Radical Islamism is when they practice the Koran 100% ?

[Jean-Kevin]

(I copied and pasted the title of a topic from a French-speaker forum)

What is radical Islamism ? For simplicity, it is the Islamic theology of ISIL ( Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant - Wikipedia ).

If I understand the title of the topic in the first degree (in the strict sense of the words). The problem is in Sunni Islam there isn't only the Koran but also the sahih ahadith (who are also used by ISIL).

So In other words, the question is rather : In theory, Radical Islamism is when the Muslims try to practice the Koran and the sahih ahadith 100% ?

[DogOnPorch]

There is just one Quran. No King James' Version....

It is apparently the literal word of Allah. Not open to human reform in other words.

The Quran clearly states that the Believer is to fight the Unbeliever until all religion is for Allah.

 

[Infidel Dog]

Here's the way, I heard it.

There are actually 3 sets of texts. There's the Koran, the Hadiths, and the biography (I imagine there's a term for the biography but I either forgot, never knew it, or there isn't one.)

The two you hear the most about are the Koran and the Hadiths. The Koran is what it is but the Hadiths are more nuanced in what can be accepted when they become inconvenient.

They're stories handed down through the centuries by oral tradition. Some of these hadiths are considered more authentic than others. I believe there are two at the top of the authenticity scale. Those are from Naysaburi and Bukhari. I think those are the two that are believed to connect the dots the best all the way back to what they call "the prophet."

Until I read the OP, I hadn't heard Naysaburi had some sort of special Islamo-fascist rendering but it's worth investigating.

I had heard of something called "abrogation." That puts the true believer onto something called "the verses of the sword." In the Koran. Those are the verses Dog on Porch is talking about. 

There are a lot of contradictions in the Koran. If you actually read it to the point you start to notice all those (and yes, I know there are also contradictions in the Bible) your Imam might tell you about "abrogation." It simply means the teachings from the earlier part of Mohammed's life don't really matter (except when they do). Technically though those are abrogated or kicked out. What's left and how much it matters is up for debate but they include "the verses of the sword." Organizations like ISIS and other Islamic big shots believe that matters a lot. It's central to what they believe.

That's the way I heard it, anyway.

Edited April 8, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[dialamah]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

There is just one Quran. No King James' Version....

It is apparently the literal word of Allah. Not open to human reform in other words.

The Quran clearly states that the Believer is to fight the Unbeliever until all religion is for Allah.

Well, the unbeliever has to attack first ... a little detail you always forget to mention whenever you interpret the Koran to match your extremist views.  

[dialamah]

20 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Here's the way, I heard it.

There are actually 3 sets of texts. There's the Koran, the Hadiths, and the biography (I imagine there's a term for the biography but I either forgot, never knew it, or there isn't one.)

The two you hear the most about are the Koran and the Hadiths. The Koran is what it is but the Hadiths are more nuanced in what can be accepted when they become inconvenient.

They're stories handed down through the centuries by oral tradition. Some of these hadiths are considered more authentic than others. I believe there are two at the top of the authenticity scale. Those are from Naysaburi and Bukhari. I think those are the two that are believed to connect the dots the best all the way back to what they call "the prophet."

Until I read the OP, I hadn't heard Naysaburi had some sort of special Islamo-fascist rendering but it's worth investigating.

I had heard of something called "abrogation." That puts the true believer onto something called "the verses of the sword." In the Koran. Those are the verses Dog on Porch is talking about. 

There are a lot of contradictions in the Koran. If you actually read it to the point you start to notice all those (and yes, I know there are also contradictions in the Bible) your Imam might tell you about "abrogation." It simply means the teachings from the earlier part of Mohammed's life don't really matter (except when they do). Technically though those are abrogated or kicked out. What's left and how much it matters is up for debate but they include "the verses of the sword." Organizations like ISIS and other Islamic big shots believe that matters a lot. It's central to what they believe.

That's the way I heard it, anyway.

Honestly, I think this is a good summary.  My Brother-in-law, abrogation or not, thinks that the teachings of Mohammed prior to the "verses of the sword" are completely applicable to his life; murder is murder, even if it's a gay person or a non-believer.  The verses of the sword only come into play if he, his country, his religion were attacked - that means, physically with soldiers and weapons. 

Every religion has their nutbars.  I just watched a documentary about a Christian militia in Georgia that is completely willing (and preparing) to use violence and murder to progress the Christian way of life in the United States.  Killing democrats/atheists is regrettable, but may be necessary to 'save' the US and Christianity.

[Jean-Kevin]

There is just one Quran. Ok it is true in theory and it would be the Samarkand Kufic Quran because if I understood correctly all the copy and paste is done on this Quran, the one of Muhammad's time would not exist anymore (or only parts of the Quran).

Now this Quran was written in Quranic Arabic (French is arabe littéraire and Irak is a country that knows how to speak this Arabic from what I understand ) and notably Abou Bakr al-Baghdadi come from Irak so he is his terrorist group to more legitimize to speak and know Islam that a lot of Muslims because he is normaly in knowledge of the Arabic language written in the Quran.

Then the problem is that there are also other Muslims who know how to speak Arabic and who have a different theology from ISIL. We can also take note of the existence of the Koranists people who reject the ahadith and who have a less criminogenic vision of Islam than ISIL. To these people the fundamentalists answer that without the ahadith they cannot understand anything of the Quran so it seems to me more complex than limiting history to the Koran especially since they also talk about context.

 

[Jean-Kevin]

Quote

There are actually 3 sets of texts. There's the Koran, the Hadiths, and the biography (I imagine there's a term for the biography but I either forgot, never knew it, or there isn't one.)

It is As-Sîra of Ismaïl Ibn Kathîr.

[Infidel Dog]

9 hours ago, dialamah said:

Honestly, I think this is a good summary.  My Brother-in-law, abrogation or not, thinks that the teachings of Mohammed prior to the "verses of the sword" are completely applicable to his life; murder is murder, even if it's a gay person or a non-believer.  The verses of the sword only come into play if he, his country, his religion were attacked - that means, physically with soldiers and weapons. 

I think it has to do with the Mecca/Medina transition.

When Mohammed was still into the religion angle in Mecca he spun stories he says he picked up from an Angel in a cave but most likely collected and reshaped bits and pieces from other religions he picked up on the trail when he worked on his wife's caravans.

He managed to pick up about a 150 followers in Mecca and a much larger variety of pissed followers of other religions who he was fond of insulting.

Eventually he and his little band of followers got kicked out of left Mecca and traveled to Medina where they found sympathetic ears (not long for the world as it turned out which will become an oft repeated tale in the history of Mohammedans.)

In Medina the story changed (he was still pissed at Mecca) and taking possession of the wealth, women and children of - while smiting down - the unbeliever became the order of the day. Apparently Mohammed got the big thumbs up OK for all that from his cave Angel.

So it became necessary to abrogate the ol' Mecca myths he'd picked up on the caravan trail.

And Islam began to thrive. Apparently a religion that endorsed theft, slavery and smiting one's enemies was a hot commodity in the days of old Mecca and Medina. Free gold and women and all you had to do to sign up was call yourself a believer. 

That's the way I heard it anyway.

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Infidel Dog

[DogOnPorch]

7 hours ago, dialamah said:

Well, the unbeliever has to attack first ... a little detail you always forget to mention whenever you interpret the Koran to match your extremist views.  

 

No such condition exists. The Quran instructs the Believer to attack the Unbeliever until religion...all of it...is for Allah.

https://quran.com/8/39?translations=48,47,41,20,85,18,84,101,19,17,22,89

The Quran clearly states that certain kinds of killing are okay, as well. No 'Thou Shall Not Kill' in Islam.

[DogOnPorch]

7 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

 

That's the way I heard it anyway.

 

 

You heard correct. 

Dialamah does this every few months when it is brought-up and she'll try to put lipstick on the pig...so to speak.

In her personal version of Islam, the great military expansion/conquest/enslavement under both Big Mo and his Companions simply didn't occur. To her, Muslim is a peaceful race of people that have occupied the regions currently held by Islam since time began. Or something to that effect...no war lords...all peaceful.

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

In her personal version of Islam

My "personal version" of Islam is exactly as valid as yours. in as much as neither of us are Muslim.  In addition, my "personal version" has more followers than yours, which is to say if Muslims really were as bloodthirsty as you like to claim, there'd be a million+ Muslims in Canada waging war against us, and 3.5 Muslims in the US waging war- occassional attacks notwithstanding, I haven't noticed much in the way of "war" between Muslims and non-Muslims in either country. 

Mysteriously - given your conviction that a Muslim ain't a Muslim unless s/he's murdering someone - the actual number of extremist Muslims waging the war you so desperately want to believe in is something less than .01% of the total.  Even in the Middle East, the extremist Muslims busily killing non-extremist Muslims is less than .01% of the total.  It's still a lot of bad actors, but that doesn't give you - or anyone - the right to paint all Muslims with the same broad brush.  

8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Muslim is a peaceful race of people

Muslims are not a race, which is why you are an Islamophobe and not a racist (well, maybe you are a racist, but I can't remember seeing any proof of that on this forum).  

8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

the great military expansion/conquest/enslavement under both Big Mo and his Companions simply didn't occur

Sure that happened -- immediately after Big Moe and his followers were chased around the ME and killed.  Guess he decided to take a stand. 

And how about those Crusaders, eh?  Leaving Europe specifically to go kill Muslims - and Jews, btw - they get a pass in your world because "Christian"?

History is full of bloodthirsty folks waging war for various reasons, often supported by someone's God.  Muslims were no different in that regard. 

[dialamah]

8 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

No such condition exists. The Quran instructs the Believer to attack the Unbeliever until religion...all of it...is for Allah.

https://quran.com/8/39?translations=48,47,41,20,85,18,84,101,19,17,22,89

The Quran clearly states that certain kinds of killing are okay, as well. No 'Thou Shall Not Kill' in Islam.

I think the bible's lessons are "Thou shalt not kill, unless I would approve".   

Did I mention that Christian militia group in Georgia who are preparing to "regretfully" kill democrats/aetheists to save America?   They are also less than 0.01% of the population of America, but maybe I need to start calling all Christians bloodthirsty savages just out to kill people, cause as per you, that's how it's done.

[Infidel Dog]

Yes, Christians do bad things too.

The difference is with Christians it's straying from the goals of their ideology. With Mohammedans it's following their boss's edicts.

Mohammed was no Christ.

Did you know Islam is the only religion that doesn't have a version of the golden rule. 

They'll tell you that's not true but vague and hidden as what they call theirs is it's more like "Do unto other Muslims as you would have other Muslims do unto you (as to the unbeliever, rob, rape, enslave, murder them as you wish.)

But you're right in the sense that they don't tell the unbeliever or even the beginner Muslim that. They keep them in the Mecca verses until they get power.

You'll find story after some version of the story of Muslim neighbors who they thought were good friends then the Islamo-fascist faction comes in and the next thing they know they're hiding in the woods watching their good neighbor buddy in a group breaking into their home looking for a little debauchery and possibly murder.

There were only good Muslims in the crowds enjoying the beheadings in Raqqa. 

Do you know what a Dhimmi is? You should because if you're ever unlucky enough to live through a Muslim conquest you'd be one. And your Muslim brother-in-law would let you know it.

Here ya go though. Here's a guy who doesn't like Christianity either. The difference between you and him though is that doesn't tell him, "therefore Islam is all sunshine and lollipops."

 

[Jean-Kevin]

In the video EDL Pat Condell The American Dhimmi :

" but I still think christianity is a laughable raft of insulting nonsense that any intelligence six-yeard-old child would dismiss out of hand if they were allowed to have a mind of their own "

  Ok I think he proved that he's not a Christianophile.

 

Edited April 9, 2021 by Jean-Kevin

[DogOnPorch]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

My "personal version" of Islam is exactly as valid as yours. in as much as neither of us are Muslim. 

 

My so-called version is the Quran verbatim. Allah's immutable word. You don't get to change the Quran to suit your tastes. It says to fight the Unbeliever until all religion is for Allah. Not something else.

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

I think the bible's lessons are "Thou shalt not kill, unless I would approve".   

 

The Bible says no such thing. Jesus was clear that killing was wrong under any condition. Jesus...you know...Christianity. Go and do thou likewise. Do unto others as you'd have done unto yourself. That one.

Jesus said that he wasn't on Earth to end the old laws as long as the old laws didn't break his. So any OT references to handling things as per Jewish or (later) Islamic law are viewed in that context. No more goat sacrifice...thanks.

Edited April 9, 2021 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Infidel Dog said:

Yes, Christians do bad things too.

The difference is with Christians it's straying from the goals of their ideology. With Mohammedans it's following their boss's edicts.

Mohammed was no Christ.

Did you know Islam is the only religion that doesn't have a version of the golden rule. 

They'll tell you that's not true but vague and hidden as what they call theirs is it's more like "Do unto other Muslims as you would have other Muslims do unto you (as to the unbeliever, rob, rape, enslave, murder them as you wish.)

 

In Islam the concept is called Al Wala' Wal Bara'. Islam's supporters such as Dialamah either are ignorant of or purposefully deceitful about its existence. This would be: Loving what Allah loves and hating what Allah hates.

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Al-Wala'_wal-Bara'_(Loyalty_and_Disavowal)

Edited April 9, 2021 by DogOnPorch

[DogOnPorch]

30 minutes ago, Jean-Kevin said:

In the video EDL Pat Condell The American Dhimmi :

" but I still think christianity is a laughable raft of insulting nonsense that any intelligence six-yeard-old child would dismiss out of hand if they were allowed to have a mind of their own "

  Ok I think he proved that he's not a Christianophile.

 

 

Oh yeah? Seen any virgins giving birth in your day?

[Argus]

5 hours ago, dialamah said:

My "personal version" of Islam is exactly as valid as yours. in as much as neither of us are Muslim.  In addition, my "personal version" has more followers than yours, which is to say if Muslims really were as bloodthirsty as you like to claim, there'd be a million+ Muslims in Canada waging war against us, and 3.5 Muslims in the US waging war- occassional attacks notwithstanding, I haven't noticed much in the way of "war" between Muslims and non-Muslims in either country. 

How the Muslim community behaves when they are hugely outnumbered is one thing. As their numbers grow they seem to chafe more at restrictions which they believe inhibit proper religious life and start demanding more accommodation. Virtually every nation which has a substantial Muslim minority, say over 15%, has religious violence coming from groups in that community demanding special rules to respect Islam.

[dialamah]

18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

Allah's immutable word. You don't get to change the Quran to suit your tastes

And you, being non-Muslim, do not get to change the religion to suit your extreme views.  Wherever in the world where you look, the vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives - it is only the extremists who are violent.  That alone proves you are a liar determined to push a twisted ideology as some kind of the 'truth'.   

5 minutes ago, Argus said:

How the Muslim community behaves when they are hugely outnumbered is one thing. As their numbers grow they seem to chafe more at restrictions which they believe inhibit proper religious life and start demanding more accommodation. Virtually every nation which has a substantial Muslim minority, say over 15%, has religious violence coming from groups in that community demanding special rules to respect Islam.

Sure, Argus.  

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, dialamah said:

And you, being non-Muslim, do not get to change the religion to suit your extreme views.  Wherever in the world where you look, the vast majority of Muslims live peaceful lives - it is only the extremists who are violent.  That alone proves you are a liar determined to push a twisted ideology as some kind of the 'truth'.   

 

 

You confuse the Quran, Islam and Muslims and lump them all together to suit your whim.

The Quran is the book the gives us the ideology of Islam which is followed by Muslims. If you do not follow the Quran, you are NOT a Muslim. "Muslim" isn't a race...it's a religion...that is: it's a choice. You either follow it or you do not.

Jihad...since you're a little slow...is the concept that one can wipe away one's Earthly sins and get a favorable position in Paradise by fighting (perhaps even dying) in the name of Allah. That's the dangerous bit. Not all Muslims feel the need to wipe away their Earthly sins in such a fashion. But as we've seen...plenty do as it's like Heaven 1st class. This is why Islam has been described as a warrior's religion. Fight for Allah...win a big prize.

[Jean-Kevin]

And there is global jihadism ( Jihadism - Wikipedia ) : " Jihadism with an international, Pan-Islamist scope is also known as global jihadism. Studies show that with the rise of ISIS, many European Muslims, from countries like the Netherlands, Belgium, the UK, France, and Switzerland, traveled to Syria to join the global Jihad. "

 

[Right To Left]

On 4/8/2021 at 6:47 PM, dialamah said:

Well, the unbeliever has to attack first ... a little detail you always forget to mention whenever you interpret the Koran to match your extremist views.  

Yawn! This crap keeps getting recycled every time Muslim despots stop following orders from their American Empire overlords!

Let's take a look at who the US/NATO allies itself with in the Middle East and who it sanctions and has declared war on!  Saudi Arabia! The Islamic feudal dictatorship established 100 years ago when warlord - Ibn Saud proclaimed himself King of Arabia, and was only able to carry out his takeover after Arab armies that had forced out the Ottoman Turks, were well supplied with heavy guns and automatic weapons when the British Empire and the US gave them lots of surplus gear from the First World War. While the Arab sheik - Hussein was double-crossed by the British ( the classic movie "Lawrence of Arabia" includes the story near the end) and given Jordan as a consolation prize for his invaluable work on behalf of the British. 

Same shit throughout the Emirates and Persian Gulf feudal oil potentates. All multi-billionaires today while the majority of their people get little or nothing from all the oil revenues. So the Sauds and Emir's families....who measure in the thousands because the rich benefit from polygamy, tell all the young men from poor families who will never have a chance to get married, to go out and do battle against the 'infidels' ........ who just happen to be the secularists running multi-religious states like Syria and Iraq. 

If we go back 30 to 40 years ago, a young, enterprising engineer from the Saud-connected Bin Laden family named Osama, answered the call to wage jihad against the evil secularist socialist government of Afghanistan, that was being supported by the Soviet Union. Neocon hack - Zbig Brzinski (don't ask me how to spell it!) was able to convince supposed peacenik president - Jimmy Carter to engage a clandestine war in Afghanistan, using the thousands of "Mujahideen" heroes sent in by US ally - Pakistan to overthrow the Government. Zbig reasoned that the Soviets would be forced to widen the war and send in their own troops to keep the government alive. AND the Soviets would end up with their own 'Vietnam' quagmire....which also happened. Great tactics, but the strategy goes straight line to Bin Laden and other jihadi warriors moving on to the next campaign in Sudan and back to Afghanistan to put the Taleban in power, and bring the war home to America by flying planes into buildings in New York and Washington!  His mistake was thinking that Americans had some sense of how they were connected to all the wars their government wages on their behalf. Instead, most Americans are barely aware of what goes on outside their borders...and have little or no interest in finding out!

So, here we are, almost 20 years after 9-11, and most Americans are still too dumb to understand how their empire (yes, empire!) oppresses the rest of the world, economically and militarily when necessary. 

Most of the ignorance is deliberately created by government with corporate assistance. And this is certainly made worse in our time with most people addicted to social media monopolies. It was reported five years ago that 60% of Canadians get their news from their Facebook feeds! I'm glad that, after briefly trying it out, I decommissioned my Facebook account about 10 years ago. Nevertheless, corporate consolidation of news media and these social media sock puppets are making it harder and harder to keep independent news and analysis functioning, as Youtube demonetizes their videos, Twitter bans them, and Facebook bans them or just deletes their pages. I wish independent forums and blogs were still as popular and busy as they were 10 to 20 years ago, but as long as it's possible to find a few sources available, that's the best I expect from our so called "Open" internet!

[Right To Left]

All that to say: WHO is at fault for the "Islamic Threat" to the west today?  If the Middle East was left alone for the past century, the wars, the refugee migrations and ethnic cleansings etc. would not have occurred! 

Same with all the crap said about Mexico and Latin America today, but that's another topic.

[Infidel Dog]

That's why Trump wanted out of the Middle East, energy independence and to build a wall.

He was saying 'Enough of that shit."

[Argus]

2 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Yawn! This crap keeps getting recycled every time Muslim despots stop following orders from their American Empire overlords!

Is there anything which has ever happened anywhere across the world you can't invent a reason to blame America for?