Muslim Leaders 'Expose ISIS' Lies’ In Digital Magazine

[pr126]

Why not refute the articles?
Are they really lies or just don't agree with your world view, therefore it must be lies.

.

[josephpalazzo]

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/muslim-leaders-expose-isis-lies-090930115.html#WC9VZSd

Interesting. 

I know of many Muslims who don't care about their religion (just like there are many Christians who don't care about Christianity). These people are NOT going to go on a crusade (OOPS, bad terminology?) to denounce what some perceive as BAD Islam ( or BAD Christianity). So the people who care about their religion ( Islam or Christianity) and perceive that the extremists in their religion are to be denounced are few, and so have little influence in the course of changing anything, anyone.

[pr126]

ISIS is doing exactly what Muhammad has done, and they are following the Quran to the letter.
Abu Bakr al Baghdadi is a Muslim scholar who knows Islam better than anybody.

By declaring his actions a lie, is saying that Islam is a lie. And that is apostasy.

But westerners not only do not know that, they do not want to know it either.

So enjoy your takiyya, it is what you want to hear, isn' it? The reality is too frightening. Best not to know.

"Daesh has no claim and legitimacy to the beautiful and compassionate teachings of Islam; we can see its web of lies unravelling.”

Iif you believe that you deserve the the Darwin Award.

[SilentFutility]

Why does a chronic charlatan warrant refuting every single time?

I remember when this place was a space for debate rather than ad hominems.

[Baruch]

People who have been dead for hundreds or thousands of years ... aren't much of an issue.  And any criminal can take any dead person as their exemplar ... whether they are being historically accurate, or just projecting their own rotten character.  Deal with the present, the past is dead already.  So who funded ISIS? ... it wasn't Muhammad and his magic time machine.  Lawrence of Arabia is more to blame, and the conflicts of 1914 ... than anything in the more distant past.  WW I didn't end in 1918 and WW II didn't end in 1945 ... and the Cold War didn't end in 1991 either.  They are all part of a larger pattern, that is only 100 years old.

[pr126]

Quran 33:21 is urging Muslims to emulate Muhammad as the best example for humanity.
ISIS and devout Muslims are doing just that. Emulating their prophet.

[Baruch]

True ... in the sense that I emulate George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.  They have their detractors too.

But I really don't know any icons personally, nor do the emulators of Muhammad.  Think projection, not genuine emulation.  I can emulate my father, because I actually lived with him.

[SilentFutility]

True ... in the sense that I emulate George Washington or Abraham Lincoln.  They have their detractors too.

But I really don't know any icons personally, nor do the emulators of Muhammad.  Think projection, not genuine emulation.  I can emulate my father, because I actually lived with him.

Yeah but how many people have you tortured and killed lately?

You have the right to emulate, and indeed do whatever you want up until the point of harming someone else.

[Baruch]

My father didn't torture or kill, and neither do I.  You should be happy about that.  But you miss my point ... if you think emulating a fictional or legendary figure from the distant past ... means anything.  What if someone emulated a manga villain ... would you blame the manga?  Or is it just another ComicCon psychosis?

And yes, it is unwise and un-compassionate to harm people or the environment, yet we do it all the time, collectively.

[Shiranu]

I remember when this place was a space for debate rather than ad hominems.

Same. Even tried to address that it had gotten worse, and yet the forum just gets more and more toxic and partisan.

Again, if my actions are terrible, then there are several people who post here who are down right monstrous. Might want to deal with them first.

If everyone one is so upset I have a different opinion and respond in the same manner as I am treated, just tell me and I will go. I'm not going to pretend I have much to offer anyways.

----------------------------
Edit: On a calmer note; the reason I call him a chronic charlatan is because he continuously post articles that are either bold face lies or twisting the truth very, very close to the point of breaking. When confronted on it, the response from several is either, "Take it up with the writer not me!" or "Oh, I only posted because I am not biased!".

Imagine if a Christian came here and kept on posting articles about how Carl Sagan actually only did it for the money and was secretly a communist, or how atheism is the evilist ideology to have ever existed... and every time they were called on it, "Oh, I'm not the liar... just blame the author!" while continuing to spam that same message thread after thread, post after post. Would you expect the forum as a whole to not get tired of calling him on his shit, and to never just call a spade a spade?

I just ask to be held to the same standards as anyone else. When I am wrong, I am fine with admitting it when someone points out why I am wrong with something other than, "...well, in my opinion..."; see threads like the "Gender fluidity". But when I get called a ladyboy, a little bitch, take underhanded insults about my personal life in post after post after post, and no one fucking calls them out on it, then I do believe it is within my right to respond with a little bit of snark back mysel.

I only attack people based on their actions, and call them what they are; I have been repeatedly attacked with gender slurs and attack on my personal life and character, and no one said shit to them.

So again; if you really want me to believe Ad Hom. attacks aren't belonging on this forum, say some shit to the people who have actually attacked me personally rather than anything related at all to what I have to say. Thank you.

[pr126]

Apart from the strawman in the Carl Sagan paragraph, how about refuting those lies?

"This is why the article is a lie, because" .... and then present your counter argument with sources.
Until then, your posts are just your opinions.

And don't get too emotional. This is the Internet.

[Shiranu]

Apart from the strawman in the Carl Sagan paragraph, how about refuting those lies?

"This is why the article is a lie, because" .... and then present your counter argument with sources.

Already have on those that were. Just in case you forgot, you didn't post an article here, so it is a bit hard to refute one at the current time and place.

Until then, your posts are just your opinions.

Indeed, but unlike some of us I never claim them to be anything more... nor do I try to use my opinions to invoke fear of those outside my culture. Though with how much of a mutt I am, that would be a bit hard to find a "relevant" culture that I cant trace a grandparent or great grandparent to... fear of the Japanese or Central Africans just isn't in vogue at the moment I'm afraid.

And don't get too emotional. This is the Internet.

Hmpf. Right. The go-to rebuttal around here, to avoid any sense of personal responsibility. I see why it's so fashionable.

Rhetoric is, in my opinion, the second most dangerous weapon in the world; the first being fear. You wish to use both to stir up a belief that any day the Muslims will destroy our way of life, will come and rape our women and stone our children, enforce Sharia law. You want to stir up fear that the liberal is allowing this all to happen and destroying "our way of life". To "prove" this, you post misinformation and insist that there is only one true Islam; and yet you strike me as a man who has never met a Muslim in your life, otherwise you would realise just how foolish that is.

I know Muslims from Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Lebanon, Turkey... and not a single one of them follows the same exact ideology. The Egyptians and Turks are all very progressive, secular minded... I have yet to met either who wants religion in government or law (infact, the Egyptians I know are all extremely against it and believe in a government frankly more reason based than most Western countries)); the Pakistanis on the other hand do fit the mold of your Muslim in their beliefs, but also believe that here in the United States they have to follow the rules of the land. The Iranian and the two Turks I know (in person) drink alcohol, the Iranian has tattoos, and one is an atheist.

But by your logic, they don't exist; nor do the head's of organizations of hundreds of millions, billions of Muslims who actively have condemned terrorism and live vastly different lives from country to country, even region to region. The only "true Muslims" that exist are the Wahhabiya ultra-orthodox branch, and everyone else is secretly a member just waiting at the flick of a switch to destroy us.

Again, if someone was to come in and use the exact same rhetoric to atheists, they would be laughed and cursed out of here... as has happened. Hell, even if someone was to use the exact same rhetoric about Christians, many of us would be against it. But because it's a different minority, one we disagree with, suddenly it becomes acceptable to lie and deceive if it helps further the agenda. It's hypocritical and downright shameful.

So internet or not, this is why it is "serious business". Words are powerful, regardless of what medium you are using them on. To treat them like worthless scribbles because they exist on a computer and not on a book shows a real misunderstanding of basically any concept of linguistics... or an intentional will to try to excuse your actions and take no responsibility for them.

I am fine with people insulting me; if I was taking it truly personal, I would leave. I just have to laugh and shake my head that I am called "too emotional" when my attacks are pathetic compared to the personal shit-slinging that has gone on without a blink of an eye from the people who call me and several others "too emotional" or "being a bully". I find that far more insulting than internet tough guys who think attacking me personally is going to somehow make them look more machismo or prove themselves correct. Though since they are given no negative responses from the same people who criticise me and others... I guess positive affirmation, or at least silently sitting by, does give them very little reason to change.

[mauricio]

“Through Haqiqah, British imams and scholars will make it clear that Islam does not permit the killing of thousands of people, sexual abuse, and the destruction of mosques, churches and other religious monuments.

Probably this is gonna be just a bunch of shitty post hoc rationalizations like what you see in christian apologetics about leviticus and other awful shit on the bible.
However I rather have that than murderous fanatics. Now if they would promote secularism as a necessity to support pluralistic society...

[pr126]

But by your logic, they don't exist; nor do the head's of organizations of hundreds of millions, billions of Muslims who actively have condemned terrorism and live vastly different lives from country to country, even region to region. The only "true Muslims" that exist are the Wahhabiya ultra-orthodox branch, and everyone else is secretly a member just waiting at the flick of a switch to destroy us.

They do not exist in a sense that they have absolutely no voice, no power to change ANYTHING at all.
To do so, is to reject Islam's teachings which amounts to apostasy.

Any so-called "Moderate Muslims" will not be able to wrest control of the islamic agenda for several reasons. First of all, Mohammed, the Messenger of Allah’s eternal word, was not moderate. No so-called "Moderate Muslim" can legitimately tell another Muslim to stop doing the very things Mohammed himself did. The Qur’an not only condones but commands violence and coercion to further the Islamic agenda. People whom some call "Moderate Muslims" are labeled hypocrites by Allah Himself in the Qur’an. Any so-called "Moderate Muslims" will always lose the argument because, as ex-Muslim author Ibn Warraq says, “There may be "moderates" in Islam but Islam itself is not at all moderate.”

...the head's of organizations of hundreds of millions, billions of Muslims who actively have condemned terrorism and live vastly different lives from country to country, even region to region.

Those Muslims are counting on the gullible to believe what they are saying.

"There you are, they said it, so it must be true. Nothing to worry about." Islam is peace. Let's get back to sleep.

Meanwhile global jihad is continuing unabated. Jihad? What jihad?

[Shiranu]

They do not exist in a sense that they have absolutely no voice, no power to change ANYTHING at all.

Clearly. That's why the Muslims in the United States are all following Islam to-a-T, and the mosques here are cranking out radicals that are oppressing us. That's why Al Qaeda and ISIS have such huge American chapters constantly waging war on the infidel, as the "good Muslim" should do.

Perhaps you do not understand how Islam is structured? You view it as a monolithic entity akin to the RCC, where the Vatican says something and it is so (more or less). I ask; what is the Vatican of the Muslim faith? What central authority do they hold as THE divine interpreter of the Qu'ran?

I'll save you the trouble of replying, "The Qu'ran is the divine authority! It is unquestionable!"...

Question two; If the Qu'ran is unquestionable, why are there so many different interpretations of it? Why does Islam basically vary in one way or another from every single iman to the next? And given the abundance of various interpretations, why do you continue to insist it is some homogeneous entity that is only practiced by roughly 4.6 million Muslims (80 something % located in the Persian gulf), and the other 1.57 billion Muslims are all, "Not True Muslims" and apostates?

To do so, is to reject Islam's teachings which amounts to apostasy.

Again, you just prove you have zero understanding that Islam is not a unified beast but a conglomeration of hundreds of different cultures that all interpret it in various ways. That, or around some 1,500,000,000 Muslims are apostates.

That is assuming you believe Wahhabiya is "true Islam", since it is the most prominent orthodox interpretation. And since you are saying anything that disagrees with "true Islam" is apostasy... then yeah, thats 1.5 billion+ apostates. If you want to give a little wiggle room, then that can probably be cut down to more like 900,000,000+ apostates... but you are the one insisting there is only one true Islam, so that would require you to admit you were not being serious to begin with...

Frankly I think that is a quite silly belief to have, but I also figure you never actually considered the actual logistics of that since, again, you ignorantly view the Middle East (and African, Asian and Western Muslims) as one giant, unified culture.