Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The Islamic state

teqniq said:
If you read that admittedly very long article posted by bluescreen I think you will discover that Salafi is something that ISIS are not. But yes, fuck Daesh/ISIS
Click to expand...

I did read the article, it distinguishes between different types of Salafi but includes ISIS within that the broad umbrella of Salafism as do many observers although some non-ISIS Salafists disagree for obvious reasons.
 
bluescreen said:
I wish western reporters would stop describing sex slavery as marriage. Just because the victims have been forced to undergo a ceremony doesn't make it anything akin to what we understand by marriage.
Click to expand...

It might just be an ignorance to articulate the interrelations between general external pressure placed upon women in this context to have forced sex with the Islamic categories of 'women who you poses with your right hand' (slaves/servants female captives which may or may not include a sexual concubineage element) and wives in line with the legal definition of marriage.. The article mentions dowry which would make it appear to be coerced marraige within those categories...

In terms of the outcomes it's the same (rape)but maybe there was confusion in how they articulated what's going on?



http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma_malakat_aymanukum

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Islam
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering how helpful all the learned discourse is. No matter what their alleged authority, IS should be judged by what they do. They may call it Islam, or jihad, or marriage, or whatever, but what they do is the immediate problem. Graeme Wood was suggesting that understanding what they think might be a key to working out how best to deal with them. I'm not convinced that this approach by CAIR and others is going to get anywhere - isn't it more an attempt to placate fellow citizens? I'm hoping someone can convince me otherwise.

ETA: Obvs 'fellow citizens' include fellow Muslims and it's probably helpful for clerics to clarify any ambiguities for people who may be wavering. But can it sway anyone who's already gone to the caliphate and burned their passport?
 
I don't think engaging in theological debates is gonna help much to be honest - especially when there are no ways to come up with any (moral) authoritative interpretations of the Islamic canon... There is probably some role to be played in understanding the ideological dimensions of these issues in line with what that article that was posted yesterday stated...
 
AFAIK al-Baghdadi has a doctorate in theology too although that may be bollocks. He clearly is not gonna look at some equivalent of the vicar of dibley pointing out less bloodthirsty parts of the quran and go 'omg I never thought of it like that, fair point'
 
'Hi are you al-Baghdadi, I want to tell you something'
'Yeah what?'
'Did you know that Islam forbids killing people for no reason?'
'I didn't no, where does it say that?'
'In Chapter 22 verse 5'
'So it does! Wow you learn something every day, I'll ring up Jihadi John straight away and let him know :) thanks for that, every days a school day isn't it?'

Not gonna happen lol
 
'Hi is that Jihadi John it's me Abu Bakr Al-Baghadi'
'Hi there caliph how are you?'
'Not bad, i just had some random guy off the internet show me something in the Quran, it says you're not allowed to kill people'
'Oh really? Wow, I never knew that, suppose I better not kill anyone else'
'Yeah me too, actually I was thinking that maybe this ISIS thing is a bit of a mistake and I should go and do some work in my garden'
'Yeah good idea mate'

Fucking delusional lol
 
No doubt ISIS are scum but why I am not sure if is everything what media telling is truth. I confuse when I see on TV executions with orange suits.
 
he's condemning the burnings, mass slaughters and so on on the basis that daesh are not correctly islamic in this. Not because, y'know, its evil shit. At one point he emphasises this by pointing out how young in the faith daesh leaders are, how just a while ago they were baathists. Ties into what that long article was saying about the futility of challenging IS on religious territory- its a pointless avenue and the only people who can quibble with them on islamic law....are salafists! great. As rebuttals go...
 
DotCommunist said:
he's condemning the burnings, mass slaughters and so on on the basis that daesh are not correctly islamic in this. Not because, y'know, its evil shit. At one point he emphasises this by pointing out how young in the faith daesh leaders are, how just a while ago they were baathists. Ties into what that long article was saying about the futility of challenging IS on religious territory- its a pointless avenue and the only people who can quibble with them on islamic law....are salafists! great. As rebuttals go...
Click to expand...

salafis who will apriori be defined as sellouts anyway so the substance of anything they will say wont be entertained in the slightest. The article on the religous ideology of Isis mentions the millenialist dimensions of their ideology. Anyways, from that stance when the Mahdi comes most muslims will be misled into following the dajjal (the antichrist) - a very small amount will be rightly guided (i think the number was in the region of 5000). This situates this ideology in line with most forms of apocalypic literature which posits that the multitudes are on the wrong track, judgement is coming, and enjoy the judgment being visited upon the wrongdoers. Apocalyptic literature differs from prophetic literature in that its intended audience is to those who are already rightly guided, as opposed to prophetic literature which attempts to guide (wrongdoing) people to the right way or else bad shit happens. Thus from this vantage point, any interventions from people not of this particular subset will be seen to be inherantly compromised and dodgy. So yeah, theological debates wrong way to go about this...
 
xslavearcx said:
salafis who will apriori be defined as sellouts anyway so the substance of anything they will say wont be entertained in the slightest. The article on the religous ideology of Isis mentions the millenialist dimensions of their ideology. Anyways, from that stance when the Mahdi comes most muslims will be misled into following the dajjal (the antichrist) - a very small amount will be rightly guided (i think the number was in the region of 5000). This situates this ideology in line with most forms of apocalypic literature which posits that the multitudes are on the wrong track, judgement is coming, and enjoy the judgment being visited upon the wrongdoers. Apocalyptic literature differs from prophetic literature in that its intended audience is to those who are already rightly guided, as opposed to prophetic literature which attempts to guide (wrongdoing) people to the right way or else bad shit happens. Thus from this vantage point, any interventions from people not of this particular subset will be seen to be inherantly compromised and dodgy. So yeah, theological debates wrong way to go about this...
Click to expand...
that was an interesting and unknown (to me) angle on daesh, the apocalyptic. The 'millennial' end of days war aspect to the ideology. I've seen it far far too often with christian loons, but I didn't realise the other book had a similar version of the end times (tm)
 
In the Qur'an, there is just general day of judgement stuff, nothing about any messianic figures. That developed later in the islamic tradition. Ironically for the Isis lot, a lot of these elaborations of such matters may have their origins in what became the shia tradition - especially when it comes to the idea of the Mahdi. The stuff in that article about there being twelve proper islamic leaders has a very shia 12er ring to it.

These days, a lot of the stuff concerning the end of days is combined with a lot of conspiricist stuff with the usual antisemitic tropes, a lot of which goes overt with the antisemitism. This book is a pretty good example of that kinda literature which circulates beyond jihadist circles.
 
DotCommunist said:
he's condemning the burnings, mass slaughters and so on on the basis that daesh are not correctly islamic in this. Not because, y'know, its evil shit. At one point he emphasises this by pointing out how young in the faith daesh leaders are, how just a while ago they were baathists. Ties into what that long article was saying about the futility of challenging IS on religious territory- its a pointless avenue and the only people who can quibble with them on islamic law....are salafists! great. As rebuttals go...
Click to expand...
Scott Atran has talked about how Salafi's are about the only ones who have had any success in convincing would be Martyrs to call it quits. Looking for a quote about it I stumbled on this interview with him which I listened to a while back. There seems to be some interesting discussion in the comments as well with Atran getting involved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tim
Bizarre acts of terrorism - statue of Lenin and Mao blown up in Texas.
Replies
3
Views
327
belboid
belboid
tim
State murder in Singapore.
Replies
21
Views
782
A380
A380
JimW
Indian state implicated in murder of Sikh activist in Canada
Replies
27
Views
1K
JimW
JimW
Pickman's model
fascist republican state legislators (usa)
Replies
0
Views
344
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Ĝasper
Thought experiment: Slavic Intermarium Super State
Replies
9
Views
912
Pickman's model
Pickman's model
Back
Top Bottom