The leader of Isis has a degree and a PhD in Islamic Studies . (Page 2)

Zanjan: "Who are they and why are they quoting the Q'uran"

They wont quote any part of the Quran that can't be twisted to fit their political agenda. You wont hear them recite this quote from the Quran : "God doesn't guide the wrong-doer" .

They're satan's blood-lusting minions who've hijacked the most popular religion in the middle east - no militant group could get anywhere in that corrupt region unless they have a way to justify their cause and keep their rattle-brained recruits in line. God-fearing people don't carry guns or decapitate folks.

Classic Cain.

You need to understand the criminal mind, man - they're predators with an easily identifiable MO, always dressed in a disguise that could only fool the seriously ignorant. As it's written, "The devil only deceives the wicked".

ISIS members know God and humanity has already rejected each of them as indiviuals; all their acts stem from the bitterness of being weak. Obviously, all of them are a few bricks short of a full load and extremely neurotic, but they believe there is strength in numbers and they love to gloat. Born killers are all alike.

They know they're going down one way or the other - such people are so resentful and vindictive, they'll do everything they can to take others down with them and they don't care who it is, though there's extra points for killing Americans because Americans have more power and means than they do.

FYI, it doesn't take brains to be an actor and tell lies.

deuce916: "Most of the time He and His followers were under deadly attack,"

Sounds like god was really on their side eh.

Batman809: what created isis

sebtheanimal: Early withdrawal from Iraq, the failed Arab Spring efforts, several other factors.
Ideology created ISIS.

Batman809: oh like a new foundation on blood and revenge sorta thing?

sebtheanimal: It's nit really new. They've been slaughtering themselves for ages. This new group will end up getting themselves killed and another will pop up.

sebtheanimal: *not

davidk14: .

ISIS was created from AL Quida beause Al Quida was not radical enough. ISIS is AL Quida on steroids.

.

BERNY xP: The terrorist and extremist do claim to be followers of Islam.

I personally know good people who make the same claim.

The more debatable topic is not if Radicalised Muslims are killing and doing bad. The debate to me is if they or the peaceful ones are closer following the Quran. My understanding is it is somewhere in the middle. That the peaceful, all loving, tolerant of others and western life Muslims are not following Muhammad's writings but neither is a group like ISIS. To truly follow the teachings one would fall someplace in-between my Muslim neighbors and ISIS.

Regardless, people are using the religion to do horrible things. I have no issues with people following any religion but killing and other acts can not be tolerated. Also, any group demanding others must follow their beliefs is no good.

BERNY xP:
It seems to me ISIS gained power because dictators who would have masacred them lost power. Sometimes a tyrant dictator may actually be keeping peace. It is impossible to tolerate tyrant dictators but would ISIS be sweeping through Iraq if Saddam was still in power ?

In Syria they rose up due to a civil war of sorts. The groups are all throughout the Middle East waiting for the right moments to gain an advntage and act.

Al-Quida and ISIS are by no means the only ones.

Sad truth is most peaceful nations in the region have someone forcing the people be peaceful. Deep dogmatism is behind the root.

Another user suggested ISIS is not Muslim. The issue here is even if the leaders know they are manipulating the teachings of the religion. Many if not most of the recruites and members 100% believe they are serving Allah. So, dismissing the religious element and claiming ISIS is not Islamists is not wise. The members believe they are serving and fighting for their god.

Zanjan: "Sometimes a tyrant dictator may actually be keeping peace."

Ghadaffi actually said this of himself, warning that should they depose him, the militant Islamic brotherhood would overtake the people. He was crazy but he was right about that much. However, there was no difference between his methodology and that of Islamic militants, except that the West let him live and even make state visits to the west.

It's hard to believe that such an ancient people still don't know how to govern themselves properly but somehow have managed to keep their genes perpetuating in that region.

Zanjan: By the way, the leader of ISIS, who Rebecca was referring to in this forum, has been dead for awhile - an American drone took him out. Such is the fate of all Militant leaders, no matter how many times he's replaced. It's not a promising job position.

sebtheanimal: Religious doctrine and democracy do not mix. Can't have both.

jhonnyb: And it looks like wc has taken out our great leader Rebecca . What I can see happening is those arab scum or whoever replaces them will eventually get hold of a nuclear warhead and it wont be used in Iraq either .

sebtheanimal: The following is from Rebecca via Kik:
(She is being hunted in wire)

Zanjan: Bit of nonsense there. Buddhists have also been associated with violence. There isn't a single major religion whose followers haven't been engaged in that at some point - you see, every country on earth has seen war because humans are inherently selfish and possessive.

Let this Englishman look at his own roots - where does he think he got his ideas from?

Yes, there weren't many Muslims in Europe in the mid-20th century - who wants to migrate to a continent that's totally consumed in war? Now the wars are fought long distance - far from home but no less real and involved.

What temerity, accusing that fellow of having 2 identities! When England's crime rate is zero and it has no bombs or guns, THEN this nation has one identity.

Batman809: yup

Winterset: The point is surely that Islam, which preaches violence as a religious duty, was founded by violence in the Arabian peninsula, and became both a major world religion and master of the whole of the Middle East, North Africa, northern India, and southern Europe by violence, today produces far more violence than any other religion in the world - than any other ideology in the world in fact, religious or otherwise.

Islam has so far failed to either assimilate into Western democracies, or to demonstrate that it knows how to share Western democratic values. It isn't even an economic success in many places in the West. In Denmark 95% of the crimes of violent rape are committed by Muslim men - against non-Muslim women.

To say the Islam has failed Europe is to put it mildly.

Zanjan: Islam doesn't preach violence as a religious duty - don't confuse the actions of the insane with the Revelation from God.

Arabia was a violent pagan country before Muhammad appeared - know your history! Those people buried their baby daughters alive to control the gender balance. They hated females, were uneducated nomads, and warred all the time between themselves, despite many being cowards. It was the most corrupt place on earth when God sent Muhammad to them.

Before you talk, let's see you fix such people! Who can even fix them now?

If you think the West isn't violent, check out the number of guns slayings in the USA - highest in the world a hundred times over. Religion was never an economics mogul.

Personally, I think humans belonging to the last couple of generations have seriously failed mankind and God. Intergalactically, it's a tremendous embarrassment and ugly blotch on our collective history. .

Winterset: Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare. Muhammad and his followers had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (i.e. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - i.e. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."

The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is exactly how ISIS thinks today.

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

This verse speaks for itself. It does not refer to spiritual struggle.

There is much more. Every thinking person should read the Quran.

Zanjan: Winterset.........firstly.you've taken the texts out of the settings. That's like walking into a house and overhearing the last few sentences of a conversation you were never involved in. Then you discover it was a thousand year old tape recorder playing!

Secondly, don't treat the Quran as people have done to the Bible, falling into the interpretation trap. Thirdly, Get the translation accurate, using an official source publication. Your own translation is not acceptable. Fourthtly, The Hadith is not a Holy Book and not authenticated - it's gossip and not a reliable historical source.

Understand how brutish the peoples were; you can't understand it from a 21st century position. Unlike Moses and Jesus, Muhammad wasn't working with people of the Book (Israelites & Jews). He was dealing with pagan, nomadic tribes, only one of which had Jewish roots - they were corrupt cutthroats, liars and traitors - enemies of God. Yes, traitors had to be killed because it was necessary in those days to prevent destruction. They couldn't call on the UN or even another country for help.

There was a 20 year span when nothing was revealed, before anyone considered Muhammad's people to be a threat. Muhammad is unique in that He wore 2 hats later on. In Medina, He was a civic leader as well. He addresses how to approach civic duties when invaded just like your country does. Note that not all in Medina were Muslims - they were treatied tribes, who chose Muhammad to lead them, not for religious reasons.

Fifthly, your history is incorrect - things were peaceful in Medina for awhile but eventually, the other tribes were preparing their approach to attack - rather than fight them in the city (women and children, you know), Muhammad took out His army outside to the battlefield and headed them off at the pass. It was a little skirmish, hardly anyone was hurt.

There used to be honour in war - battles were fought on the field with armed soldiers against armed soldiers - not warriors against un-armed citizens and children, like it is today. Think about that.

Self defense is ok. Cowardliness is not ok, even when one is overwhelmed by their enemies. Ok for your country to have the draft in times of war but not Arabia?? How do you suppose the USA and Canada got united? What do other countries do to Traitors? (there's no death penalty in Canada but we used to have it when I was young)

Maybe you should go back and read the Old Testament. All battles were won as long as the followers kept the Covenant - they lost when they didn't. This included physical and spiritual battles. The use of the word "fight" is in a second context because this is a Holy Book about spirituality, not nationality. As true as this was for the Bible, it was for the Quran.

Unbelievers and those who have no love for God will interpret scripture, twist and represent it it all in a negative light. They see no good in any of it but will use it as a tool to meet their own ends. However, there is enough elsewhere in the Quran to counter-balance that misuse - God isn't stupid.

Zanjan: Compare Translations & see the difference:

Quran 2:191-193
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.

And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors.


Quran 4: 74
So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory - We will bestow upon him a great reward.

Quran 5:33
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,

Zanjan: In modern times, we just excommunicate members from our religion who are traitors. We shun them, and that is sufficient - they just get lost in the milieu of society. We need no armies because our country's National defense takes care of that.

And when we get fed up with the shenanigans inside a religion, we see it as a house burning down and leave it behind, moving on to another religion. There are so many options available to us today, there is no need to fight anymore.

shadowline: You know, Zanjan, when you find yourself defending (and misrepresenting to do it) a religion which has jailed, tortured, maimed, and murdered Baha'is for over a century and a half, you might ask yourself whether you are failing to think clearly, however inclusive you think you are being. Before Islam went to work on Baha'is it persecuted Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, and Hindus who got in its way, and it still does.

Personally I see no difference between the translation of Quran 5:33 that you quote and the one Winterset quoted. Both are absolutely horrific - something I shouldn't have thought it took more than a modicum of decency to see, or a modicum of objectivity to be willing to acknowledge.

Above all, you might note that the world is fuller than it is of rocks and sand with Muslims who see such exhortations as open-ended Divine commands incumbent for all time on all believers in the Quran's message. And, apparently, no Mullah or Madrassa or Mosque is doing anything to disabuse them of that reading, which wouldn't be difficult if there was any will to do it.