality, but likely to allow millions to suffer unnecessarily.
When humanity evolves enough (some have), then we can look at a future made of peace, simply put, humanity is not educated enough yet or advanced and until that time war is necessary.

You do know that Salafi scholars have condemned ISIS too, right?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:It has nothing to do with being progressive or non-literal.

What most non-Muslims and some Muslims don't realise, is that the Quran must be taken in its historical context.

For example, verse you said was about apostasy did not mention any earthly punishment. There is no other way to take that, literally or otherwise.

Just because some Muslim countries have these laws, doesn't mean Muslims and even imams (inside and outside those countries) think those countries are acting Islamically.

Many of these countries have their own version of Sharia law that is not necessaerily based on the Quran. But it is there to protect their own (mainly patriarchal) power base. Hence the subjugation of women, etc.

Zack, but you know your faiths is more than just translations are the Quran, all of which you are avoiding and you are avoiding answering my questions.
Never heard such a weak counter to say, now the majority of Muslims in these nations follow laws, and now think they are not Islamic, where is the proof to that?
This is why some of your views are sheer nonsense, if many Imans and scholars viewed different, then there would a change on consensus, but there is not and if you claim it is down to fear, then that is a contradiction also.

The point I made though which you have avoided, is that homosexuality, Apostasy and sex before marriage is seen as wrong, without explaining why, where my view is the book you follow, the Quran is nothing short of the invention of men, clearly based around out dated principles and the fact it contradicts, where as stated already, so many Muslims have differing views over what verses mean, all thinking their view is right.

You never asked me to express why. I answered for each verse and each question you posted below the verses.

So I did answer your questions and avoided nothing.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:Yes I feel very at home, nice cup of tea, where you failed to address any of my points, except post a poem, which failed to do the same, your views is where you stick your head in the ground and hope a problem goes away, it fails to look further ahead to what else happens, and is again why Hitler was able to rise to power, there is no escaping this fact.
Now in your own time counter my points you avoided and again you will find it is many more Democratic Presidents that have gone to war, making your views look utterly silly, where all political groups agree on a very real danger, which you are clearly in the minority over an thank goodness other shave better morals to help others, not take the racial view not to help.

Well she is clearly wrong because it is about ideology, one of which you seem a tad lacking of knowledge about.
The reality is you need to read up on Salafism, you know, it is a very conservative Islamic movement, would be right up your street of thinking, as I posted earlier they wish to eradicate all those including many Muslims not following their discourse of Islam.
Well if she is daft enough to use the approach of trying to reasoning with mass murders, maybe she needs to look at what happened when we tried to do that with Hitler. The signs were there and your approach was taken to try and reason, when he could have been stopped in his tracks, the moment he sent his troops into the Rhineland. You may want to ask the Tibetans about your approach, being the fact over 1 million have died under oppression.
The simple fact is war will be a necessity to counter genocidal war mongering loons, sitting back hoping they come to their sense is not a reality, but likely to allow millions to suffer unnecessarily.
When humanity evolves enough (some have), then we can look at a future made of peace, simply put, humanity is not educated enough yet or advanced and until that time war is necessary.

You do know that Salafi scholars have condemned ISIS too, right?

Oh yes, but have you read this too:

Saudi poll to reveal public’s level of sympathy for IS
The Sakina Campaign plans to carry out a scientific survey to determine the position of the Saudi public on the "caliphate" announced by the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This comes after the results of an opinion poll of Saudis were released on social networking sites, claiming that 92% of the target group believes that "IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law." Observers believe that in the current period, it is most important to "focus on the roots of extremism and to address and fight it."



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/07/saudi-families-refuse-condolences-isis-position.html##ixzz3FfRUfFFg


You do realise that the majority of Saudis follow the beliefs of Salafism?

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

You do know that Salafi scholars have condemned ISIS too, right?

Oh yes, but have you read this too:

Saudi poll to reveal public’s level of sympathy for IS
The Sakina Campaign plans to carry out a scientific survey to determine the position of the Saudi public on the "caliphate" announced by the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This comes after the results of an opinion poll of Saudis were released on social networking sites, claiming that 92% of the target group believes that "IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law." Observers believe that in the current period, it is most important to "focus on the roots of extremism and to address and fight it."



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/07/saudi-families-refuse-condolences-isis-position.html##ixzz3FfRUfFFg


You do realise that the majority of Saudis follow the beliefs of Salafism?

Oh dear - how pathetic that you have to play the 'poll' game. What was the sample size, what questions were asked and to what type of demographic? You have no idea.

People like you and Maher use polls to play the fear game. But all polls do is stereotype.

I will repeat, top Salafi scholars have condemned ISIS.

In your own words, "try again".

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Zack, but you know your faiths is more than just translations are the Quran, all of which you are avoiding and you are avoiding answering my questions.
Never heard such a weak counter to say, now the majority of Muslims in these nations follow laws, and now think they are not Islamic, where is the proof to that?
This is why some of your views are sheer nonsense, if many Imans and scholars viewed different, then there would a change on consensus, but there is not and if you claim it is down to fear, then that is a contradiction also.

The point I made though which you have avoided, is that homosexuality, Apostasy and sex before marriage is seen as wrong, without explaining why, where my view is the book you follow, the Quran is nothing short of the invention of men, clearly based around out dated principles and the fact it contradicts, where as stated already, so many Muslims have differing views over what verses mean, all thinking their view is right.

You never asked me to express why.  I answered for each verse and each question you posted below the verses.

So I did answer your questions and avoided nothing.

I disagree that you have and am proving what is clearly wrong with religions, how people decide and interpret what they follow from a book written centuries ago, which is not just within Islam, but many faiths.
The reality is as seen your views differ to other Muslims, which considering this is supposed to the most perfect book every written, a claim to words directed from a deity, shows how completely flawed it is, just like the Bible. It something was perfect, all would agree on every principle.
The reality is the opposite, which also has much to do with the problems also of hadiths, all of which there is little proof to back them up as reliable history, even the Quran lacks original early complete copies

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:


Oh yes, but have you read this too:

Saudi poll to reveal public’s level of sympathy for IS
The Sakina Campaign plans to carry out a scientific survey to determine the position of the Saudi public on the "caliphate" announced by the Islamic State (IS) in Iraq and Syria. This comes after the results of an opinion poll of Saudis were released on social networking sites, claiming that 92% of the target group believes that "IS conforms to the values of Islam and Islamic law." Observers believe that in the current period, it is most important to "focus on the roots of extremism and to address and fight it."



Read more: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2014/07/saudi-families-refuse-condolences-isis-position.html##ixzz3FfRUfFFg


You do realise that the majority of Saudis follow the beliefs of Salafism?

Oh dear - how pathetic that you have to play the 'poll' game. What was the sample size, what questions were asked and to what type of demographic? You have no idea.

People like you and Maher use polls to play the fear game. But all polls do is stereotype.

I will repeat, top Salafi scholars have condemned ISIS.

In your own words, "try again".

What a bigoted reply.
The reality is there are people that support them, you only have to see that they are recruiting people to their cause and you miss the point clearly people view them as the correct Islam, which goes back to my point on there being so many views within Islam, like the other religions showing how flawed and open to interpretation they are.
So some scholars have said they condemned them, which completely ignores the view points of Salfism:



Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi Become a fan
Faith leader, Professor of theology and author

In the wake of September 11, 2001, and with America mourning and in shock, the 'Islam is evil' narrative fit more neatly into the political and media landscape than engaging in a deeper discourse. Instead of identifying the true root of extremist ideology, one that pushes a tiny fringe toward violence, the Western mindset chose to stare the problem in the eye and then look the other way. The real problem only needs a little deduction: What do the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Nigeria's Boko Haram, all of the the 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Somalia's Al-Shabab, Al-Nusra Front, and the many ISIL supporters and sympathizers from Western countries, all have in common? Remember, it can't be 'Islam', since most of their victims are Muslims themselves.

The answer is Salafism; an exclusivist, puritanical, coercive, misogynistic school of thought, espousing a misguided creed that oozes with hate from every orifice. Its superficial theology derives from the teachings of a particularly severe religious reformist who lived in central Arabia in the mid-eighteenth century named Bin Abdul Wahhab (hence the alternative appellation 'Wahhabi'). Salafism considers all other Islamic sects which refuse to adhere to their interpretation of the Quran to be innovators and idolators. Shias, for instance, are seen as heretics of the worst kind, whose murder guarantees entry to paradise! The intolerant doctrines and teachings of Bin Abdul Wahhab feature prominently in ISIL literature and is now part of school syllabus for both ISIL controlled regions as well as the Saudi department of education!

Through a pact with the 'House of Saud', Wahhabism became a state-sponsored religion, and in exchange for creating submissiveness (divinely mandated, as in Paul's Epistle to the Romans), Wahhabism receives unlimited financial support and protection from the government (said to be %1 of oil exports). Despite everything the Saudi PR machine churns out, the unholy alliance means militant fanaticism veiled with Islam is the oil kingdom's second largest export and with funding from petroleum exports, the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.

The Salafi movement was largely tamed by the Saudis. That is, until 9/11 when they seem to have lost legitimacy with militant Wahhabis who grew away from "The King is God's shadow on earth" doctrine. So while they enjoyed the marriage of convenience to the House of Saud, they always fantasized about creating a caliphate, resembling what they see as the purest manifestation of divine will for mankind; that of the early Companions. An epoch where the loudest sounds were the clamor of swords and the cracking of the whip. This euphoric reverie will continue to attract young Muslims from around the world, unless the root cause is addressed.

Yet, having witnessed the horrors associated with militant fanaticism, Western governments remained unashamedly deferential to the oligarchs in Riyadh, the West's foremost "allies" in the Arab world. Mercenary and duplicitous to the core, the Saudi political establishment has been subsidizing the Salafists with oil money, providing them with the freedom to spread their venomous hate across the globe.

A quick look at Saudi Arabia and it becomes clear as daylight that we are aligned with the wrong side:

It is a country so totalitarian, the whole nation is officially named after the family of beduins who came to rule it after a long, bloody conquest. To put that into perspective, imagine the US and UK were named Bushistan and Blairia!

The official country emblem consists of two crossed swords with a palm tree in the space above. The culture of beheadings and dismemberment is, thus, entrenched by insignia as well as law.

It is a country which has no constitution and no elections. Laws are enacted by royal decrees and ratified by a toothless parliament whose members are installed by the monarch. The king holds absolute power on all public affairs, including the appointment of chiefs of individual tribes. Women are not allowed to drive, and even travel is permitted only with a male relative. If this is how the Sunni citizens are treated, you can only imagine what the Shia face on a daily basis. The country's most senior Shia faith leader Ayatollah Nimr al-Nimr was violently apprehended for demanding the most basic rights for all citizens. In his public sermons al-Nimr repeatedly condemned violence and called for peaceful protests, but is now facing "death by crucifixion" on charges of "creating public descent and insulting the king"!

It is said, with friends like these, who needs enemies? This is especially true of Saudi Arabia. A country which gave the world sadistic fanatics the likes of whom our generation has never seen, and terrorists whose savagery puts Hollywood's most vile antagonists to shame. A nation which institutionalizes ideological hatred of the other and resists any and all calls for reform away from its medieval system of government cannot be partner to combating terrorism. The only hope rests in the proliferation of true democracy in the region.

But if allowing Saudi Arabia to embrace democracy is too hard for western policymakers to swallow, then at least fight dogma with intellect. A military campaign, even with a global coalition, cannot by itself eradicate this poisonous ideology which has the potential to create, blue-eyed, blonde-haired suicide bombers in every western capital. This war cannot be won with Hellfire missiles alone, and due to the conservative nature of Saudi society, liberal voices will not undo Salafi fundamentalism. Instead, right of center, but anti-Salafi reformist Sunnis like Hassan Bin Farhan [https://twitter.com/HsnFrhanALmalki] and others must be sought to counter the growing threat.

Of course, Saudi rulers, having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying firms in Washington and London, an army of reporters and analysts will attempt to argue that the regime is the only hope the world has for ISIL's containment. But that is both false and dangerous. False because clearly their containment policy (if anything of the sort even exists) hasn't worked and has even fueled the flame of militant Salafism. Dangerous, given the unholy alliance between Wahhabism and the House of Saud continues to underpin the political establishment to this day. Saudi policies in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Bahrain have helped engulf the region into chaos. The ISIL ideology has its appeal in Saudi Arabia because it projects the image of what the country is today, but without the corrupt 15,000 member royal family, so keeping them on life support only serves to exacerbate the natural but acute autoimmune reaction.

We simply need to open our eyes and see the problem as it is. The thread that connects almost all so-called "Muslim" terrorists is militant Salafism. The same violent ideology that the late Saudi crown prince and the royal family's most influential ideologue Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz referred to when he said "the state of Saudi Arabia is a Salafi state. We will forever remain as such and shall never deviate from our Salafi roots as it is the source of our pride and greatness".

Follow Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi on Twitter:

Didge wrote:Yes I feel very at home, nice cup of tea, where you failed to address any of my points, except post a poem, which failed to do the same, your views is where you stick your head in the ground and hope a problem goes away, it fails to look further ahead to what else happens, and is again why Hitler was able to rise to power, there is no escaping this fact.

You didn’t make any points worth noting, Didge. Your message is quite simple...over der them guys is bad, and over here is our good guys and we need to kill, kill, kill all o’ them and make all o’ us feel real good! Do you get what’s going on inside your head? You are after revenge…and you want to spend my tax dollar in order to get your ‘feel good’ thrill. Well it ain’t gonna happen, pal.

Didge wrote:Now in your own time counter my points you avoided and again you will find it is many more Democratic Presidents that have gone to war, making your views look utterly silly, where all political groups agree on a very real danger, which you are clearly in the minority over an thank goodness other shave better morals to help others, not take the racial view not to help.

The history of great themes is of prodigious utility; history of minute trivia is a waste of time. Who cares about Democratic presidents? It’s not presidents, but war that is the subject here.

In order to have a war, you have to have a purpose. Now these ISIL folks have found a great ploy here: get ‘em all emotional and they’ll come back over here and we can fuck with ‘em again. They are murders, not warriors. Send fuckin’ Scotland Yard, if you must. They committed a crime, not an act of war. ISIL is just trying to get your attention…because they can’t do anything else.

Didge wrote:Well she is clearly wrong because it is about ideology, one of which you seem a tad lacking of knowledge about.

ISIL is not about ideology, any more than the KKK is about Christian piety.

Didge wrote:The reality is you need to read up on Salafism, you know, it is a very conservative Islamic movement, would be right up your street of thinking, as I posted earlier they wish to eradicate all those including many Muslims not following their discourse of Islam.
Well if she is daft enough to use the approach of trying to reasoning with mass murders, maybe she needs to look at what happened when we tried to do that with Hitler. The signs were there and your approach was taken to try and reason, when he could have been stopped in his tracks, the moment he sent his troops into the Rhineland. You may want to ask the Tibetans about your approach, being the fact over 1 million have died under oppression.

Hitler is an old, dead white man. You keep beating that horse, but there is no more life in him. If you want to put her message into scriptural terms, she is saying don’t follow false prophets.

Didge wrote:The simple fact is war will be a necessity to counter genocidal war mongering loons, sitting back hoping they come to their sense is not a reality, but likely to allow millions to suffer unnecessarily.

There is no genocide going on. The ISIL folks are putting on a good circus act that gets your attention, and hopefully gets you to buy a ticket. They are doing a good job of trying to sell folks like you that they are bigger than in real life.

Didge wrote:When humanity evolves enough (some have), then we can look at a future made of peace, simply put, humanity is not educated enough yet or advanced and until that time war is necessary.

Life is now Didge. When…if…? Delay and waiting are for old men who have quit and are just warehousing their bodies til they die. If you have an idea, you can do it…and do it now. Stop this pissing on matches, and go find the real flames.

White man?
How racial, what has his skin colour got to do with anything?
Unless you view now people who are all biologically one race as different, the same as Hitler did?
The reality is people took your perception back then afraid of another global war and in the end one came because of the fact they were naive like you are. He could have been stopped but many took the view to ignore, which is what you are advocating Quill, which is not only irresponsible, but again fails to look at the bigger picture. Taking again a view point you only care about people born onto lands, called America.

Sorry did you say there is no genocide going on?

Fuck me, cuckoo.
Well I think the body count in both Iraq and Syria clearly proves that load of babble wrong.

Isis is an ideology formed from another invented form of Islam, Salfism, which is politically motivated.
So you are completely wrong again.


Thank goodness the intelligent people of the world are uniting against them and do not back your views that would allow for the subjugating and extermination of many people based around an extremist ideology.

Interesting article:

Elham Manea
Humanist, writer and academic


I have a problem with two arguments in this whole debate on the rise of ISIS and Islamic extremism. One says Islam is not the problem and the other says Islam is the problem.

Both fail to look at the roots of extremism. The first avoids taking responsibility and with it the necessary and painful measures to tackle the problem and the second insists that whatever measures will be taken are futile; you cannot change a religion after all, can you? Yet, as long as we refrain from challenging the ideological basis of extremism, Islamic extremism will not go away. It will persist within our societies, Western and Islamic alike.

The first argument tells us that Islam has nothing to do with what ISIS is doing. It insists that Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance; that we are dealing with a group of sick people, who twisted the message of Islam and are committing these atrocities in the name of religion. Most of those using this argument are often of Islamic heritage, are truly convinced of its merit, and engage in a defensive discourse to dispel the 'bad image' of Islam, caused, as they believe, by the 'biased media coverage'. The lack of a critical discourse on the Islamic religion, its holy texts, gender equality, plurality and secularism, the shameful record of Islamic states in violating basic human rights and citizen rights in the name of Islam, and the role of political Islam and Islamic states in mainstreaming ISIS ideology is conspicuously absent in their argument.

Some social scientists join in in this discourse and add a sophisticated touch to this argument. They often argue that 'there is nothing special about ISIS in its behaviour and atrocities'. In fact, all revolutionary movements engage in similar behavior. This group is comfortable with comparing ISIS with other revolutionary movements yet rarely compares their ideologies nor looks closer at ISIS' ideological foundation and how it shapes its actions. Imagine looking at the Nazi movement without looking at its ideological foundation of social nationalism and race theories!

Western politicians, fearful of a racist anti-Muslims backlash and eager to gain the support of their citizens of Islamic faith in addition to Muslim societies in their campaign against ISIS, join in and enthusiastically support this first argument with their statements. Barack Obama made a point in his UN speech that Islam is a religion of peace and called on Muslims to explicitly, forcefully and consistently reject the ideology of al Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

David Cameron argued similarly in his speech asserting that 'ISIS perverts the Islamic faith as a way of justifying their warped and barbaric ideology'. His choice of the word ideology was accurate; yet tackling this ideology within Britain itself (a daunting task as my research reveals) will need more than a military campaign (necessary as it is) and hastily designed laws.

The second argument insists that religion is a force of destruction; that Islam as a religion is a bad/evil religion; that what ISIS is doing is a true manifestation of the spirit of this religion, and that Muslims are either a) disoriented and blinded by their religion or b) inherently extreme and can not be trusted.

Those supporting this argument or aspects of it come from different backgrounds. Some can be described as devout/hard core atheists, who strongly believe that religion, any religion, is a force of domination and destruction. Faith, using the words of Jerry A. Coyne, is "belief in the absence of convincing evidence, and hence isn't true or false, but simply irrational." Within the same group albeit from a polemic camp, others will go further when describing Islam. Sam Harris -- a star among the New Atheism movement -- calls to our attention that "the truth about Islam is as politically incorrect as it is terrifying: Islam is all fringe and no center. In Islam, we confront a civilization with an arrested history. It is as though a portal in time has opened, and the Christians of the 14th century are pouring into our world."

Though harsh and sometimes polemic in its critique, it is important to emphasize that this group's motive is derived from a defence of rationality and a desire for the protection of human and civil rights. Their call is not meant to violate human rights of people of Islamic faith; it is a critique of what they consider Muslims' lack of intellectual honesty and the destruction caused by dogmatic extremism.

Nevertheless, while their argument about religion is accurate when religion becomes the basis for a political and legal order; in other words, when religion and politics merge and intertwine in a political state and shape the social order. They tend to ignore that faith, however irrational it may seem from their perspective, has a spiritual dimension, which many in this globe tend to resort to. To ignore the perspective of believers is to undermine the very plurality they cherish so much.

Moreover, to insist that Islam is all fringe ignores that one could also say the same about Christianity in the middle ages, which at the time launched religious wars, crusades and inquisition. The fact that we can not say that about Christianity today (without ignoring modern Christian fundamentalists, who are trying to make inroads into politics and education) is a testimony that this religion went through a process of necessary reformation, which led to an enlightenment that paved the ground for a separation of religion and state. Islam is yet to go through a similar reformation. In other words, just as Christianity needed to be tamed and brought back to the private domain of the individual, so does the Islamic religion.

Moreover such sweeping generalizations disregard the diversity within Islamic tradition, which was often shaped by the people believing in the religion. It does not come as a surprise that the first measures taken by Islamists is to destroy any signs of that diversity. Along with diversity, religiosity is not synonymous with extremism. I dare say and insist that being a devout Muslim is not and should not be equated with extremism or fundamentalism.

There is another kind of group, which supports the totality of the argument that Islam is evil and Muslims cannot be trusted, namely far-right groups. This type should not be conflated with the previous one. What motivates them is an ideology of racism and a belief in the superiority of their own race/religion. Just as they are anti-Muslims, they are too anti-Jews! They see people of different faiths and color as inherently different and inferior, whose presence only corrupts their own societies. Their aim is not rationality, enlightenment or protection of human and civil rights, rather the opposite.

As I told you, I have a problem with the two arguments. Both ignore the contexts of this phenomenon and the human factor in shaping it. The first refrains from taking responsibility and the second insists that measures are futile given the 'nature' of Islam.

But to ignore the problem will not do any more. We have to act, call the problem by its name and tackle it by necessary measures. It is us, people everywhere, who are paying a high price for the inaction in dealing with this extremism. We see its face in the girls still kidnapped and sold by Boko Haram in Nigeria; we see its face in Iraqi and Syrian minorities, fleeing for their lives because of an ideology that treats them as subhuman and inferior on account of their religious affiliation; we see its face in laws in Islamic countries that violate citizen and human rights with impunity and uphold religious beliefs by force; we see it spreading like a cancer in failed states all over the MENA region and South Asian countries; and we see its face in the radicalization of young men and women within Western societies turning them against their new homelands.

We have to act.

But to act requires identifying the roots of the problem. I see it from two perspectives. The first acknowledges the necessity of a theological reformation of the Islamic religion. Such a long-term project will enable us to tame the religion and bring it back to the private spiritual domain of the individual. It is an indispensable step for the separation of state and religion, which is key for the neutrality of the state towards its citizens. It entails the painful process of admitting the human nature of Islamic holy texts, including the Quran.

The second recognizes the political context within which Islamic extremism came about and emphasizes that non-violent extremism set the stage for violent extremism. Both Islamic and Western countries have a responsibility in confronting non-violent Islamic extremism and its institutions prevalent within their societies.

I will discuss the two elements in details. (to be continued)
----

This article in its three parts was written by author for Middle East Transparent and published here: http://www.metransparent.com/spip.php?page=article&id_article=29443&lang=en


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elham-manea/on-nonviolent-islamic-ext_b_5957010.html

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Oh dear - how pathetic that you have to play the 'poll' game. What was the sample size, what questions were asked and to what type of demographic? You have no idea.

People like you and Maher use polls to play the fear game. But all polls do is stereotype.

I will repeat, top Salafi scholars have condemned ISIS.

In your own words, "try again".

What a bigoted reply.
The reality is there are people that support them, you only have to see that they are recruiting people to their cause and you miss the point clearly people view them as the correct Islam, which goes back to my point on there being so many views within Islam, like the other religions showing how flawed and open to interpretation they are.
So some scholars have said they condemned them, which completely ignores the view points of Salfism:



Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi Become a fan
Faith leader, Professor of theology and author

In the wake of September 11, 2001, and with America mourning and in shock, the 'Islam is evil' narrative fit more neatly into the political and media landscape than engaging in a deeper discourse. Instead of identifying the true root of extremist ideology, one that pushes a tiny fringe toward violence, the Western mindset chose to stare the problem in the eye and then look the other way. The real problem only needs a little deduction: What do the Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Nigeria's Boko Haram, all of the the 9/11 terrorists, the 7/7 bombers, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Somalia's Al-Shabab, Al-Nusra Front, and the many ISIL supporters and sympathizers from Western countries, all have in common? Remember, it can't be 'Islam', since most of their victims are Muslims themselves.

The answer is Salafism; an exclusivist, puritanical, coercive, misogynistic school of thought, espousing a misguided creed that oozes with hate from every orifice. Its superficial theology derives from the teachings of a particularly severe religious reformist who lived in central Arabia in the mid-eighteenth century named Bin Abdul Wahhab (hence the alternative appellation 'Wahhabi'). Salafism considers all other Islamic sects which refuse to adhere to their interpretation of the Quran to be innovators and idolators. Shias, for instance, are seen as heretics of the worst kind, whose murder guarantees entry to paradise! The intolerant doctrines and teachings of Bin Abdul Wahhab feature prominently in ISIL literature and is now part of school syllabus for both ISIL controlled regions as well as the Saudi department of education!

Through a pact with the 'House of Saud', Wahhabism became a state-sponsored religion, and in exchange for creating submissiveness (divinely mandated, as in Paul's Epistle to the Romans), Wahhabism receives unlimited financial support and protection from the government (said to be %1 of oil exports). Despite everything the Saudi PR machine churns out, the unholy alliance means militant fanaticism veiled with Islam is the oil kingdom's second largest export and with funding from petroleum exports, the movement underwent "explosive growth" beginning in the 1970s and now has worldwide influence.

The Salafi movement was largely tamed by the Saudis. That is, until 9/11 when they seem to have lost legitimacy with militant Wahhabis who grew away from "The King is God's shadow on earth" doctrine. So while they enjoyed the marriage of convenience to the House of Saud, they always fantasized about creating a caliphate, resembling what they see as the purest manifestation of divine will for mankind; that of the early Companions. An epoch where the loudest sounds were the clamor of swords and the cracking of the whip. This euphoric reverie will continue to attract young Muslims from around the world, unless the root cause is addressed.

Yet, having witnessed the horrors associated with militant fanaticism, Western governments remained unashamedly deferential to the oligarchs in Riyadh, the West's foremost "allies" in the Arab world. Mercenary and duplicitous to the core, the Saudi political establishment has been subsidizing the Salafists with oil money, providing them with the freedom to spread their venomous hate across the globe.

A quick look at Saudi Arabia and it becomes clear as daylight that we are aligned with the wrong side:

It is a country so totalitarian, the whole nation is officially named after the family of beduins who came to rule it after a long, bloody conquest. To put that into perspective, imagine the US and UK were named Bushistan and Blairia!

The official country emblem consists of two crossed swords with a palm tree in the space above. The culture of beheadings and dismemberment is, thus, entrenched by insignia as well as law.

It is a country which has no constitution and no elections. Laws are enacted by royal decrees and ratified by a toothless parliament whose members are installed by the monarch. The king holds absolute power on all public affairs, including the appointment of chiefs of individual tribes. Women are not allowed to drive, and even travel is permitted only with a male relative. If this is how the Sunni citizens are treated, you can only imagine what the Shia face on a daily basis. The country's most senior Shia faith leader Ayatollah Nimr al-Nimr was violently apprehended for demanding the most basic rights for all citizens. In his public sermons al-Nimr repeatedly condemned violence and called for peaceful protests, but is now facing "death by crucifixion" on charges of "creating public descent and insulting the king"!

It is said, with friends like these, who needs enemies? This is especially true of Saudi Arabia. A country which gave the world sadistic fanatics the likes of whom our generation has never seen, and terrorists whose savagery puts Hollywood's most vile antagonists to shame. A nation which institutionalizes ideological hatred of the other and resists any and all calls for reform away from its medieval system of government cannot be partner to combating terrorism. The only hope rests in the proliferation of true democracy in the region.

But if allowing Saudi Arabia to embrace democracy is too hard for western policymakers to swallow, then at least fight dogma with intellect. A military campaign, even with a global coalition, cannot by itself eradicate this poisonous ideology which has the potential to create, blue-eyed, blonde-haired suicide bombers in every western capital. This war cannot be won with Hellfire missiles alone, and due to the conservative nature of Saudi society, liberal voices will not undo Salafi fundamentalism. Instead, right of center, but anti-Salafi reformist Sunnis like Hassan Bin Farhan [https://twitter.com/HsnFrhanALmalki] and others must be sought to counter the growing threat.

Of course, Saudi rulers, having invested hundreds of millions of dollars in lobbying firms in Washington and London, an army of reporters and analysts will attempt to argue that the regime is the only hope the world has for ISIL's containment. But that is both false and dangerous. False because clearly their containment policy (if anything of the sort even exists) hasn't worked and has even fueled the flame of militant Salafism. Dangerous, given the unholy alliance between Wahhabism and the House of Saud continues to underpin the political establishment to this day. Saudi policies in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and Bahrain have helped engulf the region into chaos. The ISIL ideology has its appeal in Saudi Arabia because it projects the image of what the country is today, but without the corrupt 15,000 member royal family, so keeping them on life support only serves to exacerbate the natural but acute autoimmune reaction.

We simply need to open our eyes and see the problem as it is. The thread that connects almost all so-called "Muslim" terrorists is militant Salafism. The same violent ideology that the late Saudi crown prince and the royal family's most influential ideologue Nayef Bin Abdul Aziz referred to when he said "the state of Saudi Arabia is a Salafi state. We will forever remain as such and shall never deviate from our Salafi roots as it is the source of our pride and greatness".

Follow Sayed Mahdi al-Modarresi on Twitter:

A bigoted reply?

HA HA!

You really have lost the plot. And the argument.

lol Hardly, if that is all you can reply with, oh well, let me know when you have something of intelligence and substance to counter my points.
In your own time.

So do you follow Salafism doctrine Zack?
You cannot argue though against the fact the problem within Islam and many faiths is complete disagreement over what verses say or mean, which is a major issue.

Didge wrote:White man?
How racial, what has his skin colour got to do with anything?
Unless you view now people who are all biologically one race as different, the same as Hitler did?

Pay attention:

Huffington Post wrote:
America’s Angry White Men

Remember Howard Beale? Played by Peter Finch in the movie Network (1976), the deranged former TV news anchor Beale tries to generate a social movement by admonishing viewers with a simple sentiment: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" Three decades later, there are still a host of Americans who feel mad as hell, and who are refusing to take it anymore.
Like Beale, a lot of them feel blindsided by history, and their rage is turned outwards, towards scapegoats and unseen forces, but rarely, as in the film, at the cynical elites who profit from Beale's descent into madeness.

And, like Beale, a lot of the current crop of the outraged are a lot of white men. Not all of them, of course. There are plenty of angry men of color and plenty of angry white women. Just look at those Tea Party rallies! But as a political movement, as the rank and file of America's fulminators -- whether the Tea Party or organizations on the extreme right wing, or the guys, always guys, who open fire on their classmates at school or their co-workers and colleagues at work, or the men, almost always men, who beat and murder those they claim to love, or the young men, always young men, who walk into movie theaters of places of worship with guns blazing -- well it's pretty hard to deny that they're virtually all white men. (And let us be clear: just because virtually all these cases are middle- and lower-middle class white men, does not for a nanosecond mean that all white men are crazed killers or white supremacists. All members of the Mafia may be Italian, but not all Italians are members of the Mafia.)

Yet deny it we do, often by assuming that these outbursts are motivated by anything at all -- mental illness, access to guns, video games, whatever -- other than gender. We'd notice, of course, if it were poor black girls pulling the triggers in school shootings, or women who walked into their workplaces with semi-automatic guns firing, or all Asians or Jews or Latinos who were shooting up our movie theaters and political rallies. But white men? Must be some other factor.

It seems so obvious, and yet so startling to see middle-class white American men, arguably the most privileged human beings on the planet (excluding, of course, hereditary aristocracies and the upper classes) fuming with such self-righteous outrage. (The comedian Louis CK gets this sense of privilege: "I'm a white man," he says, "How many advantages can one persona have?"

So, to research my book, Angry White Men, I traveled the country and interviewed scores of these guys -- from "men's rights" activists who think white men are the victims of the new discrimination, to the "white wing" on the rightward fringes of the American political spectrum, who believe they are watching "our" country being snatched away from them.

What unites them, I came to understand, was a sentiment I called "aggrieved entitlement." Raised to believe that this was "their" country, simply by being born white and male, they were entitled to a good job by which they could support a family as sole breadwinners, and to deference at home from adoring wives and obedient children. And not only do their kids and their wives have ideas of their own; not only is the competition for those jobs increasingly ferocious; they've also been slammed by predatory lenders, corporate moguls, Wall Street short-sellers betting against their own companies and manipulated by cynical elites into believing that their adversaries were not the ones downsizing, outsourcing and cutting their jobs, but those assorted others -- women, immigrants, gays, black people -- who were asserting their claims for a piece of the pie. The middle class white American man expected to be more Don Draper, all self-made , in control, and upwardly mobile. Instead he's more like William Foster, another fictional character who's fallen off the cliff into that dark abyss of despair, violence and madness.

Today's Angry White Men look backward, nostalgically at the world they have lost. Some organize politically to restore "their" country; some descend into madness; others lash out violently at a host of scapegoats. Theirs is a fight to restore, to reclaim more than just what they feel entitled to socially or economically -- it's also to restore their sense of manhood, to reclaim that sense of dominance and power to which they also feel entitled. They don't get mad, they want to get even -- but with whom?

Alas, that multicultural, democratic train has long ago left the station; it's impossible to imagine America rolling back the gains made by women, LGBT people, immigrants, people of color. Angry White Men may still strew some obstacles on that global path to greater equality, making the road bumpier. But its direction is clear. And the loudest screams are coming not from those whose fortunes are rising, but from those over whom the engines locomotives of history are rolling.

Here, then, is a gallery of some of the more prominent angry white men, both real and fictional. Each represents a different expression of that aggrieved entitlement; they are not a coherent and unified movement, and most of these men do not know each other nor recognize the others as fellow travelers. They are, instead, isolated Howard Beales, some with huge followings, to be sure, shouting into a strong headwind. The past may have been theirs, but the future belongs to others.

Didge wrote:The reality is people took your perception back then afraid of another global war and in the end one came because of the fact they were naive like you are. He could have been stopped but many took the view to ignore, which is what you are advocating Quill, which is not only irresponsible, but again fails to look at the bigger picture. Taking again a view point you only care about people born onto lands, called America.

One of the difficulties of conversing with you, Didge, is that you are posting in the evening, when you are all up in smoke and beer, and I am reading at maybe 9:00 in the morning.  That last passage ^ made absolutely no sense at all to me.  I gather it was something critical of those who choose caution over warfare: “…peace is irresponsible” is all I got from it.

Didge wrote:Sorry did you say there is no genocide going on?

Fuck me, cuckoo.
Well I think the body count in both Iraq and Syria clearly proves that load of babble wrong.

“Fuck me, cuckoo”???  That’s all you’ve got?  Haha…  And you wonder why I ignore much of what you say...don't answer your questions, etc.

Didge wrote:Isis is an ideology formed from another invented form of Islam, Salfism, which is politically motivated.
So you are completely wrong again.

Thank goodness the intelligent people of the world are uniting against them and do not back your views that would allow for the subjugating and extermination of many people based around an extremist ideology

If you can add an “ism” as a suffix, you’ve got a cause??  I don’t think so.  They are at best generalists.  They have been told that westerners are bad, and therefore Islamists are good…sort of the inverse of you, Didge.  Most of them haven’t read anything beyond Winnie the Pooh.

Neat trick to be on the beer when for one I am still at work and two I do not drink, which proves you have lost the argument to make such absurd accusations, even worse you seem now racist towards people of white skin colour. Which proves you have lost the argument to make such poor claims
Well the fact is this is why people are so bad and poor on racial stereotypes towards people defined as black, we also have clueless people do the same onto people of white skin colour with a view o express as if all white people are racist, it is leftist babble at its best and makes a mockery of the real problems of racism

It is cuckoo to think there is no genocide going on, prove otherwise, when it is well documented.
The reality is to combat violence, you need to act against violence which means an armed response, which again using your view would have allowed for the extinction of the Jews. 

Anyway am happy you have conceded to make such silly claims unto me, so you need to also grow up Quill, it seems you do not like people from Britain, even though I am mixed ethnicity and you hold some delusional fantasy view how wonderful your nation is ( the irony there is you hold patriotic views, which is very conservative), when like this nation it has its good points and bad points. Your argument is about only looking to your own nation, not of the world, it shows your view is racial, when we should look to help all humans in plight, to help also stop conflicts as well. It is not just about your nation, which is where you get confused, where again you fail to look at the root cause of problems ad you fail to see further afield to see what can come of inaction. It seems you have no conception of contingency planning.

If you can add an “ism” as a suffix, you’ve got a cause?? I don’t think so. They are at best generalists. They have been told that westerners are bad, and therefore Islamists are good…sort of the inverse of you, Didge. Most of them haven’t read anything beyond Winnie the Pooh.

and very true

Guest wrote:lol Hardly, if that is all you can reply with, oh well, let me know when you have something of intelligence and substance to counter my points.
In your own time.

So do you follow Salafism doctrine Zack?
You cannot argue though against the fact the problem within Islam and many faiths is complete disagreement over what verses say or mean, which is a major issue.

You couldn't even manage to explain how what I said was bigoted. Try again, Didge.

No, I'm not a Salafi.

And there would still be disagreement between people even if religion never existed. You're clearly to naive to observe that.

Didge wrote:Anyway am happy you have conceded to make such silly claims unto me, so you need to also grow up Quill, it seems you do not like people from Britain, even though I am mixed ethnicity and you hold some delusional fantasy view how wonderful your nation is ( the irony there is you hold patriotic views, which is very conservative), when like this nation it has its good points and bad points. Your argument is about only looking to your own nation, not of the world, it shows your view is racial, when we should look to help all humans in plight, to help also stop conflicts as well. It is not just about your nation, which is where you get confused, where again you fail to look at the root cause of problems ad you fail to see further afield to see what can come of inaction. It seems you have no conception of contingency planning.

Didge, I’m not anti-British.  The only reason it comes up is America has been taking the brunt of the bad guy criticisms for the past 40-years, and even the Brits are into America bashing.  Even then, we can take it…mostly deserved, anyway.  So don't think I am adverse to the criticism.

Now, don't rant...and listen to my message:

What we are talking about here, is y’all are about to join us in our perennial folly of geopolitical bully.  We did Korea, Vietnam and Somalia…and now y’all are itchin’ for the same stuff.  Y'all wanna go in and blow up shit and kick shit outta summ'un...an for what?  When you act like that, you're just acting like a bunch of ignorant apes...pounding your chest and shit.  It's non anti-British to simply caution, Hey Britain...don't do the same stupid shit we have been doing!

All I’m trying to do is give y’all a little insight: 1) it ain’t worth it; 2) here’s why; and 3) here’s how to avoid it.

It ain’t worth it: This is not real war.  Terrorists are trying to communicate something, not conduct a war.  Sure they'll act like real warriors, and you'll kick shit outta them.  They'll cave-in like a dollhouse.  And once you are supposedly in control, then what?  You will have inherited a nation full of children that you will have to take care of for the next 50-75 years.

Here’s why:  You go and start a war, and no one will join in the dance (see '1' above).  Terrorists are not warriors.  They are not the fuckin' German Army.  So you’ll be the only one out there blasting shit up and killing mothers and children.  Very soon, you’ll be seen as the Orcs of Middle Earth.

Here’s how to avoid it: Finesse it.  Have a purpose.  Figure out a strategy and follow it.  Strike strategically, in furtherance of your plan.  And have an end-game.

An end-game is no more than a fulfillment of your purpose.  If you have no end-game, ipso facto it means you had no purpose.  If you get stuck in the muck and mire for ten years, as we did in Iraq, you can be sure you didn’t have an end-game.  And if you didn’t have an end-game, you didn’t have a purpose.

Going after these ISIL idiots who are chopping off heads is an act of masturbation.  Sure it feels good, but you are not doing anything useful.

Rather makes a mockery of your little paragraph that appears under your posts!