Former Muslim says that ISIS represents true Islam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant

http://www.vox.com/cards/things-about-isis-you-need-to-know/sunni-shia-conflict-ISIS

Are you disputing that IS are Sunnis? They are widely described in the press as such, and according to this Wikipedia page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement, Salafis self-identify as Sunnis.

Salafi, Sunni, whatever.

What is clear is that your googling skills need some brushing up. You can't just pick a random page where someone says something. You need to read more sources and check your random page against the other sources.

Erdogan = Sunni. IS = Sunni. Not only that, the links between Erdogan and his family and Sunni Islamists, whether from Al Qaeda or IS go much deeper.

Erdogan is without a doubt a fanatical Sunni Islamist. He said this in 1999:

Erdogan also said, in the 90s already:

http://thecentreleft.blogspot.com/2013/06/erdogans-democracy-bus-ride.html

Your personal opinion that there is not an ideological alliance is simply dead wrong.

Erdogan and his family have strong ties to Al Qaeda financiers. This is reported even in the Arab press.

http://www.thenational.ae/world/eur...ions-of-sons-meeting-with-0al-qaeda-financier

Turkish PM Erdogan hit by allegations of son’s meeting with ‘0Al Qaeda financier’

This guy, Yasin al-Qadi, who is a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" under U.S. law, is a close family friend of Erdogan's.

Erdogan is driven by his Islamist beliefs. He has stated it many times, and his actions prove it. There is most definitely an ideological alliance. He was also a staunch supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood (another Sunni Islamist organization), which was the breeding ground for Al Qaeda. And IS is ideologically not different from Al Qaeda.

Whether cheap oil and easy money are an additional motivation does not need to be discussed. The ideological connection cannot be disputed. If it wasn't there, Turkey would not be the only country not to officially join the alliance against IS and Turkey would not have been helping IS in many ways (as Nook also correctly pointed out and as one of the links you yourself posted confirms).

You obviously know absolutely nothing about Turkey.

Erdogan dreams of full sharia law in Turkey. Everything he has done since getting into power has been geared towards working in that direction.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...545827254?nk=f62f02a38ba89428489f52339ca2f922

The Economist already described and predicted this in 2008.

http://www.economist.com/node/11745570

And Erdogan himself publicly stated this as his goal in 1996 already.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/oQ-Zqn8-wF0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It absolutely has to do with religion.

A majority of Alawites in Turkey supports Assad.

http://world.time.com/2012/09/10/the-alawite-towns-that-support-syrias-assad-in-turkey/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...e73500-fdd8-11e1-98c6-ec0a0a93f8eb_story.html

As with everything else Erdogan does, he is driven by his fanatical ideological beliefs as a Sunni Muslim. He has questioned "if Assad is really a Muslim", which was clearly a dig at him being an Alawite.

Erdogan doesn't give a crap about human rights. He has jailed more journalists than any other dictator in the world. He wants Assad out, who is an Alawite, and he has been supporting IS in many ways, who are Sunnis (or Salafis or Wahhabis or whatever - but of the same ideology and with the same goals as Erdogan).

Every single one of your weak points has been debunked.

 

No, it isn't. Today's Islam is yesterday's Islam. And we live today. Today, Christianity does not threaten you with death if you want to leave it. Today, Islam does, and the vast majority of the followers of the death cult agree with this rule in many predominantly Muslim countries.

 

I agree with a lot of this paragraph. But then you say that Islam isn't like yesterday's Christianity. I disagree with that. What you just described about today's Islam is exactly yesterday's Christianity.

It's up to the younger, more educated Muslims to bring about a change in the extremism in today's Islam. Just as happened with Christianity after periods such as the enlightenment, finding of the new world, scientific revolution, etc...

I doubt there will be much change in our lifetime. Ideological shifts related to religion and culture (as shown historically) take multiple generations to come to pass.

I think an interesting topic about the state of Islam would be a discussion on the difference in educated younger Muslims compared to the current guard. Also a discussion on the comparison of different regions of Muslim countries.

I have little idea if there are differences in ideology between those who live in economically/socially better off Muslim countries (relatively speaking) such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, and the UAE.

What about the more "European" Muslim counties such as Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo? Are those Muslims fans of extremist Islamic philosophies?

 

What type of proof was required during the Inquisition for folks who were accused of heresy or blasphemy? The answer is NONE. All you had to do is accuse somebody and that was enough proof to put somebody in trial (if you can even call it a trial). To a certain degree, today's Islam is more humane as they just beheaded you. During those days, they would have tortured you first and a simple google search would show you all he different types of devices designed to inflict the most pain a human can handle. They didn't just torture you, they went out of their way to find the best minds to engineer such devices.

What about the Salem witch hunts? If you were accused of doing something against the current ideology, hey would do the prick or scratch test and if you pass, they would move on to drowning then eventually burn you to death.

I don't even have to tell you about Germany unless you are one of those deniers.

 

Islam without the objective of world domination isn't Islam anymore

It's just peacefulness.

 

I'm not.

What does all of that have to do with today's Islam? Are you saying "it's not that bad because bad things have been committed in the name of other ideologies"?

Are you saying that because other bad ideologies have existed in history, we should not point out that Islamism is bad?

Nobody is saying that Islam is the only ideology in whose name bad things have ever happened. I am aware that bad things have happened (and to some extent still happen) in the name of Christianity (but let's not forget that the crusades were not a completely one-sided thing, there were two parties to that conflict).

But I assume that you would agree that when these bad things you listed happened, the right course of action would not have been to say "oh other bad things have happened in history", but to speak up against these atrocities? That is what I am doing now. Would you have been mad if someone had spoken up against the Nazis? Would you have told that person "there have been Salem witch hunts and the inquisition, why are you speaking up against the Nazis"?

No.

You deal with the problem that is currently manifesting itself. If this was 1933 and I was in Europe, I promise you that Islam would not have been my main cause of concern, but the Nazis. While I still despise people who believe in Nazi ideology, they are not currently beheading people on a large scale and they don't have 80 % or 90 % of people in certain countries following and supporting large parts of their fascist ideology.

Islam does - now. I live now.

So my current concern is Islam and Islamism and its manifestation in hundreds of millions of people thinking it is a-ok to stone adulterers, to chop off hands for theft, to have the death penalty for homosexuality, to subjugate women. And still tens of millions (or even hundreds of millions) of followers of that ideology thinking it is a good thing to fly planes into buildings, to bomb subways, to murder civilians.

And the ideology they follow aims for world domination. There are in fact striking similarities between Islamofascism and Nazi fascism - like the one that if you want to leave the ideology, you are threatened with death. And that huge majorities of Muslim populations seem to think that is exactly right.

I speak up against those things - which are currently happening, in contrast to the Salem witch hunts.

Why do you seem to have a problem with that?

 

Again, I am not saying that bad things didn't happen in the name of Christianity and that they are not still happening to some extent. I also know that the Old Testament contains passages which do not sound peaceful. In contrast to others, I don't think in categories of Christianity = + 100, Islam = - 100.

But Islam has been Islam since it was founded. Let's not act as if Islam was peaceful while Christianity was not. They were fighting each other for centuries, and it certainly wasn't one side only doing the fighting.

Mohammed was a warlord. Jesus was not. Mohammed was married to children (not with). Jesus was not. Jesus taught to turn the other cheek. Mohammed approved of the beheading of several hundred Jews in Medina who had surrendered unconditionally. Jesus also didn't own slaves, which Mohammed did. And so on.

IS think they are just doing what Mohammed did and what Islam tells them to do. And large percentages of Muslim populations in the world and much more so in the Middle East agree with the goal of instituting Sharia and establishing a Caliphate.

Christianity and Islam are not the same. They have commonalities, but they are built on different roots. Jesus had a message of peace and forgiveness. Mohammed's message is certainly more muddled, to say the least.

Well yes, I agree with you, but the problem is the structure of Islam. The ideology of Islam arrived late to the party. So it had to use more aggressive "marketing" - more conversion by force and harsher penalties for not following the party line ("blasphemy") or for leaving the ideology (death for "apostates"). Christianity has in the past tried to use those "marketing tools" as well, but fortunately, you will not find many Christians nowadays who believe you should be killed if you leave Christianity (otherwise, I might not even be alive anymore...). The Pew polls show that more than 80 % in that region and even more in Pakistan believe that you should be killed if you decide to leave the religion.

How do you expect even educated people to initiate reform in such a climate? It's like a hysterical cult where, if you criticize parts of the ideology, you could be branded a blasphemist or apostate, and you could be killed. Hell, hundreds of millions of Muslims in the world seem to think that you should be killed, or as Mathloom put it, that you "should live in fear for the rest of your life" just because of some silly cartoons!

I agree with you, sadly. But it wouldn't have to take multiple generations if Islam were able to allow for a free competition of thoughts and ideas. The reason that a reform of Islam will be so difficult is what I posted above. It all starts with freedom of expression. Islam as an ideology is fundamentally opposed to allowing freedom of expression, because that would be a threat to the ideology and its power over people. To a lesser extent, this is true of Christianity and other religious ideologies which have always been tools to exert power over others.

Yes, I agree. Unfortunately, if you assume that the Muslim posters on this board are younger and more educated, it doesn't seem like many of them have overcome certain patterns of intolerance. Of course, this doesn't go for all of them. I would think that education is key. But it's hard to get there.

I am interested in this discussion as well. From what I have seen personally, I would say that people (not just Muslims) are less likely to take up arms or blow themselves up if they are in better economic circumstances. You just have more to lose, and you are probably less angry. But that doesn't mean - sadly - that you would not still have others blow themselves up for you and that you would not still follow the same oppressive ideology. See: Qatar - almost everyone is rich, but underneath, they are one of the more fundamentalist Islamist societies in the world (with some remarkable oddities, though, like Sheikha Moza who seems fascinating as a person and has taken on an interesting role in that ultra-conservative society), and they (either the government or rich families) have been supporting IS and Al Qaeda.

 

I think you might be misinterpreting my premises. I agree that any ideology that is immoral should be condemned and be subjected to enormous criticism - then and now. You chose to only criticize the now as it fits your narrative, which I disagree. Our other contention is where you place the blame.

You criticize Islam stating that their belief system is more conducive to this type of behavior even though you also agreed that Christianity in the past were also guilty of such atrocities. If we have 2 different belief systems that produced the same behavior, then the logical conclusion should be - it' not their ideologies.

What makes the past and current Christians different even though they are using the same bible? It's a combination of both leaders and followers. Most current Christian's have learned that taking a literal interpretation of their holy book can lead to immoral behavior while some Muslims have yet to make that realization.

Instead of us condemning Islam as a whole, wouldn't it be more productive to suggest that the followers need to use their own moral compass to determine what is right and wrong instead of blindly following their leaders just like what the past Christians did? Basically, if Christians were able to change, so can you. Simply stating that your religion is bad and mine is better just causes division which you appear to be proselytizing.

 

No, I didn't choose to focus on the now "as it fits my narrative", but because I live now, as I have already stated. Although I am aware of history, I am not in the business of being a historian.

No, that is not the logical conclusion. First of all, your premise is wrong that Christianity and Islam have produced the same behavior. Islam has been militant and aggressive from its inception. In fact, the "prophet" that was the founder of the religion was a warlord, who authorized decapitations of hundreds of people and who was married to a 9 year old girl, and so on and so on. Christianity has had centuries of relative peace. Islam has never really been peaceful. That both ideologies can be hijacked - fine. But they are not the same.

Which starts with the first respective leaders - Jesus vs. Mohammed. Jesus preached turning the other cheek. Mohammed authorized beheadings of hundreds of people.

"Some"? Did you read the Pew polls?

Sadly, their "own moral compass" is completely determined by what they have been brainwashed with from childhood. What makes you think that "their own moral compass" differs from the Islam they were taught? Their actions do not indicate that. But yes, they should develop a moral compass and question what they have been taught - that the life of a non-Muslim is worth less than the life of a Muslim, that Jews are the offspring of apes and pigs, and so on and so on.

I am not a member of any of the two cults. So your premise is wrong. But Christianity and Islam have different messages, at least the way Islam is taught nowadays.

And your message is pretty useless - "use your own moral compass" - what exactly is that supposed to mean? To determine how this should result in behavior differing from the one we are seeing from Muslims now, we have to point out first where we believe their moral compass has gone wrong. Without being specific here, how do you ever expect them to know what you mean by "use your own moral compass"? I have pointed out many times which types of behavior I consider unacceptable, regardless of an individual's "moral compass" or whatever God or green aliens they pray to.

 

Former muslim is an idiot..

 

Interesting argument. Why?

 

Nobody here expects any of us to be historians but don't you see the irony of those 2 statements. You just acknowledged in one of your posts about the Nazis, has that been centuries? What about the Ireland and Britain? The current discrimination of gays in Africa?

Yes, I will give you that Jesus is more ethical in his behavior than Mohammed. With exception of Jesus, the bible is littered with characters that are viewed as heroes and who's names are used during bible studies for Christians to follow. Yet, it is conveniently not mentioned that they were warlords, slave owners, participated in incest, ordered genocide, etc.

They are not the current leaders. People pick and chose what they want to believe in their own holy book and that is dictated by their rabbis, pope, priests, pastors, Iman, etc. Mohammed or Jesus currently has no say as to what the followers hear during their masses or holy book readings.

Are you saying ALL?

Moral compass i inherent amongst all of us. It's the same moral compass that allowed humans to understand that slavery is wrong, women have equal rights, children's rights... basically human rights despite what their holy book says. Yes, indoctrination is bad and Islam is not the only religion that practices that. Which takes us back to the "leader" argument. What are these leaders teaching the kids?

You say useless, I say it has been historically proven that using your OWN morality instead of a book created 2000 years ago has created a better society.

Most moral decisions can be easily decided by using the "Golden Rule"...


A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]”
—Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146

 

The number one difference is literacy. People can read for themselves what it says. They can't be told: "see here...in the Gospel of Luke, Jesus told us to take up arms and spill their blood in the mosques and temples." Because now they can read and say, "ummm..no it doesn't say that, wacko."

It wasn't a literalist view of the Bible that led to the Crusades. It was made up garbage by a church (and Popes) that had their heart set on power and money.

 

Everybody's moral compass is influenced by the experiences they have made during their lifetime. If you get raised being told all the time that Jews are bad, you will think Jews are bad. Just look at some of the more moderate Muslim posters on this board. Even they seem to think that and fall victim to the propaganda regarding the Gaza/Israel conflict.

Yes, if you get taught the "Golden Rule". But if you get taught that the "Golden Rule" only applies when dealing with other Muslims, but not when you deal with people who are worth less, like "infidels" or Jews, then your "Golden Rule" won't be worth much. And that is what we are witnessing right now - in many places around the world. I was raised Catholic (not very religious), and I distinctly remember always having been taught that every human being is worth the same, no matter what they believe, what color of skin they have or where they come from. This is NOT - I repeat, NOT what most Muslims are taught. They are distinctly taught that non-Muslims are worth less. Believe that or don't believe it. Fortunately, many Muslims shake those teachings off or maybe they were lucky to already be taught differently by their parents. But e.g. Mathloom has openly admitted that that is what he was taught when he was growing up (props for being so open and honest about this).

 

Except that one was primarily guilty of such atrocities 500 years ago... and least we forget, it isn't as if Islam was not guilty of such atrocities as well 500 years ago.

At some point the "well they did it" excuse is no longer valid.

What makes Christians today different?

First, there are a lot less hard core practicing Christians than hundreds of years ago. Further, Christianity is no long a culture in the West.

I don't condone condemning Islam as a whole.

Having said that, claiming that Muslims should follow their own moral compass is not going to work, it is not consistent with the culture in many areas of the Muslim world.

 

Certain parts of Africa disagree.

 

I know you don't think much of Muhammad, however, I replied to your assertion last year on your mentioning of him allegedly marrying a child. The summary of it is there were few records in Arabia then, that Aisha had crossed puberty, the number which you base her age on (6 or 9) is based on hearsay evidence written centuries after Muhammad's death, and overall she likely was a teenager. It's common to feel disgust at someone that young being married, but times were different.

Also, Muhammad was not the 'founder' or the leader of Islam. There were several prophets before him including major ones like Jesus himself. In other words, the ideas of Noah, Moses, David, Abraham, and Jesus et al are all Islamic. This is something Westerners and even some Muslims don't understand. It's not about one human being at all. It's been thousands of them since Adam.

Christianity and Islam and many other religions are the same in that they likely are made up fairy tales, as some atheists put it. The same way that you cannot differentiate between the turmoil in the Middle East, North Africa, and Asia from Islam's message, I cannot look at European and World History and not see a twisted interpretation of Christianity at fault. You see 'centuries of peace' in Christianity, and I ask "when".

Several people I know claim to be Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and so on. History was one of my majors, and I took a class on World Religions and Christianity. I don't entirely blame a faith for what happens, but focus on its followers and their interpretation/agenda. None of these people exemplify their faiths. They're just empty labels.

If you want change in Islam, it'd help if you stop giving oceans of money to the Saudis and like-minded extremists in oil revenue. Don't support totalitarians which only give lip service to the West, who in turn oppress their people and increase social injustice. That only strengthens the Islamists i.e. Egypt. Strengthen and protect grassroots movements that champion secularism and coexistence and economic models for the 21st century.

Or, stand aside and let the long-due civil war happen between secular Muslims and those like IS. It will take centuries since Islam never had a Reformation nor a Renaissance nor an Enlightenment.

 

I don't understand this "times were different" excuse that religous types always deploy when at the same time they profess objective morality, something that us poor atheists can never have(and don't want). If Allah is all knowing and all powerful and commands perfect morality wouldn't he know that a 12 year old's mind isn't fully devolped to make decisions such as consenting to sexual relations with a 40 + year old man even if she is physically capable of sex?

 

brb going back 2000 years and stoning to death homosexual people

 

Great point! And you see, Islamic clerics and other authorities in the region have bypassed this literacy "issue" by simply claiming that the language of Islam is so complex that only clerics can decipher the underlying meaning (which is many times based on literally based on 100 yr old rumors) and that those clerics have to be approved and monitored by the state.

So according to a large number of Muslims, only a cleric of their choice within their sect can interpret the Quran accurately. Questioning these geniuses is a sin, and indicative of satanic possession.

This is an ideological problem which much of the world can identify with even today, even if much of the world has removed this from their religious ideology. This is a problem which Muslims are only now beginning to learn must be eradicated. Because one thing that is absolutely clear in Islam is: Muslims don't choose who is and isn't Muslim, not even themselves. God chooses that, and Muslims don't know God's choice till judgement day, which is exactly the purpose of judgement day to begin with. The key message to take from this is: treat everyone the same, either all are non-Muslims or all are Muslims, as far as anyone knows.