[QUOTE=richofencrazy;50390703]Yeah, talk about inconsiderate. It's ironic that he's joined a group that willingly and brutally end peoples' lives when his job is to save them, his name will probably be struck from NHS records.[/QUOTE]
ISIS do employ a fair number of people who aren't just killing others. They are really, really trying to push the idea that they are a functional state to the areas they now control. Offering services like medical services and construction in areas that they think are worth it, etc. So this dude might end up being a doctor for their fighters, never taking part in the brutalities himself.
As to why someone in a MEDC would willingly join these guys? When even their family can see that they are lunatics? Well, that's probably going to be quite hard to pin down. Human psychology isn't simple after all. Perhaps he was particularly impressionable and just happened across some of the media ISIS publish to recruit people? Maybe he genuinely felt disenfranchised for one reason or another? It's hard to say really without asking them personally.
Or maybe he just wanted to escape that pitiful NHS wage [img]https://fi.somethingawful.com/images/smilies/emot-sax.gif[/img]
I vote the NHS wage
Afaik isis aren't religious fundamentalists by far, rather religious warlords.
They're convinced to be the god's chosen crusaders to begin with, so what their holy book says is secondary.
Not the greatest example to represent the religion.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;50391367]Afaik isis aren't religious fundamentalists by far, rather religious warlords.
They're convinced to be the god's chosen crusaders to begin with, [B]so what their holy book says is secondary.[/B]
Not the greatest example to represent the religion.[/QUOTE]
Where are you getting this from? They cite scripture vigorously and they point out clear links between scripture and what they're doing.
Answer me this question:
What is ISIS doing that Muhammad didn't do, or wouldn't have approved of?
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50389251]From what I know It has been said that the Old testament was not perfect, and the New would fulfill it, build upon it.
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:18
For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
Matthew 5:19
Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.[/quote]
These verses do not mean what you and plenty of other people try to manipulate them into meaning. You conveniently always leave out Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where he outlines his teachings and his message, which comes just beforehand:
[quote=Matthew 5:1-16]Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, and he began to teach them.
He said:
Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.
You are the light of the world. A town built on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.[/quote]
The laws of the Old Testament (i.e. beating slaves and women who do certain things, stoning people for certain offenses, etc.) are no longer valid; they've been superseded/"fulfilled" by this new message which he outlines here.
Also, from the Book of Jeremiah:
[quote=Jeremiah 31:31-34]Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people: and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin will I remember no more.[/quote]
The new covenant here doesn't just refer to the coming of the New Testament, it refers to the entirely new religion of Christianity; these two things supersede the older order of things.
More decisively, the fact of the matter is that Jesus never went around beating slaves, complaining about women on their periods being unclean, etc. So the idea that he wanted these old laws preserved is ridiculous. Have you never heard of the story in the Book of John about the woman who was taken in adultery?
[quote=John 8:3-11]The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery; and making her stand before all of them, they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the elders; and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, sir." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you. Go your way, and from now on do not sin again."[/quote]
[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50389251][b]No religion is any better than any other[/b], it is merely a tool in the hands of such men, or a pillar in the lifes of law abiding citizens. What matters is the other factors, and anyone who higlights Islam before other factors is manipulating.[/QUOTE]
And this is why relativism is crap.
There are different religions in this world that different people and their respective cultures choose to follow. They have different beliefs, different ritualistic practices, different historical backgrounds, etc. What you believe in [i]does[/i] affect the kind of person that you are. It affects how you treat others, how you view the world, how you behave in general. Religious beliefs affect these things as much as political beliefs do, and that's how simple it is.
I'm not religious. Let me underscore that, as I have before, as clearly as I can. I like spiritualism because it's a useful tool for coping with the stress and depression that comes with ordinary life, but I do not consider to be a part of any religion. Having said that, I also come from a very diverse family with equally diverse religious backgrounds: my father's family is made up of Shi'ite Muslims from Iran (they're basically the Islamic equivalent of once-a-weeker Christians as far as I can tell; they believe it and get defensive if you attack it, but they aren't good at following it at all), my mom's family is predominantly Christian from a variety of denominations (Methodist and Lutheran mostly, although they have a few Baptists too; my uncle stopped believing after he went to Japan during the Korean War and became spiritualistic after almost marrying a practicing Shinto woman there) while she herself doesn't believe in any of that (she always liked Greek and Egyptian polytheism and thought they were cool), and my stepfather's family is made up of Mexicans who have some Jewish ancestry (and he personally was educated in a Jewish private school for the first half of his life) but otherwise is made up of practicing Catholics, and I was baptized as a Catholic.
Having said that, I would never follow Islam. I would sooner follow Christianity than I would Islam. I've learned about it, on my own personal initiative and from my family, and I simply cannot stand when people try to say that it's the same as Christianity is. It isn't. Fuck, just as far as Jesus and Muhammad are concerned, there's an ocean of differences between them and how they behaved. I can elaborate on those if you really want me to, with special attention given to Muhammad.
[editline]26 May 2016[/editline]
I understand why people push the relativistic narrative: they want everybody to get along with each other, and they want to make it seem like we're all in the same boat here. "Everybody is the same, nobody is better or worse than anybody else is, etc." But that's complete and utter bullshit. The reality of the matter is we're not all the same. We don't believe the same things in terms of religion or politics, we don't share the same cultural backgrounds and practices, we don't behave the same way... and that's just how simple it is. There are micro differences, there are macro differences; through and through, however, the fact is that we are just different, and some of those differences make certain groups better or worse than one another in certain respects.
[editline]26 May 2016[/editline]
If I absolutely had to pick a mainstream religion to follow, I'd go for Buddhism. Just throwing that out there. Mostly because it rejects the idea that some deity created us. The Buddha himself didn't believe in the concept of a First Cause, and neither do I.
[QUOTE=Govna;50392379]These verses do not mean what you and plenty of other people try to manipulate them into meaning. You conveniently always leave out Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where he outlines his teachings and his message, which comes just beforehand:
The laws of the Old Testament (i.e. beating slaves and women who do certain things, stoning people for certain offenses, etc.) are no longer valid; they've been superseded/"fulfilled" by this new message which he outlines here.
Also, from the Book of Jeremiah:
The new covenant here doesn't just refer to the coming of the New Testament, it refers to the entirely new religion of Christianity; these two things supersede the older order of things.
More decisively, the fact of the matter is that Jesus never went around beating slaves, complaining about women on their periods being unclean, etc. So the idea that he wanted these old laws preserved is ridiculous. Have you never heard of the story in the Book of John about the woman who was taken in adultery?
[/quote] Who ever said the Bible or any other religious book had to be consistent?
[QUOTE=Govna;50392379]
I understand why people push the relativistic narrative: they want everybody to get along with each other, and they want to make it seem like we're all in the same boat here. "Everybody is the same, nobody is better or worse than anybody else is, etc." But that's complete and utter bullshit. The reality of the matter is we're not all the same. We don't believe the same things in terms of religion or politics, we don't share the same cultural backgrounds and practices, we don't behave the same way... and that's just how simple it is. There are micro differences, there are macro differences; through and through, however, the fact is that we are just different, and some of those differences make certain groups better or worse than one another in certain respects.
[/QUOTE]
More like people shouldn't pat themselves on the back just because their religion finally got all the killing out of it's system first. You can have pissing contest over who's antiquated values are more easily glossed over all you want, but what is and isn't permitted by a religion according the "correct' interpretation amounts to jack shit in practice. Do you think everyone involved in crusades, inquisitions, or witch trials just lost their copy of the Bible or something? Clearly nobody told them they were doing it wrong. At the end of the day, no matter whose text is technically better, there is no atrocity that can't, and hasn't already been adequately justified by each religion.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50389103]Lots of devout muslims condemn ISIS for their actions though, are they not devout muslims or is it only a matter of time?[/QUOTE]
The Q'uran is more contradictory and open to interpretation than any other major organized religious text. That's not even covering that vast majority of those whom practice can't even read it because it's not in their native language. Lots of avenues for personal belief to co-opt the written word, and the written word also calls directly for armed struggle should the need arise.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50392780]Who ever said the Bible or any other religious book had to be consistent?
More like people shouldn't pat themselves on the back just because their religion finally got all the killing out of it's system first. You can have pissing contest over who's antiquated values are more easily glossed over all you want, but what is and isn't permitted by a religion according the "correct' interpretation amounts to jack shit in practice. Do you think everyone involved in crusades, inquisitions, or witch trials just lost their copy of the Bible or something? Clearly nobody told them they were doing it wrong. At the end of the day, no matter whose text is technically better, there is no atrocity that can't, and hasn't already been adequately justified by each religion.[/QUOTE]
You're ignorance is not the same thing as religions being totally subjective. Just because you haven't done the study necessary to actually see the cohesive message of a religion or religious book doesn't make that message not exist.
For example, if you go around starting wars in the name of spreading Christianity, then you're directly contradicting clear Christian theology. It's not foggy. It's not unclear. It's not debatable. Have people done it in the past? Of course they have! But that's very different from actually being able to justify it with a complete view of Christian theology. Single verses are essentially meaningless without both their context and a decent understanding of the entire theology.
As someone who has put time into understanding it, you sound like a personally totally ignorant about quantum mechanics spouting about how the physicists don't really know anything and that they're all just making stuff up as they go. They're clearly wrong, but they think they're just telling it like it is.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50392910]. Have people done it in the past? Of course they have! But that's very different from actually being able to justify it with a complete view of Christian theology.
[/QUOTE]
Oh, well I'm sure that's a huge relief to anyone ever put on the rack or converted at sword point.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50393030]Oh, well I'm sure that's a huge relief to anyone ever put on the rack or converted at sword point.[/QUOTE]
What does that even mean? If a person claims to have good reason to do something, then they must be correct?
To do those things you MUST either be dishonest or ignorant. You can't both be well informed, honest with the total message, and convert people at sword point. It just isn't possible. There's nothing subjective about it.
[QUOTE=Talishmar;50391367]Afaik isis aren't religious fundamentalists by far, rather religious warlords.
They're convinced to be the god's chosen crusaders to begin with, so what their holy book says is secondary.
Not the greatest example to represent the religion.[/QUOTE]
They are religious fundamentalists. If we really want to simplify the super-complicated perspectives within Islam, we can boil it down to three "levels." Modernist, traditionalist, and fundamentalist.
Modernists were pretty strong in the later years of the Ottoman Empire, and after its fall. Muhammad Abduh resurrected the rationalist theology of Mu'tazila, and promoted [i]individual interpretation[/i] of religious texts, plus reconciling traditional Islam with modern beliefs of the West. He promoted unity between Sunnis and Shia and called for alliances between religions. He was a huge 19th-century Islam figure that promoted peace and unity and rational thought. Islamic Modernism is still a major movement in Western countries - it's the reason Kosovo and Bosnia are solidly Muslim areas that are comparatively very lax when it comes to religious strictures and open to personal interpretation of religious texts.
Traditionalism is the type of Islam you see that promotes the veil and isn't exactly in sync with many Western values. It's probably the most widespread perspective on Islam - but it's [i]traditional[/i], and the tradition of Islam actually tends to actively go [i]against[/i] what groups like ISIS are saying. Killing the infidels is the opposite of traditional for Islam - past Caliphates and Islamic States allowed Christians and numerous other religions to exist independently, with their own religious courts, despite restricting them from government and certain other roles. Traditional Islam is conservative, no doubt, but it's [i]moderate[/i] in comparison to fundamentalism.
Fundamentalism, seen in ISIS and Wahhabism and the hijacked Salafism, actively twists the words of sharia and the hadiths and the Quran. Killing infidels and those who don't believe in Islam is demonstrably against sharia, which outlines those raised in other religions as "protected peoples." It is radical and revolutionary, strongly against religious tradition, and incredibly literalist. But you're right in that they aren't strictly following religious text - you have the Quranists, who strictly only listen to the Quran and dismiss the hadiths and sharia and other texts, and other groups that place varying value on religious texts. It's literalist but at the same time open to interpretation - not individual interpretation, but the interpretation of politically motivated radical warlords.
That's a simplified view of the many, many perspectives in Islam. Wahhabist fundamentalism is a [i]very[/i] recent development. In the same way that Christianity has thousands of dissenting opinions on all manner of issues, Islam has arguably more.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50393063]What does that even mean? If a person claims to have good reason to do something, then they must be correct?[/QUOTE]
It means it doesn't really matter who's interpretation is "correct" when the end result in the same. Also, I'm sure I could find plenty of awful New Testament verses, though I'm sure Christianity hasn't gotten where it is today without being able to find some torturous reinterpretation that shows said verses do not mean something that would have aligned with the values of society at the time they were written, but in fact support modern sensibilities, and good thing we figured this out just as that previous interpretation stopped being acceptable.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50393126]It means it doesn't really matter who's interpretation is "correct" when the end result in the same.[/QUOTE]
Let's apply this line of reasoning to other things and see how rediculous it is:
"It doesn't matter if there's good science and bad science because either way some people will believe the bad science."
"It doesn't matter if a person is actually guilty or not because either way some people will believe the wrong thing."
People believing something wrong is irrelevant to whether some truth exists. A person or a lot of people saying that they're fighting to convert people to Christianity doesn't make that a legitimate conclusion from Christian theology. Let them present their argument from the actual Bible and have it withstand critical evaluation within the entirety of the theological system. If it stands, then great, it's a legitimate conclusion. If it doesn't stand, then it's a false conclusion and not justifiable.
[QUOTE]Also, I'm sure I could find plenty of awful New Testament verses, though I'm sure Christianity hasn't gotten where it is today without being able to find some torturous reinterpretation that shows said verses do not mean something that would have aligned with the values of society at the time they were written, but in fact support modern sensibilities, and good thing we figured this out just as that previous interpretation stopped being acceptable.[/QUOTE]
Go ahead. Please give me a cohesive theological point that takes the entire Christian Theology into account.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50393166]Let's apply this line of reasoning to other things and see how rediculous it is:
"It doesn't matter if there's good science and bad science because either way some people will believe the bad science."
"It doesn't matter if a person is actually guilty or not because either way some people will believe the wrong thing."
[/QUOTE]
Probably sounds ridiculous because you're applying it to completely different things. Things like science and guilt are basic, objectively testable concepts. Unless God himself shows up, there's no way to say which interpretation is truly right.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50393166]
People believing something wrong has is irrelevant to whether some truth exists. A person or a lot of people saying that they're fighting to convert people to Christianity doesn't make that a legitimate conclusion form Christian theology. Let them present their argument from the actual Bible and have it withstand critical evaluation within the entirety of the theological system. If it stands, then great, it's a legitimate conclusion. If it doens't stand, then it's a false conclusion and not justifiable.
[/QUOTE]
People presented their "arguments" for over a thousand years and seemed to withstand critical evaluation just fine, and once again, only seemed to become "wrong" once society started changing. Unless someone has been making some sneaky edits, people back then should have had the exactly same book and as such reached the "right" conclusion.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50393166]
Go ahead. Please give me a cohesive theological point that takes the entire Christian Theology into account.[/QUOTE]
Well just off the top of my head, for what little it's worth against centuries of mental gymnastics:
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50393366]Probably sounds ridiculous because you're applying it to completely different things. Things like science and guilt are basic, objectively testable concepts. Unless God himself shows up, there's no way to say which interpretation is truly right.[/QUOTE]
You conveniently ignored my example of guilt in a crime. It is often not objective and testable, just like a myriad of other things in our life that we still care about the truth of. So no, the objective testability really has nothing to do with it.
[QUOTE]People presented their "arguments" for over a thousand years and seemed to withstand critical evaluation just fine, and once again, only seemed to become "wrong" once society started changing. Unless someone has been making some sneaky edits, people back then should have had the exactly same book and as such reached the "right" conclusion.[/QUOTE]
Give me specifics because I think you're vastly overestimating the Biblical arguments given for those atrocities. Everything I've seen is ridiculous attempts to draw meaning from vague statements while ignoring very clear passages elsewhere. It's presented as a political argument with a few vague verses to work as backup for the ignorant.
[QUOTE]Well just off the top of my head, for what little it's worth against centuries of mental gymnastics:
"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."[/QUOTE]
The large majority of churches don't have female pastors even today. I do think it's pretty clear that the Bible presents it that way. I agree that it takes mental gymnastics to argue that the Bible allows for female pastors. If anything, this seems to be an example of the non-subjective nature of the theology. Even though society as a whole despises the idea of gender roles, the church has largely held to them because of it's clarity within the Bible.
Of course that doesn't apply outside of the church. There were many women who led in the early church with one even being called an apostle (Junia). The leadership of men in the organized church goes back to man and woman's reflections of Christ and the church within marriage.
[editline]25th May 2016[/editline]
I'm looking for an example of something that the modern church does not do that goes against a cohesive theology from the Bible. My point is that I can present a clear and concise argument against the horrors committed in the name of Christianity in the past based on nothing more than a cohesive understanding of the Bible, but that a similar argument cannot be made for them.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50393609]Of course that doesn't apply outside of the church. There were many women who led in the early church with one even being called an apostle (Junia). The leadership of men in the organized church goes back to man and woman's reflections of Christ and the church within marriage.[/QUOTE]
It's worth nothing all the women he mentioned and the praises he gave in Romans 16:
[quote=Romans 16:1-16]I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor of many people, including me.
Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my co-workers in Christ Jesus. They risked their lives for me. Not only I but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.
Greet also the church that meets at their house.
Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.
Greet Mary, who worked very hard for you.
Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.
Greet Ampliatus, my dear friend in the Lord.
Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my dear friend Stachys.
Greet Apelles, whose fidelity to Christ has stood the test.
Greet those who belong to the household of Aristobulus.
Greet Herodion, my fellow Jew.
Greet those in the household of Narcissus who are in the Lord.
Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord.
Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord.
Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother, who has been a mother to me, too.
Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas and the other brothers and sisters with them.
Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas and all the Lord’s people who are with them.
Greet one another with a holy kiss.[/quote]
Paul also said:
[quote=Galatians 3:23-29]Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, [b]nor is there male and female[/b], for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.[/quote]
The quote he gave from 1 Timothy is of course from the three Pastoral Epistles, which have had their authorship debated since the 1800s because their style and content doesn't seem to match with him. I mean, people are going to believe what they want to believe, but the fact of the matter is Paul was fine with women. They had hugely important roles for early Christian movement, leadership roles included and missionary roles, which he himself acknowledged. And Jesus of course knew and helped plenty of women... hell, Mary Magdalene was the first person to witness the resurrection according to Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50389087]Step 1. Read the Quran, the Hadiths, and various Islamic doctrine.
Step 2. Believe in said texts and doctrine.
Step 3. Carry out the logical theological commandments laid out in said texts/doctrine.
All of this is logical if you really believe.[/QUOTE]
oh whatever mate
the entire "extremist" aspect is misinterpreting/overanalysing.
the "dark side" of islam is all down to being obnoxious tbh.
if you follow a religious path, you guide how you do it.. not some other guy.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50389087]Step 1. Read the Quran, the Hadiths, and various Islamic doctrine.
Step 2. Believe in said texts and doctrine.
Step 3. Carry out the logical theological commandments laid out in said texts/doctrine.
All of this is logical if you really believe.[/QUOTE]
This is bullshit. IS has almost nothing to do with being a Muslim or the Quran.
Rape, drinking and pot use is also rampant under IS soldiers. Showing they are not particularly devout muslims.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50389103]Lots of devout muslims condemn ISIS for their actions though, are they not devout muslims or is it only a matter of time?[/QUOTE]
Could it be that these condemning ISIS are not Sunni's?
I blame Ayatollah Khomeini he started all this radical bollocks.
[QUOTE=Pantz Master;50392048]Answer me this question:
What is ISIS doing that Muhammad didn't do, or wouldn't have approved of?[/QUOTE]
Well they are doing things that Muhammad couldn't even think of, like using the computer and high-speed cameras, editing their propagandist Mythbusters videos..
No wait, don't tell me computers are mentioned in the Qu'ran? Motherfucker truly thought of everything.
[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50395472]Could it be that these condemning ISIS are not Sunni's?
I blame Ayatollah Khomeini he started all this radical bollocks.[/QUOTE]
It has been going on for much longer than that. Islamism (political Islam) grew from the 1950s, taking inspiration from Mussolini and Hitler, whilst Salafism/Wahhabism have had a centuries long alliance with the Saudi royal family.
However, it pushed forwards after Iran. This was especially the case in the West. I remember my parents mentioning that the fatwa on Rushdie completely changed Western perceptions of Muslims and the Islamic world. So although Khomeini didn't start this, he was the one who alerted the West to what was happening and acted as a further boost to their cause.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50396098]It has been going on for much longer than that. Islamism (political Islam) grew from the 1950s, taking inspiration from Mussolini and Hitler, whilst Salafism/Wahhabism have had a centuries long alliance with the Saudi royal family.
However, it pushed forwards after Iran. This was especially the case in the West. I remember my parents mentioning that the fatwa on Rushdie completely changed Western perceptions of Muslims and the Islamic world. So although Khomeini didn't start this, he was the one who alerted the West to what was happening and acted as a further boost to their cause.[/QUOTE]
Khomeini was certainly the 1st person to bring it to the forefront with the advent of worldwide media.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50396098]It has been going on for much longer than that. Islamism (political Islam) grew from the 1950s, taking inspiration from Mussolini and Hitler, whilst Salafism/Wahhabism have had a centuries long alliance with the Saudi royal family.
However, it pushed forwards after Iran. This was especially the case in the West. I remember my parents mentioning that the fatwa on Rushdie completely changed Western perceptions of Muslims and the Islamic world. So although Khomeini didn't start this, he was the one who alerted the West to what was happening and acted as a further boost to their cause.[/QUOTE]have you read Secret Affairs by Mark Curtis? i think you'd enjoy it
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;50396421]have you read Secret Affairs by Mark Curtis? i think you'd enjoy it[/QUOTE]
I'll take a look at some point. All I will say that is in the past there was a degree of naivety in my view about the nature of these Islamist groups and as such we were overly willing to use them to our own ends without realising how it may blow up in our face.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
