Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

This story is remniscent of the 1948 Israel war of independance which was also full of stories about neighbours suddenly being given the change to rape, steal and pillage.

One can only hope it ends in exactly the same way : 5 more Israels in the middle east. A Yezidi one. An Assyrian one. A Shi'a one.

You can say whatever you want to say but this islam is an ideology which is centrally focused on it's supposed superiority and the focus is the reason for this superiority : that allah will guarantee military victory. Walk near any large station in a large Western European city and you can find out for yourself (if you look the least bit dark you will find out even if you don't want to, they'll walk up to you and ask). Paris - Gare du Nord, Brussels North, Amsterdam, ... you should go to Syria and fight and kill. Feign minimal intrest and you get to find out more. Why - because allah will make you win and we'll finally punish the infidels, and everybody you hate. They'll provide a wife, and openly talk about their "attitude" to captured women - what allah "allows". The main counterargument you hear on that street - it's not a way to victory, it's a way to death.

I don't know about if this is similar in America. Does anyone have similar experiences in, say, New York ? Given where the recruitment happens in Western Europe and how successful it is in these western states, I find it extremely difficult to believe that this ISIS will remain confined to the middle east. I am terrified what will happen in Western Europe in the large cities if ISIS appears to become more successful.

This ideology needs to die, if we are to have peace.




Why are European Muslims (admittedly the sad, hopeless losers) falling into this trap? Could it be a lack of civic, constitutional nationalism and Habermassian public civil religion as opposed to bog-standard ethnocracies?


It goes without saying that what ISIS is doing is against the teachings of Islam.

What's happening is that they are making propaganda to the uneducated people who "have nothing to lose". They tell them to go carry weapons, fight for glory, and they'll be rewarded with Heaven. Pretty good deal to get out of their circumstances, right?

The fact remains though that what they preach is not of Islam.


> It goes without saying that what ISIS is doing is against the teachings of Islam.

Yes and so is everything else muslims do. For instance, there is a death penalty for muslims who choose not to live under islamic rule. And the only thing that qualifies as islamic rule, of course, is a state ruled by a caliph. [1] And no, the law does not mention the case that there is no islamic state. So sharia quite literally states all muslims should kill eachother. For some reason this is not happening. So every muslim on the planet today has committed a sin in islam, punishable by death. Or to take another issue. There is not a single mention of a headscarf anywhere in either the quran or the hadith. It says to wear loose fitting clothes, the actual word used compares the clothes to being inside a tent. Now look around, do young muslim girls wear loose fitting clothes ?

I am making a somewhat disingenuous argument, but the point is that your argument is disingenuous as well, and for the same reason : when comparing reality with a set of laws, reality is found lacking. This goes for ISIS and for every other law, principle, design, guideline, ... on our little blue ball in the dark.

So your argument is wrong. Of course they don't follow islam perfectly, nobody does and everybody knows. The real reason is "goes without saying", of course, means that you're merely pointing out that there is massive social pressure on this board, and in this country, to agree with that assessment. That I am a racist if I think otherwise. But this is a bullshit argument. It is true, because it would be a socially very, VERY uncomfortable situation if it wasn't true ... which of course doesn't change the fact that it's utterly wrong.

So in short, it doesn't go without saying at all. How much does it really match the religion's instructions ? I would argue it matches it pretty well. They've got a caliph and are waging war against anyone and everyone else, just like their prophet did. That is the basic problem with islamic terrorism : the terrorists, while not 100% perfectly right about their ideology, have a very good point. Islamic ideology glorifies this war of the prophet against the Roman Empire, and the Jewish and other states bordering it, and describes it as a war that can and should only end with total worldwide victory of the religion.

This is what muslims are teaching their children (I hope we can at least agree on those basic facts). And like every other sane person on this planet, their children don't believe them. I didn't believe my parents when they talked about this sort of shit, and I've had a few talks with my daughter where she made it very clear she doesn't believe me either. But when they get excluded out of our society, hide in their religion for it's the only thing that hasn't completely rejected them yet (keep in mind that islamic marriages are arranged. If you have no money, no amount of good looks or talking can help you). And then these people who look like clerics read to them from the exact same books their parents are telling them to live by ... and those books say to fight and kill and you'll be rewarded. Those are the books their parents talked about when they were toddlers sitting on daddy's knee, when they were happy and provided for. Now they're criminals who failed with nothing to lose ... and these clerics read from those books, and those books say to fight and kill ...

The reason this works is the ideology. And I don't care how uncomfortable that basic piece of information makes anyone. Fighting the people who are already lost is a loser's game. You must prevent, so to speak, toddlers from being raised with those books anywhere nearby.

And given how this is escalating, it is a matter of time until we all agree on that point. The big question is, how many people need to die before we agree ? As I said, I have kids and find this "let's ignore it and pretend it doesn't exist" attitude EXTREMELY unacceptable.

And yes, this will cost me a lot of karma on this board. Fuck social pressure. I hope everyone who lowers the integer next to my name on an internet server feels really good about themselves and the actions they took.

[1] https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/01/02/hijra-in-rev... talks about this issue


There are lot of baseless and uncited claims in your post. The blog post you cited took a few verses from the Quran, and attempted to deduce rulings out of them, without going back to what scholars know.

> For some reason this is not happening.

Maybe something for you to research and find out why (hint, because Islam preserves life, and its goal is not to kill left and right, like how you're trying to make it seem to be). The death penalty in Islam is very, very strict, applicable to only a couple of situations, and can only be done by the government. Even then, people are encouraged to forgive if they are in a position to do that.

> There is not a single mention of a headscarf anywhere in either the quran or the hadith.

If you're looking for the literal word "headscarf" then yes (at least for the Quran). However, covering up (what is known as the headscarf today) is required in Islam. There is not enough space here to discuss this issue, it is sufficient to know that the Muslim women during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, practiced this.

> For instance, there is a death penalty for muslims who choose not to live under islamic rule.

I would like to see the source of that claim.

> And no, the law does not mention the case that there is no islamic state.

Just because there is no Caliphite state today, does not mean that there are no Islamic states. Nowhere in the sources is it stated that a Caliphite system is the exclusive way to have an Islamic state. In one Hadith, the Prophet Peace be upon him mentioned that the Caliphite period after him will be 30 years, then it will turn into kingdoms. There are dozens of Hadiths that tell people to have patience, and not to overthrow their governments, even if those governments are messing around with some religious rulings (e.g. delaying prayers until after their time). There are only two cases where it is permissible to overthrow the ruling government, none of which apply to any of the countries of the so called Arab Spring today.

We also have Hadiths that describe people with mentalities similar to what we see in ISIS today. One of these Hadiths calls such people the dogs of Hell fire.

> That I am a racist if I think otherwise.

I don't see what racism has to do with any of this. You're free to believe what you want, but it seems that the vast majority of what you believe about this topic is based on either no evidence at all, or on deliberately misconstrued "interpretations", which can be easily dismissed by a learned individual.

> How much does it really match the religion's instructions ?

It goes against it 100%. The Prophet Peace be upon him told us not to overthrow our rulers, regardless of how bad they get. They have absolutely no religious basis to their actions; none of the nearby countries recognize them as a legitimate government; we have Hadiths describing people like them.

> Islamic ideology glorifies this war of the prophet against the Roman Empire, and the Jewish and other states bordering it...

He did not wage war for the sake of waging war. This is another misconstrued view you have of Islamic history. In ALL of the wars that happened during his time, it was to either fend off an attacking enemy, or it was after a peace treaty was broken by the other party.

> and describes it as a war that can and should only end with total worldwide victory of the religion.

* http://quran.com/49/13

* http://quran.com/10/99

> keep in mind that islamic marriages are arranged

Again, more uncited claims. Arranged (i.e. forced) marriages are against Islamic teachings. Them happening in Muslim countries does not mean these practices were derived from the religion (basic correlation vs. causation fallacy).

That being said, I don't disagree that there are many misconceptions that are spread in the Islamic world, about certain rulings or teachings, that in fact, are not from Islam. It is important to educate people about what is and isn't from Islam.


[flagged]


> (answer to that islam instructs muslims to fight)

The goal here was to show an example that Muslims must NOT fight each other. They must not overthrow their rulers, much less fight and kill each other.

> This is supposed to refute that sharia has the death penalty ...

No. I mentioned elsewhere that the death penalty in Islam only applies to 2 or 3 very specific cases, and none of them include living in a non-Islamic state.

> For instance, Aisha was sold to him in trade for a contract that Ali would be his successor

I think this shows your ignorance, because Aisha was not related to Ali. Aisha was AbuBakr's daughter. Again, please cite your source for this claim.

You're arguments are all over the place. I mentioned that Daesh/ISIS are not a legitimate Islamic group, and the Prophet Peace be upon him warned us of people that have their ideologies. Ask a well-educated scholar today and he will tell you the same thing.

You also keep ignoring my requests for listing citations for your incorrect claims (e.g. that Aisha had something to do with Ali's position as a successor, or that the death penalty must be enforced for Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, etc.). I'm still waiting.


[flagged]


> I notice you don't disagree with the premise : that her marriage was based on a contract

His marriage to her was never based on a contract. This is purely made up on your part. When we discuss history, specifically Islamic history, we rely on sound narrations, which have been inspected in order to remove any falsities from them. So yes, by stating that you mixed up people and not knowing what you were talking about, I was implicitly disagreeing with your premise.

While this is not the place to discuss her age at marriage, it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. Not one of the non-Muslims at that time mentioned anything about Aisha's age being different from the norm when she wed the Prophet, Peace be upon him. You should know that the non-Muslims were waiting for the Prophet to do anything non-conventional to criticize him.

> have you seriously never read the story of the split between sunni and shi'a ?

The (unfortunate) split happened due to several reasons, most, if not all, mainly politically motivated. That being said, both groups are Muslims, who are forbidden to fight each other. There are attempts (even today) to bring them closer, instead of drive them apart.

> when sharia is so very clear on the issue of succession

Succession happens by a form of voting. AbuBakr (and the four Chaliphs after him -- Omar, Othman, Ali, and AlHassan) were all voted in to the Chaliph position. This era spanned 30 years, after which we had the first king, and power was inherited thereafter.

> I mean their whole raison d'etre is a blatant violation of sharia.

Are you saying that according to Shariah, power must be inherited? It is not the case: http://quran.com/42/38 (and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves). Shura is a form of election. Where is the contradiction in what Sunnis did?

> heh I know why you don't want to name them. Ashamed about the apostasy laws perhaps ?

Because they are not the point of debate here. This can stay for another time if you're honestly interested.

> http://islamqa.info/en/13363

I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death.

The fact remains that in most Western countries today, Muslims are free to practice their religion. I think the deduction is clear. You're free to drop by any Muslim Community Association in your area and ask them about this issue.

> what is the punishment for knowingly violating sharia ...

It depends on what was violated. Shariah means "law" or "rule". There are some violations that have penalties in the Shariah, and some that were left open (e.g. murder, vs. crossing a red traffic light). If you're trying to say that any violation of Shariah incurs the death penalty, then, you are simply wrong. No Companion or scholar had this opinion in the entirety of Islamic history.

> Both the Ummayyads and the Ottomans massacred muslim populations for living outside their borders

And who says they were right? Even Muslims admit that bad things happened during the rules of these empires. We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps.

I prefer to settle one point at a time (there are two to which I responded above), instead of being all over the place. It seems you have so many misconceptions, not based on the Quran or sound Hadith narrations, which you try to bring up each time. And I assure you that most of them are easily refuted.


> His marriage to her was never based on a contract

How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ?

> it is sufficient to know that she had already been engaged to another person prior to her marriage to the Prophet

Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies the rape of a 6 year old ? Do you have a daughter ? Do you think an agreement with the girl's father makes paedophilic rape moral ? Because your religion clearly is of that opinion. Note that your prophet has a lot of opinions on what he, personally, should be given, and something to fuck is often among the things he "gets" from his invisible friend, this is not a lone occurence. So answer this simple question : was Muhammad an immoral paedophilic rapist ? Or not ...

And to be honest, since Abu Bakr is a "rightly guided caliph" and made this agreement with the prophet, that means that BOTH the prophet AND the first ever muslim where paedophilic rapists. One organising the rape, one committing it. Muhammad, of course, claims this agreement was blessed by allah : so you can't even make the pathetic argument that it was just him, "not allah". Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations [1]. To be honest, actually reading the hadith you find a lot of that : verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations. You should try it, reading those texts around book 60.

> I fail to see where it says that the death penalty is involved here. Please point out explicitly where it says that the penalty for living in a non-Muslim country is death.

The penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death. As you very well know. Believe it or not, you do not just get to violate sharia whenever you want according to islam. The punishment for violating something haram knowingly, repeatedly or continuously ... is death, because this constitutes apostasy. I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ?

Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy, advocating not following sharia is proselytizing. Do you disagree with that ? Do I really have to dig up fatwas saying so ?

> We point out these bad things, and we do not follow their footsteps.

Reading this in a post that starts off by justifying the rape of a 6 year old girl, that is very reassuring.

[1] http://www.sultan.org/books/bukhari/060.htm#006.060.248


> How many times do I need to point out references to the "agreement" in the text that is constantly talked about ?

You haven't pointed out any references so far.

> Do you like to tell yourself that that justifies...

You should hear what today's scholars say about this issue. Marriage is not to be forced upon the girl, and if a person (male or female) is not able to tolerate it (physically and mentally), then the marriage contract cannot go through.

Back in the day, marriage at a young age was a norm, and the Prophet Peace be upon him did not commit anything foreign to the culture in this regards. Other people at that time, Muslims and non-Muslims, married young. Even in Western cultures up to a few hundred years ago, we see similar behavior.

I take it it is clear now that Islamically, the ruler is to be elected, and not passed down as you were trying to imply before.

> Note that not even Aisha believed the revelations[1]

The link you pasted was about Fatimah and Ali, Peace be upon them. Please link to the appropriate Hadith.

> verses that make it crystal clear none of the muslims with the prophet believed in his revelations

Claim needs citation. It is quite an absurd claim, as if that were indeed the case, then Islam would never have caught on.

> penalty for consistently refusing to comply with sharia, when you know the law and how it applies to you, is death.

Again, citation needed. This is beyond a doubt not the case. Please cite your reference. A Muslim person can, for example, drink alcohol, knowing that it is not permissible, and knowing that there is a punishment if he is caught (lashing). The death penalty will never come into action here, regardless of how many times he repeats this sin.

> I can't say I recall the full set of requirements, but do you seriously argue otherwise ?

I do. Citation needed.

> Knowingly not following sharia is considered apostasy

There are different degrees of apostasy (Kufr), and only one or two of them have the death penalty (e.g. Treason). Furthermore, not any action that constitutes apostasy will result in the person automatically becoming a non-Muslim (much less get the death penalty).

For instance: http://quran.com/5/44

The last part of the verse is: "And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun" (i.e. disbelievers - of a lesser degree as they do not act on Allah's Laws).


[flagged]


Your racist islamophobic baiting is really fucking unpleasant.


So now you're no longer responding to my request about listing a reference that the death penalty is to be enforced on Muslims living in non-Muslim lands, or it be enforced on Muslims who knowingly commit any sin.

Also, I'm still waiting for a reference you claimed to have that Aisha was wed to the Prophet Peace be upon him as a contract for AbuBakr's succession...

> Hey now you just implied that the prophet did something wrong

No. I specifically said he did not do anything outside the norm of that time. The Arab pagans were waiting on him to do anything different from the norm to criticize him, but they never did.

> which is related to Aisha's wedding according to the highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia

Again, put your citation as to who are these "highest religious authorities in Saudi Arabia", and what exactly they said.

> It specifically mentions that these people are like the Jews.

It's not really my problem if you can't comprehend simple English. The Ayah does not mention that these people are "like the Jews"; it is explicitly talking about the Messengers, Scholars, and Rabbis, who were upholding the law on the Jews. It says that the Torah was a light from God to be used by the former to judge the latter. Again, complete construing on your part.

> http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/bukhari/0....

If you read the incident, it is saying that those two Jews themselves accepted what was mentioned in the Torah. Even today, you will find the same penalty in the Torah.

> Why don't you interpret for me what she meant here

Perhaps you can find someone to translate this for you: http://tinyurl.com/nrjwjpd

Secondly, this quote does not imply in any way what you originally mentioned. Aishah is one of the highest regarded sources from whom to take Hadith and religion.

> Or how about we revisit the whole "allah has 3 daughters" saga ?

The story is false. If you have basic commandment of how the Hadith was documented you would be able to answer yourself here.

It seems you are just throwing out claims, some of which are documented as falsified, and some completely made up, without responding to my requests to cite references for these claims. I won't waste my time responding to a person who is purposefully twisting and making up stories, as well as refusing to respond to my rebuttals.


[flagged]


> http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressivesecularhumanist/2015....

The article just mentions that Islam (similar to other religions like Judaism and Christianity) does not set a minimum age for marriage. Nothing really special here.


Aishah was not 6 when the wedding happened, so you can lay that issue to rest.

> 2) massacring

Any battle that happened was either (1) out of self defense, (2) after the other party broke a peace treaty.

3) stoning

Taken straight from the Torah, which I believe you must accept given you are Christian. Try finding any incidents of stoning after the Ayah for punishment of adulterers (by lashing) was revealed.

> 4) forcing other people to stone women

They came to the Prophet, Peace be upon him, asking for the penalty for what they did, which was then picked straight out of the Torah.

> If there is one thing islam promises more than anything else, it's that the caliph will win any war, any battle.

No it does not. The Muslims were defeated in the Battle of Uhud, way before any Caliphs came into rule.

> By the way, I take it you agree on the validity of the fatwa that it is haram for muslims to not live in the state of the caliph

You're moving away from the original subject. But no, that fatwa you're referring to is just one opinion. I already answered this before, as long as you're able to practice you're religion easily, and there are many other Muslims in the same place, there no issue God willingly.

> Dr. Salih bin Fawzan

He has been severely criticized for several things he said. What you have to keep in mind is that any fatwa can be challenged. It is an opinion of one or more persons, and not binding.

> Why don't you comment on the obvious fact that they were honorable and moral by NOT following that law

So they were honorable by explicitly deciding not to follow what they believe God revealed to them? That's some double standard right there. Why did they come to the Prophet, Peace be upon him in the first place? And why did they try to hide the penalty right in front of him? It's basically picking and choosing what they like and leaving what they don't like from the Torah.

> Note that you skirt around the issue of stoning for even suspected adultery.

There is no punishment for suspected anything in Islam. We have several Hadiths that have the same meaning: ادرؤوا الحدود بالشبهات (i.e. fend off penalties with suspicion). For the penalty for adultery to hold, there needs to be four witnesses, who witnessed the actual act (not just saw a couple hugging or kissing, for instance). If any one of them decides to change his word after testifying, then the supposed witnesses will be penalized. And for your information, not once did this take place in the history of Islam. And please don't bring up what is happening in Iran today; it does not carry weight religiously; even though it is quite tragic what they're doing.

> I take it you are a sunni then

I'm Muslim. I know the position of some of the Shi'ah with regards to her. At the end of the day, the proof is on the one making the claim. The sources they use to make these false claims about her do not hold up to scrutiny (they are falsified stories).

> because of the agreement between Abu Bakr and Muhammad

I'm still waiting for a reference, even if it were a Shi'i one.

> does the prophet get to have sex before marriage

Of course he doesn't.

> and then proceeded to immediately to massacre former parts of the muslim army in what is called the "apostasy wars"

Explicitly denying an established part of the faith (in this case, Zakah) constitutes apostasy.

At the end of the day, you're not bringing up anything we haven't heard before (or just making up stories I have no idea where you came up with), hoping that something would "stick" perhaps?. Rest assured though, that over the course of the past 1400+ years, there is nothing that scholars have not been able to refute, thank God. Even with my basic knowledge, I'm able to find out the chain of narration of claims you and others make, only to discover that they are fabricated stories, or picked apart and misconstrued to try to show a certain aspect while hiding the whole story.


How on earth can you call a tribal supremacist fairy tale and its reworked descendant fertility cult "based on rational reasoning"? I shudder to think of what else is getting past your filters if those are your standards.


It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason. So was the council that collected these works into the New Testament.

In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers. The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.


> It is generally accepted that Lucas, Matthew, Luke and John were educated Greeks (a publican, student,and a physician), who were educated in the philosophy of reason.

I'll point out that you just claimed that those four named sources were three people.

> In contrast islam's holy "books" were mostly orally transmitted for the first ~100 years by soldiers.

That's not that much shorter than the generally accepted time between the time of the events recounted in the gospels and the time that the canonical gospels were written.


> The quran is a sorted list of things most of said soldiers agreed upon. The hadith is most of the things they didn't quite agree upon.

Again, false information. The Quran was written down during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, as was the Hadith. Both were both transmitted orally and through scribes. We have early scribes that were written during the time of the Prophet Peace be upon him, and later on narrations that were documented decades after him, and they match perfectly.


[dead]


There are multiple Qira'aat (recitations) of the Quran, all of which have sound chains of narrations back to the Prophet, Peace be upon him. The variations among certain Ayat (verses) do not change the overall meaning of them. For instance, in one recitation, you would find the word "Malik" (ملك), meaning King or Lord; and in another, you would find "Maalik" (مالك), meaning Master, Possessor, or Only Owner. Both are authentic recitations which the Prophet Peace be upon him recited during his lifetime.

If you study the history of the Arabs and Muslims, you would know that they were extremely strict in how narrations were passed down, even before Islam. We have the chain of narration for the Mu'allaqat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mu%27allaqat), and this was pre-Islam.

People recited both from scribes as well as from memory. Memorizing large amounts of information is something very uncommon today, but was common back in the day. There are people who used to memorize hundreds of thousands of Hadiths, with the chain of narration; and some people of that nature still exist to this day, though not as many.

Even today, when children memorize the Quran, they know where what Ayah is on what page. You can ask the child to start reciting from a random page, and he/she would.

Can you show me a reference that the Turks refuse to show the Quran they have to the public, or that there were differences between that one and what was discovered in San'aa?

[1] http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qira%27at


[flagged]


Religious flamewars are not allowed on HN.


Mind control is mind control is mind control, by any other name...mind control made up by "educated people" is probably harder to fight


You make it sound like Christians aren't currently engaged in religious wars that involve the murder and rape of uninvolved non-combatants. These wars involve children as soldiers and use rape as a weapon of war.

There is at least one currently happening on-going ethnic-religious cleansing by Christians of Muslims in CAR.

You take some ignorant bigot who has distorted a religious text to create something that most adherants to that religion do not recognise. That's not unique to Islam -- there is a buddhist insurgent army (dkba) and a buddhist terrorist group (969 group) and most buddhists would recognise "I abstain from killing" as one of the five most important principles of Buddhism.


> You take some ignorant bigot who has distorted a religious text to create something that most adherants to that religion do not recognise.

Not at all. Here's what I claim :

1) these islamic "holy" texts do indeed say to fight and kill, and a whole lot of other immoral despicable behavior. Islam was created in a war, continued in a war, and the early muslims did not stop fighting and massacring for hundreds of years. This is very well reflected in the religion.

2) most muslims do not believe and do not follow this, BUT DO teach these texts to their children

3) when (and if) society abandons them as young adults, and they search comfort in religion, as one does (and I'm sure you have done on occasion, Lord knows I have), islamic clerics then use these texts to support the case that they need to fight and kill for paradise.

4) That this is a growing phenomenon. Well, not really. If you read history you'll see that this was an extremely common practice even in the Ottoman empire. There's simply been a 100 year near-hiatus in this form of recruiting, and it's actually still at a very, very low level compared to what it was in the 19th century.

5) I claim the problem is that those recruiting clerics are right. That islamic texts do indeed say to fight and kill, very clearly, very directly. Stopping this phenomenon can happen in one of two ways. First, society could choose to simply never abandon anyone, ever. Second we could prevent step 2) from happening. Fighting things at the recruiting stage is an exercise in futility.

Am I being an ignorant bigot ? Perhaps.


Any text can be manipulated to be violent. The concept of holy war has been in christianity for at least 1,500 years. There's plenty of vile stuff in the Bible.

Even Buddhism (which has "I will not kill" as one of its five fundamental tenets) has a buddhist army (DKBA) and a buddhist terrorist group (969 movement). Any text can be manipulated by idiots.

It's a bit disturbing to see blatant willful ignorance being pushed so fervantly.


True, of course, but some texts can't reasonably be interpreted not to be violent. About the quran we can have reasonable arguments about who one is supposed to be violent against, when and under what conditions, but you can't reasonably argue it's not calling to fight.

Compare, if you will http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/cruelty/long.html

With http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

And judge for yourself. Take specific note of the big differences, the first link mostly consisting of calls to violence whereas the second link is mostly reports of violence. Also keep in mind that the bible is easily 3 times longer than the quran.


> Take specific note of the big differences, the first link mostly consisting of calls to violence whereas the second link is mostly reports of violence.

I disagree with that characterization, and will note further, that of those things that are "reports of violence", they are largely:

(1) reports of violence by God, or (2) reports of violence by people acting out calls to violence from God, or (3) reports of violence that are explicitly condoned as good

None of which are substantially different from a call to violence, especially when they are reports of future violence that meet #2 and/or #3 (as many of those from Revelation are.)


What I want to know is what in your opinion gives these kids the idea that society "abandoned" them by not arranging a marriage for them and that this all is supposed to be handed to them on a platter?


My opinion doesn't matter. Anyone who is the least bit capitalist would certainly not see it as abandoning them, of course. It is the opinion of those individuals that matters, and they certainly see things this way.

It is not just not providing a marriage, right. No job, no money, no way to be independent, no meaning in life generally ... combined with a contant barrage of commercials detailing what is important in life, and unreachable to them (think cars, what you might call "nightclub women", and the like). The marriage thing factors pretty highly.


So in your magical Islam free world, what would these kids be doing instead?




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: