Former religious adviser to Osama Bin Laden denounces the Paris attacks by the Islamic State as agai - Polidicks

[quote]A former religious adviser to Osama bin Laden, Abu Hafs al-Mauritani has joined a chorus of Muslims in condemning the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group, denouncing its recent attacks in Paris as going against the tenets of Islam. [B]In his first interview to an English-TV audience, Mauritani tells Al Jazeera's Sami Zeidan that ISIL has "misunderstood" Islam, just as people in the West might "misunderstand Christianity". "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non Muslims," he says. "Killing civilians and innocent people ... is unacceptable and has nothing to do with jihad."[/B] A former al-Qaeda ideologue who served on the group's Shura Council, Mauritani left al-Qaeda in August 2001 after disagreeing with bin Laden's decision to target civilians. After the September 11 attacks, he fled to Iran where he spent 10 years in prison before being extradited to Mauritania. Speaking from the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott, he accuses ISIL's recruitment methods, citing political and not religious grievances for the group's rise. [B]He blames the West's support for Israel, "corrupt Arab regimes" and "counter revolutions after the Arab Spring" for the spread of the armed group.[/B] "Why else would they have hit France and not hit the Vatican?" he says. "The Vatican represents western Christianity, why didn’t they attack a church?"[/quote] [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2015/11/abu-hafs-al-mauritani-al-qaeda-mufti-reject-islamic-state-isil-baghdadi-caliphate-151121133941210.html[/url]

Well yeah, Islam does forbid killing innocent people. The question is [I]what is defined as an innocent person in Islam?[/I]

It's like I've always said, "Islamic State" doesn't follow Islam or try to be the best it could be in its doctrines. For all the death, destruction and madness they've spread, they might as well be worshipping the concept of chaos.

good on ISIS for turning literally everyone in the world against them

[quote]Each day we are taking further steps towards a war between civilisations, a war between Islam and Christianity, a war between Sunnis and Shia and a war between Arabs and other nationalities. What I fear most is that if rational people don't realise this, we will miss the chance to stop it and find ourselves in a senseless war in which we will kill each other without even knowing why.[/quote] Sounds like an interesting man.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49164159]Well yeah, Islam does forbid killing innocent people. The question is [I]what is defined as an innocent person in Islam?[/I][/QUOTE] [QUOTE] "Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non Muslims," he says. "Killing civilians and innocent people ... is unacceptable and has nothing to do with jihad." [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=da space core;49164193].[/QUOTE] I think he was going on the lines of "what's considered innocent?" For example, are homosexuals, in Islam, 'innocent'?

I suppose all those people in New York must have been very guilty.

Islam extremism =/= Islam. What guys like ISIL do is so off track from what Islam really is that you might as well call it a different "religion" they belong to.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49164288]I suppose all those people in New York must have been very guilty.[/QUOTE] [quote=article]A former al-Qaeda ideologue who served on the group's Shura Council, Mauritani left al-Qaeda in August 2001 after disagreeing with bin Laden's decision to target civilians.[/quote] Fourth line in the OP

[QUOTE=daigennki;49164296]Islam extremism =/= Islam. What guys like ISIL do is so off track from what Islam really is that you might as well call it a different "religion" they belong to.[/QUOTE] This is all useless semantics. While I normally agree that the definitions of grouping words are important, religious labels have been so utterly devoid of content and mutually exclusive or inclusive that they have lost all real meaning. The only thing connecting one Muslim to another is the word itself. This is the same game that Christians play when it comes to the KKK or Westboro, where they say "they're not real Christians," or "that's not [B]my[/B] religion!" Meanwhile, many Christians don't even consider Catholics to be real Christians. Are you going to pay attention to that labeling game?

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;49164310]Fourth line in the OP[/QUOTE] Wasn't Al-Qaeda involved in the 1993 attacks as well? I do recall that those involved in the bombing had connections to the group at the very least.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49164330]Wasn't Al-Qaeda involved in the 1993 attacks as well? I do recall that those involved in the bombing had connections to the group at the very least.[/QUOTE] Maybe he wasn't with them at the time. Maybe he disapproved but it wasn't enough yet for him to call it quits. Maybe at the time if he left they would have killed his entire family. You made a dumb comment though, stop trying to stay afloat.

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49164326]This is all useless semantics. While I normally agree that the definitions of grouping words are important, religious labels have been so utterly devoid of content and mutually exclusive or inclusive that they have lost all real meaning. The only thing connecting one Muslim to another is the word itself. This is the same game that Christians play when it comes to the KKK or Westboro, where they say "they're not real Christians," or "that's not [B]my[/B] religion!" Meanwhile, many Christians don't even consider Catholics to be real Christians. Are you going to pay attention to that labeling game?[/QUOTE] You're right, it's tricky. Naming of religion can be vague. It's still annoying though, seeing innocent Muslims who haven't done anything bad at all being treated like terrorists. Although that isn't a problem limited to Islam.

[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;49164364]Maybe he wasn't with them at the time. Maybe he disapproved but it wasn't enough yet for him to call it quits. Maybe at the time if he left they would have killed his entire family. You made a dumb comment though, stop trying to stay afloat.[/QUOTE] Al-Queda killed numerous innocent people throughout the 1990s, I'm not sure why this guy joined the group when they were doing it pretty much from the get-go. What's dumb is that he joined Al-Queda in the first place.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;49164395]Al-Queda killed numerous innocent people throughout the 1990s, I'm not sure why this guy joined the group when they were doing it pretty much from the get-go. What's dumb is that he joined Al-Queda in the first place.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily. Bin Laden was an incredibly influential and intelligent man, so the opportunity to become his religious adviser is like a god-sent job for someone over there. I don't blame him a bit. He got in for long enough to get close to a central figure in the organization and then he got out before their actions compromised his integrity. So because of that, he honestly now has probably the most complete perspective on Islamic extremism, besides the people actually in the organizations. In that way, it kinda matters what he says. And what he says echoes my sentiments exactly. No more western intervention in the middle East, no more western support for Israel, and all of our problems with terror would probably be over.

[QUOTE=ironman17;49164176]It's like I've always said, "Islamic State" doesn't follow Islam or try to be the best it could be in its doctrines. For all the death, destruction and madness they've spread, they might as well be worshipping the concept of chaos.[/QUOTE] They follow Islam directly. Much more directly than Osama bin laden. Like it or not, they are muslims. I would argue Al Quaeda always used Islam to reach political goals so they are the "not muslims". ISIS is the absolutely fanatic muslim follower crowd, you can't be more muslim than that. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] I also love how Al Queda are now the good guys. I mean there are really few organizations worse than ISIS, but Al Queda is only better because its weak and not as influential. Al Queda plays by our rules, but it still killed a lot of people and I can't say they are any better. I just hope nobody in the cabinets gets the wonderful idea to ally with Al Queda [b]again[/b].

[QUOTE=ironman17;49164176]It's like I've always said, "Islamic State" doesn't follow Islam or try to be the best it could be in its doctrines. For all the death, destruction and madness they've spread, they might as well be worshipping the concept of chaos.[/QUOTE] I'd say the Islamic state are about every bad thing that Americans think when they hear the word "Muslim". The only thing they are really doing is encouraging violence against all muslims, by reinforcing these stereotypes.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49164159]Well yeah, Islam does forbid killing innocent people. The question is [I]what is defined as an innocent person in Islam?[/I][/QUOTE] The original idea of islam was to treat ALL people equaly. That includes Women, Hindus, Christians and people from Florida.

[QUOTE=DMGaina;49164640]The original idea of islam was to treat ALL people equaly. That includes Women, Hindus, Christians and people from Florida.[/QUOTE] This is horseshit and anyone who reads the Quran knows it.

[QUOTE=DMGaina;49164640]The original idea of islam was to treat ALL people equaly. That includes Women, Hindus, Christians and people from Florida.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jizya[/url]

[QUOTE=da space core;49164193]"Islam forbids the killing of innocent people, regardless of whether they are Muslims or non Muslims," he says. "Killing civilians and innocent people ... is unacceptable and has nothing to do with jihad."[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=DMGaina;49164640]The original idea of islam was to treat ALL people equaly. That includes Women, Hindus, Christians and people from Florida.[/QUOTE] But no Islamic scholar who EVER says this backs up any of it. Instead you have [URL="http://quran.com/9/5"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.029"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://quran.com/5/33"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php"]number 50 here[/URL] among many many other examples. Like honestly the more progressive Muslims we have, the better. I'd like everyone to follow this rose-tinted idea, but let's not pretend that Islam based on anything other than a violent sadistic text written by tribal iron-age barbarians. [editline]22nd November 2015[/editline] Of course I say all this knowing full well that everyone will just go "wow what an ~[I]EUPHORIC[/I]~ individual!

[QUOTE=DMGaina;49164640]The original idea of islam was to treat ALL people equaly. That includes Women, Hindus, Christians and people from Florida.[/QUOTE] Jews and Christians, perhaps, but only as second-class citizens. Polytheists, such as Hindus and Zoroastrians were to be converted or murdered, no middle ground. People from Florida were just outright killed on sight, however.

[QUOTE=EcksDee;49165250]But no Islamic scholar who EVER says this backs up any of it. Instead you have [URL="http://quran.com/9/5"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/quran/verses/009-qmt.php#009.029"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://quran.com/5/33"]this[/URL] and [URL="http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/083-sbt.php"]number 50 here[/URL] among many many other examples.[/QUOTE] Why do people on this forum love to cherry pick? The first one you list, Surah 9: Ayah 5, talks about Pagan Arabs who broke treaties with Muslims to wage war against them. As stated about nine lines down. [QUOTE][URL="http://quran.com/9/13"]Would you not fight a people who broke their oaths and determined to expel the Messenger, and they had begun [the attack upon] you the first time? [/URL][/QUOTE] When you cherry pick the second one, Surah 9: Ayah 29, you are completely ignoring the historical context to this ayah. At this time, the Prophet Muhammad sent an emissary to the Byzantine vassal state of the Ghassanids, but the chieftain committed the taboo by tying up the emissary, torturing him, and murdering him. When an army confronted them, they were met with Roman soldiers, thus beginning a long war between the Arab empires and the Byzantine empire. I don't get what's so bad about the third one, 5:33. Punishing people who were the aggressors in war with death was common practice throughout most of human history. The Ayah before even says: [QUOTE] [URL="http://quran.com/5/32"]We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one - it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.[/URL] [/QUOTE] The fourth one isn't even the Qur'an, it's a hadith. I'm not saying that you can't criticize Islam, you can. But if you base criticisms boil down to cherry picking single sentences out of a book of hundreds of pages that was translated from a language fundamentally different from English you will never be taken seriously. [QUOTE]Of course I say all this knowing full well that everyone will just go "wow what an ~[I]EUPHORIC[/I]~ individual![/QUOTE] Quit bullshitting, most of this forum is Atheist.

[QUOTE=Fayez;49165758]Why do people on this forum love to cherry pick? The first one you list, Surah 9: Ayah 5, talks about Pagan Arabs who broke treaties with Muslims to wage war against them. As stated about nine lines down. [/QUOTE] What, and that somehow excuses killing people? [QUOTE]When you cherry pick the second one, Surah 9: Ayah 29, you are completely ignoring the historical context to this ayah. At this time, the Prophet Muhammad sent an emissary to the Byzantine vassal state of the Ghassanids, but the chieftain committed the taboo by tying up the emissary, torturing him, and murdering him. When an army confronted them, they were met with Roman soldiers, thus beginning a long war between the Arab empires and the Byzantine empire.[/QUOTE] Does this excuse KILLING PEOPLE. [QUOTE]I don't get what's so bad about the third one, 5:33. Punishing people who were the aggressors in war with death was common practice throughout most of human history.[/QUOTE] Oh so the Quran isn't divinely inspired and was just written by barbaric iron-age tribes? Thanks for proving my point. A book inspired by any divine being of unquestionable morality wouldn't contain this shit. [QUOTE]I'm not saying that you can't criticize Islam, you can. But if you base criticisms boil down to cherry picking single sentences out of a book of hundreds of pages that was translated from a language fundamentally different from English you will never be taken seriously.[/QUOTE] How is it cherrypicking? Cherrypicking implies that [B]there is some context in which the commands written down would be moral[/B], and that's not the case. There [B]is no context[/B] in which it is morally okay to say "Kill the polytheists", no matter if that is preceded with "They broke treaties" or "They were mean people :("

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;49165369] People from Florida were just outright killed on sight, however.[/QUOTE] Assuming Florida doesn't beat them to it.

Every religion Cherrypicks. I'd say that groups like ISIS and Christians in Uganda are being more Christian/Muslim than their western/moderate counterparts because they actually follow more tenants of their faith.

[QUOTE=Da Bomb76;49164776]This is horseshit and anyone who reads the Quran knows it.[/QUOTE] Yep. The Quran states everything from God loves Muslims who die as martyrs more than he loves Muslims who die in peace to the acceptability purging away al-Fitnah (disbelievers, Polytheists, and other "transgressors"). Beyond that, Muhammad himself was a conquering religious warrior who overran much of the Middle East to spread his religion by force and wanted to exterminate multiple Jewish tribes living in Arabia at the time (because they were Jewish, and supposedly because some Jewish shopkeeper had exposed a woman accidentally in Medina or Mecca; I don't remember what city anymore). He didn't exterminate the Jews of course; one of his followers convinced him instead to seize most of their valuables and just exile them instead. Then there's numerous issues with how women have been treated by it, the experiences of religious minorities under Islam (here in modern times as well as the old days under the Ottoman Empire), etc. A lot of people try to draw comparisons between this and the Old Testament to Christianity. One thing I want to point out ahead of time is that this is disingenuous. While the Old Testament does say a lot of deplorable things, it specifically states a prophecy that removes its religious laws from Christianity. So no, these religions are "not just as bad as the other is", like a lot of people try to argue. Christianity is much more peaceful than Islam is. Also, this guy from al-Qaeda is full of shit; he was full of shit when he signed up to be bin Laden's advisor the first time around, and he is now by basically lying over this issue. Having said all this, I'd prefer if we pushed towards Atheism altogether in the West (better yet, worldwide) and instead focused on spiritualism in place of religion. Spiritualism can offer a person much more comfort than religion can, it has almost no dogmatic elements to it, and you can basically pick and choose what you want to believe in (so it's very personalized). Scientific thinking should always be emphasized above everything though.

[QUOTE=Govna;49165934]I want to point out ahead of time is that this is disingenuous. While the Old Testament does say a lot of deplorable things, it specifically states a prophecy that removes its religious laws from Christianity. So no, these religions are "not just as bad as the other is", like a lot of people try to argue. Christianity is much more peaceful than Islam is.[/QUOTE] Christianity is much more peaceful because people pick and choose. They choose to ignore the insane violent stuff and the backwards stuff that doesn't match our modern western values. Christians are more accepting of Gay people now. Did the text suddenly change? Islam is progressing down the same path as Christianity. Its just gonna take them more time.

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;49164310]Fourth line in the OP[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;49164364]Maybe he wasn't with them at the time. Maybe he disapproved but it wasn't enough yet for him to call it quits. Maybe at the time if he left they would have killed his entire family. You made a dumb comment though, stop trying to stay afloat.[/QUOTE] That quip in the OP about him disagreeing with UBL's decision to target civilians doesn't make a lick of sense, though. Al-Qaeda was behind the WTC bombing in the early 90s and the attacks on two American embassies in Africa in the late 90s. Al-Qaeda's history has been attacks on civilians through and through. What other idea could he have possibly had about their methods?