CondemneDio said: That's more like it. ISIS bombings are done in hopes of terror and chaos. Not for the glory of their god.
wrong
They want to establish a "Kingdom of God on Earth" in Islamic Style (Sunni Caliphates) and put a caliph with a bloodline from Mohammed
Okay. There's your statement.
Now show the proof.
Altairius said: Very few people view "terror and chaos" as and end in itself. Certainly an organized group based on Islam (however misinterpreted, blah blah) does not view that as an end in itself.
The end goal would probably be something along the lines of toppling western powers, to make Middle East more relevant.
CondemneDio said: That's more like it. ISIS bombings are done in hopes of terror and chaos. Not for the glory of their god.
wrong
They want to establish a "Kingdom of God on Earth" in Islamic Style (Sunni Caliphates) and put a caliph with a bloodline from Mohammed
Okay. There's your statement.
Now show the proof.
Altairius said: Very few people view "terror and chaos" as and end in itself. Certainly an organized group based on Islam (however misinterpreted, blah blah) does not view that as an end in itself.
The end goal would probably be something along the lines of toppling western powers, to make Middle East more relevant.
The Middle East is almost synonymous with Islam. There is also the (apparently radical) idea of taking people at their word. They are telling you very clearly why they are doing this. Islam is always central to it. Regressive "liberals" can't wrap their heads around the idea that they mean what they say, because they don't understand what it means to truly believe in something with absolute conviction, and therefore it must be that they are oppressed. ISIS is not generally made up of oppressed people though. Many of their recruits are upper/middle class Westerners. The only thing binding them together is religion. They don't care at all about political borders, unless it supports the spread of Islam, and this forceful spreading of the ideology is taken from (arguably misinterpreted, but still very intuitively read) concepts in the Quran and Muhammad's life. Their motives couldn't be clearer. For the life of me, I don't see what non-Muslims stand to gain by denying this.
Nyarlathothep said: I wonder what people would answer me. Buddhism, maybe ?? Ever heard of Myanmar, where extremists do awful things to a Muslim ethny ?? Yes, Muslims victims of Buddhists.
The situation in Myanmar is appalling and quite complicated, I'm not trying to justify what's going on there but the country itself has been plagued by civil war, insurgency groups and ethnic tensions for decades.
If you look at the anti-Muslim riots they usually started after deadly incidents, one of the biggest happened after a Buddhist monk was stabbed in the head, stripped naked, had his penis cut off and then was dragged into the local mosque and had acid and petrol poured onto him.
Another was incited after a Muslim from China burned alive a Buddhist woman, another was started after Muslim men allegedly attempted to rape local Buddhist women and another one almost started after two little girls were found dead one of them having been raped.
There were also deadly spillovers between Rohingya Muslim and Rakhine Buddhist migrant workers in Indonesia and Malaysia.
Terrorists also targeted Buddhist sacred sites in India as retaliation and then you have the whole Muslim insurgency issue in Thailand.
Extremist monks are using these incidents to scapegoat Muslims, they often put the gory pictures on display in front of their temples (like here) to further drive the narrative that Muslims are out to exterminate Buddhists. Their goal is to incite more mob violence and pressure the government to further discriminate against the Muslim minority.
The Middle East is almost synonymous with Islam. There is also the (apparently radical) idea of taking people at their word. They are telling you very clearly why they are doing this. Islam is always central to it. Regressive "liberals" can't wrap their heads around the idea that they mean what they say, because they don't understand what it means to truly believe in something with absolute conviction, and therefore it must be that they are oppressed. ISIS is not generally made up of oppressed people though. Many of their recruits are upper/middle class Westerners. The only thing binding them together is religion. They don't care at all about political borders, unless it supports the spread of Islam, and this forceful spreading of the ideology is taken from (arguably misinterpreted, but still very intuitively read) concepts in the Quran and Muhammad's life. Their motives couldn't be clearer. For the life of me, I don't see what non-Muslims stand to gain by denying this.
When Islamic State fighters smash the statues of pagan gods, they are following the example of the Prophet; when they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are following the example of the warriors of the original caliphate; when they execute enemy combatants, and impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not glory in.
The guy is right on everything except when he declares that IS actions are those of Muhammad (pbuh) and his companions. A display of sheer lack of knowledge on Islamic history on his behalf.
This was the covenant Muhammad (pbuh) signed with the Christians which is a model ascribed for Muslim's treatment of non-Muslim minorities. Now see it for yourself:
[i]Muhammad the son of ‘Abd Allah, the Messenger of Allah, and careful guardian of the whole world; has written the present instrument to all those who are in his national people, and of his own religion, as a secure and positive promise to be accomplished to the Christian nation, and relations of the Nazarene, whosoever they may be, whether they be the noble or the vulgar, the honorable or otherwise, saying thus.I. Whosoever of my nation shall presume to break my promise and oath, which is contained in this present agreement, destroys the promise of God, acts contrary to the oath, and will be a resister of the faith, (which God forbid) for he becomes worthy of the curse, whether he be the King himself, or a poor man, or whatever person he may be.
That whenever any of the monks in his travels shall happen to settle upon any mountain, hill, village, or other habitable place, on the sea, or in deserts, or in any convent, church, or house of prayer, I shall be in the midst of them, as the preserver and protector of them, their goods and effects, with my soul, aid, and protection, jointly with all my national people; because they are a part of my own people, and an honor to me.
Moreover, I command all officers not to require any poll-tax on them, or any other tribute, because they shall not be forced or compelled to anything of this kind.
None shall presume to change their judges or governors, but they shall remain in their office, without being deported.
No one shall molest them when they are travelling on the road.
Whatever churches they are possessed of, no one is to deprive them of them.
Whosoever shall annul any of one of these my decrees, let him know positively that he annuls the ordinance of God.
Moreover, neither their judges, governors, monks, servants, disciples, or any others depending on them, shall pay any poll-tax, or be molested on that account, because I am their protector, wherever they shall be, either by land or sea, east or west, north or south; because both they and all that belong to them are included in this my promissory oath and patent.
And of those that live quietly and solitary upon the mountains, they shall exact neither poll-tax nor tithes from their incomes, neither shall any Muslim partake of what they have; for they labor only to maintain themselves.
Whenever the crop of the earth shall be plentiful in its due time, the inhabitants shall be obliged out of every bushel to give them a certain measure.
Neither in time of war shall they take them out of their habitations, nor compel them to go to the wars, nor even then shall they require of them any poll-tax.
In these eleven chapters is to be found whatever relates to the monks, as to the remaining seven chapters, they direct what relates to every Christian.
Those Christians who are inhabitants, and with their riches and traffic are able to pay the poll-tax, shall pay no more than twelve drachms.
Excepting this, nothing shall be required of them, according to the express order of God, that says, ‘Do not molest those that have a veneration for the books that are sent from God, but rather in a kind manner' [29:46]. Give of your good things to them, and converse with them, and hinder everyone from molesting them.
If a Christian woman shall happen to marry a Muslim man, the Muslim shall not cross the inclination of his wife, to keep her from her church and prayers, and the practice of her religion.
That no person hinder them from repairing their churches.
Whosoever acts contrary to my grant, or gives credit to anything contrary to it, becomes truly an apostate to God, and to his divine apostle, because this protection I have granted to them according to this promise.
No one shall bear arms against them, but, on the contrary, the Muslims shall wage war for them.
And by this I ordain, that none of my nation shall presume to do or act contrary to this my promise, until the end of the world.
[/i]
Does it match with IS?
Muhammad (pbuh) only tore down the idols of Ka'abah because Ka'abah was to be the new worship place for the Muslims and that Ka'abah was built by Abraham and in his time, there were no idols in it. However, now you might believe that Muslims are allowed to tear down Churches, synagogues or temples to make Mosques? well, nope. Not unless the previous owners of the worship places allows Muslims to do so.
The mentality of building a global Caliphate was nowhere to be found. But the desire that every man on this Earth becomes Muslim, yes that was there and I bear that desire too.
AND1CURRYTAPE : The point of the article isn't so much about Muhammad as it is about the early history of Islam, there is plenty of violence there to inspire these guys and some of their practices. The second main point is that with the internet and to a lesser extent TV channels as well as widely available translations of the Koran you have an army of self-proclaimed Imams on the internet which leads to many different interpretations and the proliferation of sectarian ideologies.
His point isn't really to say that Islam is inherently evil but it's not accurate either to deem it solely peaceful and insist that there's absolutely nothing Islamic that inspires these groups.
It's the same thing with the Crusades it was definitively inspired by a religious discourse, you may call it a perversion of the religion but it was still inspired by it.