View Poll Results: Do you believe that ISIS a fair representation of Islam?

Voters
142. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes.

    44 30.99%
  • No.

    76 53.52%
  • Not Sure.

    12 8.45%
  • Don't Care.

    10 7.04%
Page 4 of 27 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 530

Thread: ISIL and Islam

  1. #61
    Denny Crane!'s Avatar Comes Rei Militaris
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Newcastle, England
    Posts
    24,462

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    More insults from Setekh yaaaaawn.

    Dogukan is exactly right, there is the Quran but not all muslims interpret it or use it the same way, there are the hadiths and people follow different rules and there is absolutely no way to determine any kind of objective truth in Islam.

  2. #62

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Denny Crane! View Post
    More insults from Setekh yaaaaawn.

    Dogukan is exactly right, there is the Quran but not all muslims interpret it or use it the same way, there are the hadiths and people follow different rules and there is absolutely no way to determine any kind of objective truth in Islam.
    Lying about what I say won't get you anywhere. Never insulted you despite your personal attacks.

    dogukan have been avoiding Quran so far. He made sure not to address it. You can't be right while ignoring the very thing that proves you wrong. It's quite easy to establish objective truths in Islam. I did so a page ago. You chose to avoid addressing it.
    The Armenian Issue

  3. #63

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    I am not trying to show that Islam=Violence. I am almost at the follower level when it comes to certain sufi-tasavvuf sects(for their philosophical interpretations of one-ness of all, human beings and everything around us a part of god, its kind of like a mixture of buddhism and dialectics from western philosophy) and Hurufi extension Alevism in Anatolia I find amazing.

    The fact of the matter is, Islam is not something solid, it is completely immaterial. Its source is not dug out and found by archaeologists, it started and came up to this day AS AN IDEA. It is a solely metaphysical concept. We cannot apply science to Islam to find how it really works, because IT DOES NOT EXIST, it does not exist anymore than people make it. So essentially, Islam can be anything people makes it and people make it many things. Islam can be non-violent, if the people made it so, such as the Alevis I was referring to.When you say there IS a normative Islam, how are to decide that your interpretation is anymore right than my sufi understanding?

    Did you do a scientific research with solid data to represent the essence of Islam? How it works? How it connects to reality? Maybe if Muhammed was an academic and wrote an academic book, it would have some "normative-ness" ....for there to be a normative Islam, there has to be its existing reality. For a non-believer, there cannot be a normative version. Normative-ness is defined over belief.

    Its like discussing what the normal interpretation of lord of the rings is
    Right.

    Well I am not a Christian so for me their is no broad and normative Christian understanding of the Last Supper. Anything goes.It's all metaphysics man.
    Therefore for me the Last Supper is clearly a blueprint and injunction to go and found a actual cannibal cult since God clearly states we must eat human flesh and drink human blood.

    This is the logical conclusion one can take from your argument. Can you seriously not see how this would be absurd?

  4. #64
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    @Setekh
    The normativity of Islam can only be -rationally- debated among believers, it can only be rationalized in-itself.
    Only a believer can take Quran as a proper reference. To a non-believer, Quran does not hold any value as a *solid* reference point. To a non-believer, there is no Islam existing outside of the Muslims they interact with. It is not a solid reality waiting to be explored(unless god shows himself tomorrow and tells us otherwise)
    If Muslims decide to behead people and legitimize it, it can be part of Islam...a non-believer does not have to disprove if it is true Islam or not.
    It is an issue Muslims have to solve among each other before they present themselves to the world...(which is not going to happen btw)

    So ISIS is a representation of Islam, however, it is not the only representation of Islam.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  5. #65
    clone's Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    greece
    Posts
    3,465

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by The Reverend View Post
    Right.

    Well I am not a Christian so for me their is no broad and normative Christian understanding of the Last Supper. Anything goes.It's all metaphysics man.
    Therefore for me the Last Supper is clearly a blueprint and injunction to go and found a actual cannibal cult since God clearly states we must eat human flesh and drink human blood.

    This is the logical conclusion one can take from your argument. Can you seriously not see how this would be absurd?
    sorry but what you say are simple bs.
    even if we agree that christianity is a canibal cult because of supper(a very simplistic way of seeing things),christianity doesnt commands its followers to eat human flesh rather that bread and wine is transformed to jesus blood and body.so what you say is a cheap(and wrong) way to undermine christianity
    When a nation forgets her skill in war, when her religion becomes a mockery, when the whole nation becomes a nation of money-grabbers, then the wild tribes, the barbarians drive in... Who will our invaders be? From whence will they come?”
    Robert E. Howard



  6. #66

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    @Setekh
    The normativity of Islam can only be -rationally- debated among believers, it can only be rationalized in-itself.
    Only a believer can take Quran as a proper reference. To a non-believer, Quran does not hold any value as a *solid* reference point. To a non-believer, there is no Islam existing outside of the Muslims they interact with. It is not a solid reality waiting to be explored(unless god shows himself tomorrow and tells us otherwise)
    If Muslims decide to behead people and legitimize it, it can be part of Islam...a non-believer does not have to disprove if it is true Islam or not.
    It is an issue Muslims have to solve among each other before they present themselves to the world...(which is not going to happen btw)

    So ISIS is a representation of Islam, however, it is not the only representation of Islam.
    You need to be a citizen of USA to view its constitution as a solid reference point? What you argue doesn't make any sense. You don't have to be a Muslim to see Quran as the proper foundation and reference on Islam. You don't need to be a Muslim to rationalize Muslim's actions based on such a reference. It's senseless to suggest that.

    What does this have to with the topic in the first place though?
    The Armenian Issue

  7. #67
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by The Reverend View Post
    Right.

    Well I am not a Christian so for me their is no broad and normative Christian understanding of the Last Supper.
    Honestly, I don't seen any problem with this.
    If I do not believe in the metaphysical reality of Christianity, a mormon is no more right than an orthodox, a catholic no more right than a protestant....to me, they might as well be debating whether elves were 6 feet or not...unless any of the claims connect to empirically observable reality, it is all endless idealism.
    This does not only appy to religion, it applies to any form of "belief" system...a Marxist can have belief on how the world works, and he can claim his world-view to be scientific. Unless he makes a connection to existing reality in forms of solid data, he is merely a believer in his own mind. Thus the reference point would only be people like him...they can quote Lenin all they want to each other, if the other side is not part of this belief system....he does not have to deal with debates of Maoists or Leninists..(I repeat, unless there is an observable connection-its much more easier for a Marxist to make that connection than a religious person, so far at least)
    Last edited by dogukan; October 22, 2014 at 08:40 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  8. #68

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    You need to be a citizen of USA to view its constitution as a solid reference point? What you argue doesn't make any sense. You don't have to be a Muslim to see Quran as the proper foundation and reference on Islam. You don't need to be a Muslim to rationalize Muslim's actions based on such a reference. It's senseless to suggest that.

    What does this have to with the topic in the first place though?
    I never pegged you as a fundamentalist. Islam only has one possible interpretation, and that is following the Quran as you believe its intent to be. Thats pretty much as fundamentalist as it gets.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  9. #69

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    I never pegged you as a fundamentalist. Islam only has one possible interpretation, and that is following the Quran as you believe its intent to be. Thats pretty much as fundamentalist as it gets.
    What's wrong with being a fundamentalist? It just one of the positions that happen to has less hypocrisy.
    The Armenian Issue

  10. #70
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    You need to be a citizen of USA to view its constitution as a solid reference point? What you argue doesn't make any sense. You don't have to be a Muslim to see Quran as the proper foundation and reference on Islam. You don't need to be a Muslim to rationalize Muslim's actions based on such a reference. It's senseless to suggest that.

    What does this have to with the topic in the first place though?
    First of all, a constitution does not make metaphysical claims to a reality. It does not create an ontological background to us.
    A constitution is merely a reflection of an existing ideology. Constitutions "change", we know who makes them, who changes them and who applies them. If a constitution goes away tomorrow, it does not exist anymore. And even those who made the constitution accept that, for they have no more claim to a metaphysical reality.

    There are however similarities. A constitution is as real as it is made by people. The reference point for lawman are believers of that set of system, that constitution. When they debate on a certain law, they take reference their own constitution. Unless it is international law, it does not have meaning to others. For instance, American constitution has no meaning under Turkish jurisdiction. Because it also exists as much as it is accepted by the people. A PKK guerilla does not accept the laws of Turkey, to him, they do not exist-he does not call himself a "terrorist" up on mountains. Just because a constitution says I am a citizen, does not make a "citizen" in a reality. It is something I take to myself. It exists, much like religion, as far as it is enforced(whether through physical enforcement, or social acceptance the way M.Foucoult would put it). The right way to enforce it, is only a solid reference to people who accept that constitution. Obviously, ISIS does not recognize the laws of Syria.
    Last edited by dogukan; October 22, 2014 at 09:04 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  11. #71

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    First of all, a constitution does not make metaphysical claims to a reality. It does not create an ontological background to us.
    A constitution is merely a reflection of an existing ideology. Constitutions "change", we know who makes them, who changes them and who applies them. If a constitution goes away tomorrow, it does not exist anymore. And even those who made the constitution accept that, for they have no more claim to a metaphysical reality.

    There are however similarities. A constitution is as real as it is made by people. The reference point for lawman are believers of that set of system, that constitution. When they debate on a certain law, they take reference their own constitution. Unless it is international law, it does not have meaning to others. For instance, American constitution has no meaning under Turkish jurisdiction. Because it also exists as much as it is accepted by the people. A PKK guerilla does not accept the laws of Turkey, to him, they do not exist-he does not call himself a "terrorist" up on mountains. Just because a constitution says I am a citizen, does not make a "citizen" in a reality. It is something I take to myself. It exists, much like religion, as far as it is enforced(whether through physical enforcement, or social acceptance the way M.Foucoult would put it). The right way to enforce it, is only a solid reference to people who accept that constitution. Obviously, ISIS does not recognize the laws of Syria.
    Not accepting the laws of a separate entity doesn't mean it has no meaning when you're discussing the jurisdiction of that entity. This should be quite straight forward and self evident. When you calculate the weight of a person on Mars, do you say that the gravity on Mars is meaningless to you because it doesn't currently apply to your body? That's practically what you're arguing about. This really isn't rocket science.
    The Armenian Issue

  12. #72
    dogukan's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Middle freaking east
    Posts
    7,777

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Not accepting the laws of a separate entity doesn't mean it has no meaning when you're discussing the jurisdiction of that entity.
    thus the jurisdiction of ISIS is as relevant as yours are when we talk of Islam.

    This should be quite straight forward and self evident. When you calculate the weight of a person on Mars, do you say that the gravity on Mars is meaningless to you because it doesn't currently apply to your body? That's practically what you're arguing about. This really isn't rocket science.
    Calculating weight of a person is a solid thing(we might ultimately be wrong, but in our current capacity we can "know" how to calculate). Islam is not. We have a material connection to weighing someone in Mars, we do not have connection to an object called Islam that we can measure. Our reference is the interpreters of Kuran and the versions of jurisdiction(the only object that we can deal with is the "objectification" of Islam as a set of values, and there are many of them) . If a non-believer takes Quran as a reference to argue the "true Islam", it would be his/her interpretation.
    The field of argument is interpretation, not Islam in-itself for it does not objectively exist as we know it.


    I am not saying you are wrong, maybe, ultimately Islam exists, and your interpretation is the "truth" or the ISIS dude.
    The thing is, you cannot make anymore legitimate claim to what Islam is to non-believers than ISIS'ers. Non-believers actively reject whats written in Quran. They reject that its "god's word". Islam, as a social construct, is what Muslims make it to be since we cannot refer to something we believe that does not exist.
    Therefore, viewing Islam, as a set of values that belong to only one interpretation, is something a believer can do...which I have no problem with.

    You can debate this topic with Muslims "rationally", for your logic moves within a certain rationality, a rationality in-itself. But if you ask non-believers if ISIS is a representation of Islam, it is a futile attempt, at least ontologically to prove your interpretation is right.
    Obviously, many non-believers can choose to believe you in your interpretation without believing Islam for ideological reasons.
    But when we get to the essence of it, it holds no meaning.
    Last edited by dogukan; October 22, 2014 at 09:50 AM.
    "Therefore I am not in favour of raising any dogmatic banner. On the contrary, we must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their propositions for themselves. Thus, communism, in particular, is a dogmatic abstraction; in which connection, however, I am not thinking of some imaginary and possible communism, but actually existing communism as taught by Cabet, Dézamy, Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a special expression of the humanistic principle, an expression which is still infected by its antithesis – the private system. Hence the abolition of private property and communism are by no means identical, and it is not accidental but inevitable that communism has seen other socialist doctrines – such as those of Fourier, Proudhon, etc. – arising to confront it because it is itself only a special, one-sided realisation of the socialist principle."
    Marx to A.Ruge

  13. #73

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Not accepting the laws of a separate entity doesn't mean it has no meaning when you're discussing the jurisdiction of that entity. This should be quite straight forward and self evident. When you calculate the weight of a person on Mars, do you say that the gravity on Mars is meaningless to you because it doesn't currently apply to your body? That's practically what you're arguing about. This really isn't rocket science.
    Did you just compare a civil law to the "law" of gravity? Apples and oranges isn't a good metaphor for this, being that at least apples and oranges both grow on trees and serve a similar function. This is more like apples and quasars.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  14. #74

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    thus the jurisdiction of ISIS is as relevant as yours are when we talk of Islam.
    It's relevant when we talk about ISIS. It doesn't have to be relevant when we talk about Islam.


    Quote Originally Posted by dogukan View Post
    Calculating weight of a person is a solid thing(we might ultimately be wrong, but in our current capacity we can "know" how to calculate). Islam is not. We have a material connection to weighing someone in Mars, we do not have connection to an object called Islam that we can measure. Our reference is the interpreters of Kuran and the versions of jurisdiction. If a non-believer takes Quran as a reference to argue the "true Islam", it would be his/her interpretation.
    The field of argument is interpretation, not Islam in-itself for it does not objectively exist as we know it.
    We do with Quran. You need as much interpretation to calculate F through m x g as you do with Quran. However, that's different from what you were arguing earlier. Try not to jump from one place to an other. You were arguing that laws of a separate entity that you don't accept or follow has no meaning as if somehow that acceptance or following changes anything. This is a complete failure in understanding how to discuss such issues.


    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    Did you just compare a civil law to the "law" of gravity? Apples and oranges isn't a good metaphor for this, being that at least apples and oranges both grow on trees and serve a similar function. This is more like apples and quasars.
    Nope. I compared the way they're applied, not the laws themselves. Clearly you didn't understand it. Apples and quasars too can be used in the same way if the point is that they both exist in the universe and made up of matter.
    The Armenian Issue

  15. #75

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    I think you are not getting this at the fundamental level.

    If I don't believe in gravity, and I walk out my second floor window, I will still fall.

    If I believe gravity works differently, and I walk out the same window, I won't fall up or sideways despite my belief, but I will still fall down.

    If I believe Islam justifies violence against non-believers then it does.
    If I believe Islam does not justify violence then it does not.

    The power of gravity is a tangible thing. It can't be ignored, it just is. When we as a species didn't understand the why and how, gravity still was the same.

    Islam has only been a "thing" for a known period of time. Before that time it didn't matter, after that time it only mattered in the minds of the followers and those effected by them. You can say the Quran defines it but only in so far as its interpreted in the minds of those doing it. This is most obviously not consistent and is true of all religions I know of in any detail. Isis is one interpretation of Islam, which a good number seem to be embracing. It doesn't matter if its not your interpretation of Islam, because as a thing it works only through them. If Isis says "Islamic law is that you must wear green polka dots" it is now Islamic law for those who are affected and effected by them. If they say "We can now fly using our arms as wings" they are still stuck to the ground.
    "When I die, I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like Fidel Castro, not screaming in terror, like his victims."

    My shameful truth.

  16. #76

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Phier View Post
    I think you are not getting this at the fundamental level.

    If I don't believe in gravity, and I walk out my second floor window, I will still fall.

    If I believe gravity works differently, and I walk out the same window, I won't fall up or sideways despite my belief, but I will still fall down.

    If I believe Islam justifies violence against non-believers then it does.
    If I believe Islam does not justify violence then it does not.

    The power of gravity is a tangible thing. It can't be ignored, it just is. When we as a species didn't understand the why and how, gravity still was the same.

    Islam has only been a "thing" for a known period of time. Before that time it didn't matter, after that time it only mattered in the minds of the followers and those effected by them. You can say the Quran defines it but only in so far as its interpreted in the minds of those doing it. This is most obviously not consistent and is true of all religions I know of in any detail. Isis is one interpretation of Islam, which a good number seem to be embracing. It doesn't matter if its not your interpretation of Islam, because as a thing it works only through them. If Isis says "Islamic law is that you must wear green polka dots" it is now Islamic law for those who are affected and effected by them. If they say "We can now fly using our arms as wings" they are still stuck to the ground.
    If you believe in Islam and Islam is the truth then there will be afterlife for you when you die.
    If you don't believe in Islam and Islam is the truth then there will still be afterlife for you when you die.

    What Quran says is also tangible. Whether you believe Islam justifies violence or not has not bearing on it actually justifying it. There are many people who believe Sikhs are Muslims. Does it mean Sikhs are Muslims? No. A point can't contradict the Quran and still be Islamic. It's just common sense. Can I start claiming that people should stand on one feet and claim it to be a rule of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Liberalism, etc.? It's ridiculous to suggest that.

    This is very simple. You're just introducing made up rules. It's amazing how common sense gets suspended when Islam is the topic.
    The Armenian Issue

  17. #77
    Ciciro's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The Capital
    Posts
    4,038

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    If you believe in Islam and Islam is the truth then there will be afterlife for you when you die.
    If you don't believe in Islam and Islam is the truth then there will still be afterlife for you when you die.

    What Quran says is also tangible. Whether you believe Islam justifies violence or not has not bearing on it actually justifying it. There are many people who believe Sikhs are Muslims. Does it mean Sikhs are Muslims? No. A point can't contradict the Quran and still be Islamic. It's just common sense. Can I start claiming that people should stand on one feet and claim it to be a rule of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Communism, Liberalism, etc.? It's ridiculous to suggest that.

    This is very simple. You're just introducing made up rules. It's amazing how common sense gets suspended when Islam is the topic.
    If you believe in Islam you believe there will be an afterlife.
    If you do believe not believe in Islam then you or may not believe there will be an afterlife.

    Not even comparable to gravity.

  18. #78

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Švejk View Post
    If you believe in Islam you believe there will be an afterlife.
    If you do believe not believe in Islam then you or may not believe there will be an afterlife.

    Not even comparable to gravity.
    Not my comparison if you read properly.
    The Armenian Issue

  19. #79
    Ciciro's Avatar Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    The Capital
    Posts
    4,038

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Setekh View Post
    Not my comparison if you read properly.
    I did, and it is not a very good rebuttal to Phier. An afterlife is something that is unprovable, where as we can see the effects of gravity all the time. The Quran is only tangible if you believe it to be.

  20. #80

    Default Re: ISIS and Islam

    Quote Originally Posted by Švejk View Post
    I did, and it is not a very good rebuttal to Phier. An afterlife is something that is unprovable, where as we can see the effects of gravity all the time. The Quran is only tangible if you believe it to be.
    Whether afterlife is real or not irrelevant. It's either is or isn't. It doesn't become real or not real depending on whether you believe in it or not. The point is that whether you believe in something or not has no bearing on whether its real or not or whether it represents the basis for an idea or not. The Quran is not tangible only if you believe in it. It's tangible for what makes up the basis for Islam. Period. This is seriously a very simple thing. Not rocket science.
    The Armenian Issue

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •