Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 12:34:41 GMT
or "Daesh". I find this habit of some media organisations extremely irritating. BBC has an editorial policy of always referring to ISIS as "so-called Islamic state" in any of its publications or news broadcasts. For example: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37550300The Metro, which is a free newspaper which is available at train and bus stations, has an editorial policy of referring to ISIS as "Daesh": I'm not one of these people who gets emotionally affected by terror attacks, but I am very vexed by having news sources place Islam on a pedestal by disavowing any connection that the religion that inspires those who carry out terror attacks.
|
|
londonbird
Sophomore
@londonbird
Posts: 250
Likes: 82
|
Post by londonbird on Mar 23, 2017 13:31:12 GMT
or "Daesh". I find this habit of some media organisations extremely irritating. BBC has an editorial policy of always referring to ISIS as "so-called Islamic state" in any of its publications or news broadcasts. For example: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37550300The Metro, which is a free newspaper which is available at train and bus stations, has an editorial policy of referring to ISIS as "Daesh": I'm not one of these people who gets emotionally affected by terror attacks, but I am very vexed by having news sources place Islam on a pedestal by disavowing any connection that the religion that inspires those who carry out terror attacks. As an FYI. The BBC do not have N 'editorial policy' they say that as the Islamic state is not a recognised state. Islam is not placed on a pedestal but I happen to find it vexing that the March last year by Muslims for Muslims against ISIS was not advertised, televised or reported on. Let's not tar the many by the actions of a few.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 13:36:21 GMT
or "Daesh". I find this habit of some media organisations extremely irritating. BBC has an editorial policy of always referring to ISIS as "so-called Islamic state" in any of its publications or news broadcasts. For example: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-37550300The Metro, which is a free newspaper which is available at train and bus stations, has an editorial policy of referring to ISIS as "Daesh": I'm not one of these people who gets emotionally affected by terror attacks, but I am very vexed by having news sources place Islam on a pedestal by disavowing any connection that the religion that inspires those who carry out terror attacks. As an FYI. The BBC do not have N 'editorial policy' they say that as the Islamic state is not a recognised state. Islam is not placed on a pedestal but I happen to find it vexing that the March last year by Muslims for Muslims against ISIS was not advertised, televised or reported on. Let's not tar the many by the actions of a few. The media (including the BBC) is always trying to distance ISIS from the religion of Islam. And whilst I accept that most Muslims probably don't support ISIS; normal non-ISIS Muslims are arguably having a worse influence on global politics than ISIS Muslims; what with their extremely conservative beliefs and their abhorrence of freedom of speech. The threat of being killed or injured in an ISIS terrorist attack will probably always be very small; but there is a very serious threat of blasphemy laws and the arrest of any form of social progress (apart from any form of social progress which benefits Muslims).
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 13:56:28 GMT
They say that because the terrorist group is the one that calls themselves that.
It's no different than me calling myself an atheist despite being a Christian.
Should the news report that I'm an atheists with no skepticism?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 13:58:51 GMT
They say that because the terrorist group is the one that calls themselves that. It's no different than me calling myself an atheist despite being a Christian. Should the news report that I'm an atheists with no skepticism? The difference is that you do believe in God, so you would be lying. Members of the Islamic State are not lying about the fact that they believe in the Quran and are adherents to the Muslim faith. If they are not Muslims; then what are they? Atheists? If an atheist does something that I don't morally agree with, would that mean that I ought to disavow them as atheists and assert they must actually believe in God because they've done something that no 'real atheist' would do? The 'state' part of the name is arguable, I suppose. But the 'Islamic' part is an accurate description of the group's ideology. And I've never heard of the BBC using the term "so-called" in any other context.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 14:05:30 GMT
They say that because the terrorist group is the one that calls themselves that. It's no different than me calling myself an atheist despite being a Christian. Should the news report that I'm an atheists with no skepticism? The difference is that you do believe in God, so you would be lying. Members of the Islamic State are not lying about the fact that they believe in the Quran and are adherents to the Muslim faith. If they are not Muslims; then what are they? Atheists? If an atheist does something that I don't morally agree with, would that mean that I ought to disavow them as atheists and assert they must actually believe in God because they've done something that no 'real atheist' would do? The 'state' part of the name is arguable, I suppose. But the 'Islamic' part is an accurate description of the group's ideology. And I've never heard of the BBC using the term "so-called" in any other context. If the Quran is the so-called Islamic State's reference for doing what they do, then why don't the majority of Muslims follow the Quran and why do they condemn the actions of the Islamic State and why do they get killed by the Islamic State?
Again, Islamic State does not have the authority or numbers to change the definition of Islam. Further, it would be your responsibility to explain why you think they are in harmony with the Quran enough to overshadow the teachings of most Muslims.
The news organization don't feel the need to go through all that just to make sure you aren't annoyed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 14:07:29 GMT
They don't want to offend Muslims. That's why they do it. Even though ISIS is most definitely Islamic, they have to pretend like they're not.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 23, 2017 14:08:15 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 14:12:09 GMT
The difference is that you do believe in God, so you would be lying. Members of the Islamic State are not lying about the fact that they believe in the Quran and are adherents to the Muslim faith. If they are not Muslims; then what are they? Atheists? If an atheist does something that I don't morally agree with, would that mean that I ought to disavow them as atheists and assert they must actually believe in God because they've done something that no 'real atheist' would do? The 'state' part of the name is arguable, I suppose. But the 'Islamic' part is an accurate description of the group's ideology. And I've never heard of the BBC using the term "so-called" in any other context. If the Quran is the so-called Islamic State's reference for doing what they do, then why don't the majority of Muslims follow the Quran and why do they condemn the actions of the Islamic State and why do they get killed by the Islamic State?
Again, Islamic State does not have the authority or numbers to change the definition of Islam. Further, it would be your responsibility to explain why you think they are in harmony with the Quran enough to overshadow the teachings of most Muslims.
The news organization don't feel the need to go through all that just to make sure you aren't annoyed.
What ISIS believes is fairly close to a literalist reading of the Quran. Much like Christians, not all Muslims follow their scripture to the letter because of external constraints on doing so and the fact that following the Quran 100% literally would cause the entire religion to be wiped off the face of the Earth because non-Muslims would be compelled to fight back with violence. And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. However most Muslims adhere to scripture closely enough as to cause them to become segregated from the rest of the population when they live in non-Muslim nations, and to cause Muslim nations to have abominable human rights records.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 14:13:48 GMT
They don't want to offend Muslims. That's why they do it. Even though ISIS is most definitely Islamic, they have to pretend like they're not. EDIT: Nvm, I thought you were mic.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 14:14:59 GMT
I would say it's a more politically correct view. Much like when "you ain't no Muslim bruv" became a popular meme that was endorsed by David Cameron himself. But if that attacker wasn't a Muslim, then how would we describe his religion or his affiliation? Does he automatically become a white atheist just because it's not politically expedient to associate his actions with the religion of Islam?
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 14:16:59 GMT
If the Quran is the so-called Islamic State's reference for doing what they do, then why don't the majority of Muslims follow the Quran and why do they condemn the actions of the Islamic State and why do they get killed by the Islamic State?
Again, Islamic State does not have the authority or numbers to change the definition of Islam. Further, it would be your responsibility to explain why you think they are in harmony with the Quran enough to overshadow the teachings of most Muslims.
The news organization don't feel the need to go through all that just to make sure you aren't annoyed.
What ISIS believes is fairly close to a literalist reading of the Quran. Much like Christians, not all Muslims follow their scripture to the letter because of external constraints on doing so and the fact that following the Quran 100% literally would cause the entire religion to be wiped off the face of the Earth because non-Muslims would be compelled to fight back with violence. And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. However most Muslims adhere to scripture closely enough as to cause them to become segregated from the rest of the population when they live in non-Muslim nations, and to cause Muslim nations to have abominable human rights records. Except that it's not.
There is no literal interpretation of a small group taking over Islam and killing fellow Muslims and non-Muslims by means of suicidal bombers running over pedestrians with cars.
And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. I have never played fast and lose with Scripture. There's no reason to do that and I challenge to prove it.
In any event, it doesn't matter what Muslims do with their Scriptures as long as most of them, like Christians, are harmless to society at large.
|
|
|
Post by Edward-Elizabeth-Hitler on Mar 23, 2017 14:23:58 GMT
I would say it's a more politically correct view. Much like when "you ain't no Muslim bruv" became a popular meme that was endorsed by David Cameron himself. But if that attacker wasn't a Muslim, then how would we describe his religion or his affiliation? Does he automatically become a white atheist just because it's not politically expedient to associate his actions with the religion of Islam? Huh? They're still calling them Islamic State, just with a qualifier in case people think they're an actual state. They'd been calling them Islamic State for a while before this change. Stop desperately trying to find some sort of media conspiracy on this.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 23, 2017 14:29:50 GMT
What ISIS believes is fairly close to a literalist reading of the Quran. Much like Christians, not all Muslims follow their scripture to the letter because of external constraints on doing so and the fact that following the Quran 100% literally would cause the entire religion to be wiped off the face of the Earth because non-Muslims would be compelled to fight back with violence. And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. However most Muslims adhere to scripture closely enough as to cause them to become segregated from the rest of the population when they live in non-Muslim nations, and to cause Muslim nations to have abominable human rights records. Except that it's not.
There is no literal interpretation of a small group taking over Islam and killing fellow Muslims and non-Muslims by means of suicidal bombers running over pedestrians with cars.
And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. I have never played fast and lose with Scripture. There's no reason to do that and I challenge to prove it.
In any event, it doesn't matter what Muslims do with their Scriptures as long as most of them, like Christians, are harmless to society at large.
The Qur An has plenty of passages calling for death to unbelievers.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 14:33:15 GMT
Except that it's not.
There is no literal interpretation of a small group taking over Islam and killing fellow Muslims and non-Muslims by means of suicidal bombers running over pedestrians with cars.
And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. I have never played fast and lose with Scripture. There's no reason to do that and I challenge to prove it.
In any event, it doesn't matter what Muslims do with their Scriptures as long as most of them, like Christians, are harmless to society at large.
The Qur An has plenty of passages calling for death to unbelievers. Passages mean nothing without context and I have never seen quotes that factored that in.
At the end of the day, it makes no sense to think a non-believer of the religion would know more than the believer about their beliefs. This is something that theophobiacs never grasp and so they do it regardless of the religion.
Bottom line is that until the majority of Muslims adhere to the passages, then it is silly to encompass them all into the so-called Islamic State SOLELY on the basis the so-called Islamic State calling themselves that.
Are there passages that encourage peace
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 14:34:48 GMT
BBC is actually one of the few news services who refer to it by its proper title. linkWiki still refers to it as ISIL, which is silly since it operates and holds control of regions outside of the Levant. I suspect they may be paid or have been asked to keep it that way since it's stayed the same for years now. Daesh seems to have been an attempt to delegitimize the group (similar to the Drumpf meme) but failed.
|
|
|
Post by theoncomingstorm on Mar 23, 2017 14:36:51 GMT
The Qur An has plenty of passages calling for death to unbelievers. Passages mean nothing without context and I have never seen quotes that factored that in.
At the end of the day, it makes no sense to think a non-believer of the religion would know more than the believer about their beliefs. This is something that theophobiacs never grasp and so they do it regardless of the religion.
Bottom line is that until the majority of Muslims adhere to the passages, then it is silly to encompass them all into the so-called Islamic State SOLELY on the basis the so-called Islamic State calling themselves that.
Are there passages that encourage peace
"it makes no sense to think a non-believer of the religion would know more than the believer about their beliefs." Yeah, that would be almost as bad as someone with no background in biology thinking he knows more than biologists about biology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2017 14:38:17 GMT
What ISIS believes is fairly close to a literalist reading of the Quran. Much like Christians, not all Muslims follow their scripture to the letter because of external constraints on doing so and the fact that following the Quran 100% literally would cause the entire religion to be wiped off the face of the Earth because non-Muslims would be compelled to fight back with violence. And there are some Muslims, much like Christians such as yourself, who play fast and loose with scripture, so that they can more conveniently accommodate their religion into their choice of lifestyle. However most Muslims adhere to scripture closely enough as to cause them to become segregated from the rest of the population when they live in non-Muslim nations, and to cause Muslim nations to have abominable human rights records. Except that it's not.
There is no literal interpretation of a small group taking over Islam and killing fellow Muslims and non-Muslims by means of suicidal bombers running over pedestrians with cars.
Obviously running pedestrians over with a car cannot have been in the scripture, but the idea of enacting lethal violence against non-believers (spreading Islam by the sword rather than the pen) is most certainly consistent with a literalist interpretation of the Quran. Do you agree with and follow ALL of the passages cited in this article? www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/04/11-bible-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/The problem is that the Islamic ideology is harmful to society, even when it is not manifested through violence. Christianity is harmful as well, but has been neutered to a much greater extent than Islam.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 23, 2017 14:42:56 GMT
Except that it's not.
There is no literal interpretation of a small group taking over Islam and killing fellow Muslims and non-Muslims by means of suicidal bombers running over pedestrians with cars.
Obviously running pedestrians over with a car cannot have been in the scripture, but the idea of enacting lethal violence against non-believers (spreading Islam by the sword rather than the pen) is most certainly consistent with a literalist interpretation of the Quran. Do you agree with and follow ALL of the passages cited in this article? www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/04/11-bible-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/The problem is that the Islamic ideology is harmful to society, even when it is not manifested through violence. Christianity is harmful as well, but has been neutered to a much greater extent than Islam. Again, you are pretending that because there are verses regarding violence, there are not any regarding peace.
|
|
|
Post by thorshairspray on Mar 23, 2017 14:45:29 GMT
The Qur An has plenty of passages calling for death to unbelievers. Passages mean nothing without context and I have never seen quotes that factored that in.
At the end of the day, it makes no sense to think a non-believer of the religion would know more than the believer about their beliefs. This is something that theophobiacs never grasp and so they do it regardless of the religion.
Bottom line is that until the majority of Muslims adhere to the passages, then it is silly to encompass them all into the so-called Islamic State SOLELY on the basis the so-called Islamic State calling themselves that.
Are there passages that encourage peace
There is no context that makes killing people for not believing as you do right. None. If your holy book commands killing anyone for any reason, then you are objectively shit at that religion if you don't kill people for that reason.
|
|