Friday, August 15, 2014

Islamic State (ISIS) and the early Muslims....where's the difference?


For moderate Muslims it's the elephant in the room. For those of a more jihadist bent, it's too perfect a synergy to ignore. ISIS' amazing victories against huge odds, its lightning advance and its territorial ambitions are a modern day version of the birth of the Islamic Empire. But what is altogether more disturbing (and potentially fatally embarrassing for Muslim apologists) are the other parallels between the two movements, and in particular those tactics that all moderate, liberal, sane people dismiss as being barbaric and beyond the pale.

Take beheading. We have all seen the awful pictures and read the horrific accounts of ISIS using this method of execution. Some may even have been traumatised by watching the videos posted by the jihadists.
Muslims know - or at least those who bother to read the salient verses do - that the Koran contains instructions to behead "the unbelievers" and that Mohammad himself ordered the beheadings of many captives.
When you meet the unbelievers, strike off their heads; then when you have made wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives 47:4.
If my convert friend is typical, educated Muslims maintain that here God is teaching the Muslims a more humane way of waging war since prior to this time, the pagan Arabs would crush their enemies with heavy stones. Muslims are also taught that any verse which allows violence does so only for purposes of self-defence and that there are other more peaceable verses which instruct Muslims to live side-by-side with "the people of the book".  A careful study of when the various verses were "revealed" gives a different picture, however. When Mohammad was trying to gain followers by preaching alone, the tone is peaceable, but as soon as the Muslims settle in Medina and more followers join the Muslims, the verses become more bellicose. Such is the case here.

Take crucifixion. Again we have read the accounts of ISIS using this barbaric method for torturing and killing their prisoners or displaying their corpses.
The idea for such brutality comes not from the crazed minds of the jihadists though. No. They are simply following the instructions contained in the Koran:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter 5:33
And what of the disturbing reports of the members of ISIS taking the women of those they have beaten in battles for their sex slaves? Again the jihadists are simply taking their inspiration from their holy book and their own prophet.
 O PROPHET! Behold, We have made lawful to thee thy wives unto whom thou hast paid their dowers, as well as those whom thy right hand has come to possess from among the captives of war whom God has bestowed upon thee. 33:50
Here the phrase "whom thy right hand has come to possess" refers to slaves taken a spoils of war. God is telling Mohammad that he may have sex with his slaves taken in war without committing a sin. And in 23:1-6 this allowance is extended to his believers who are told that to get to paradise they must abstain from sex apart from with their wives or their slave girls:
TRULY, to a happy state shall attain the believers: those who humble themselves in their prayer; Who abstain from sex; Except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,- for (in their case) they are free from blame,
Many Muslims will tell you that one of the proofs of the truth of Islam is the way in which God helped a small band of believers to conquer an empire against astounding odds. Battles were won when Mohammad and his followers were out-numbered by ten-to-one or more. The speed with which the Muslims over-ran territory and established the Caliphate, they say, was truly astounding and can only be explained if one understands that God was helping His prophet.

And now we have a small band of believers, who use the tactics that Mohammad himself used so successfully to inspire his followers - promises of wealth, glory and eternal bliss surrounded by doe-eyed virgins, and threats of terror and punishments without mercy to cow their enemies into submission - who are enjoying victory after victory against huge odds, making lightening advances and gaining huge amounts of territory.

Is God helping ISIS? Unless you're a heartless lunatic or your brain has been turned to mush by an extremist preacher presumably you think not. You dismiss them for what they are. Crazed, homicidal psychopaths whose minds have been turned by poisonous propaganda.

And yet...didn't you say you believe Mohammad was the prophet of God partly because of his unlikely victories?

Where's the difference?



14 comments:

  1. sex slave is the hard part for muslim to justify. now they start to blame it is US/zionist work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Muslim apologists always practice the distraction fallacy when confronted with the blemishes of the Islamic world and their religion..."oh it's the Zionists...oh it's the free masons.... Oh is the illuminati" this is the exact same nonsensical excuse the German fascists cried out for their own faults and we all know how cruel and barbaric they were... it's funny that Muslim apologists are imitating the German fascists... Comes no surprise Islam a totalitarian religion that seeks to control everything even the most minor of things such as what feet to go into the toilet lol... Islam has so much in common with the secular religions the totalitarian and pseudoscience philosophies of fascism and communism, And the resulting death,destruction, and depression. The Muslim can never enjoy his life in the religion of Islam he must live miserably and depressingly as if he's a prisoner, Why would any sane rational person join a religion that wants you to live like a prisoner and be miserable, Why would allah invent such negativity and sadness, why he would want the Muslim to live like a convict and not as a freeman, the only way to liberate yourself from this misery is to be an unbeliever for only then can you release yourself from the unnecessary and stifling "rules, restrictions and regulations" that defines Islam and live a joyful life like a freeman not as a prisoner. Even Muhammad acknowledges the misery of his convict religion...“The world is a prison for the (Muslim) believer and Paradise for the (free person) non-believer.”

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here's some good essays
    Islam and it's similarity with fascism

    http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.newenglishreview.org/Ibn_Warraq/Islam,_Middle_East_and_Fascism/&sa=U&ei=gz7vU4fjDOTy7AanhYGgAg&ved=0CCUQFjAH&usg=AFQjCNEf5LL8nPePYo6yuI3Mpgs1UO2Tew

    Islam and it's similarity with communism by Bernard Lewis

    http://quotingislam.blogspot.co.uk/2011/06/bernard-lewis-on-islams-inherent.html?m=1

    ReplyDelete
  4. Raising questions in Islam, including those with regard to sex slavery, is so taboo that even if the questions pops into a muslims' mind, he must do well to erase those questions immediately.

    Muslims are not encouraged to question things that is deemed 'beyond their capability' to comprehend, hence even of they don't have any answer to those questions, they would believe that their ulama's would have an explanation, hence they always ask Spinoza to seek guidance from an ulama'.

    The mind controlling is successful to that level. There are many famous ayah(verses) in the quran mentioning 'the women which your right hand posses'. But seldom it is being discussed. This is very comforting to the Ulama's, as it is surely difficult for them to answer as well.

    -Alex-

    ReplyDelete
  5. Muslims always argue that Islam does not outlaw something in rush, giving example the haraamisation (:D) of khamar (liquor/alcohol). It is outlawed in stages.

    So why not slavery being outlawed in stages as well?

    And to say that alcohol is outlawed in stages is not entirely correct. When the verse saying alcohol is haraam came, the companions still store alcoholic drinks in huge jars, and it was recorded that when the ayah came, they had to (or willingly) throw away the khamar.

    If the haraamisation is done in stages, would they have stopped making so much of that drink that they wouldn't have to throw away so much?

    -Alex-

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good point Alex... Never thought of the "haramisation" of alcohol �� like that, if they still stored huge quantities of alcohol ��, then clearly alcohol was still in demand by the early Muslim community and the effect of the early condemnations of alcohol in the Qur'an went unheard, it was only the verse backed by the wrath of Allah and harsh punishment that stopped alcohol consumption, which by the way there's nothing objectively wrong in consuming alcohol, moderately, which has health and medical benefits and serves as source of social lubrication breaking down the differences and hostilities making people open up and be more sociable which clearly the Muslim world needs with its hostile relationships with sects and infidels. Ali Dashti's twenty three years objective rationalist critique of Muhammad has some good stuff in it about alcohol, how it was initially praised in the Qur'an and after a nasty drunken brawl banned alcohol for all times, for all peoples, because of what a tiny insignificant minority of 7th century uncultured, backward, illiterate, barbaric, Bedouin Arabs with notify concept of self control did.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think Spinoza covered the topic of how some parts of the Quran praised Alcohol. Also, I have heard from an ulama', that the 2nd Caliphate of Islam, Umar Al Khattab, allegedly influenced the 'haramisation' (i still can't find a proper English word for this) of alcohol, which was decreed by Muhammad after Umar complains how drunken people behaved. At first it was only forbidden if one is to attend congregational prayers, but later is banned all out.

      Umar also allegedly (I say allegedly because the ulama' did not give any source of hadith about the story) influenced the rule where women should cover their heads and bossoms.

      So God waits for proposals to make a decree?

      -Alex-

      Delete
    2. thanks alex, i just found the article and yeah umar seems to think think that if he prayed about his worries to Allah directly he wouldn't hear it let alone get a response- (because he doesn't exist)- hence he suggests to muhammad instead- indirectly but sometimes directly- who does listen to his worries and low and behold out comes a revelation in favor of umars ideas, here's what Ali Dashti says

      "A story which appears in the Hadith compilations and is attributed to A'esha explains the sentence as follows: "The Prophet and I were eating a meal from a dish when Omar passed by. The Prophet invited him to join in the meal. While we were eating, Omar's finger touched my finger. Omar said, 'If only my advice had been heeded! No eye would then have seen you.' After that, the verse of the curtain was sent down...to isolate the prophets wives from public view".

      "According to a reported statement of Abdollah b. ol-Abbas, the reason for the revelation of verse 53 was that Omar had said to the Prophet, "Your wives are not like the wives of other men.” Verse 32 of sura 33 begins with the words “O wives of the Prophet, you are not like any other women.” Ali Dashti Twenty Three Years.

      It really suggests that fallible Muhammad rather than all knowing Allah manufactured the verses of the quran, especially the 'self serving revelations" for muhammad... you know the one in which he can get all the pussy he wants (i wonder if khadija would have accepted muhammads various pussies if she was still alive), an a certain of share all war booty which includes the obvious money, jewellery and pussy, whilst all other muslim men must be content with 4 wives and fight of whats left of the war booty after muhammad takes his share.

      why because Muhammad wants to be the alpha male, the apex predator, the Kim Il-sung of the arabs and he muhammad (who was also a politican) knows religion is a tool to manipulate the masses, and get what he wants, even if it blemishes his morality.

      "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" Seneca the younger (Roman 1st century AD)

      Delete
  7. Islamic state, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, just a few of many "Arab/Arabized states" due to the "Arab/Semite cultural hegemony in Islam" as Anwar sheik put it all conforming to the totalitarian and very fascistic nature of pure, original 7th century Islam straight out the desert ��, Islamic state which is the closest modern replica of original Islam is pure fascism.

    -Hassan al Apostate-

    ReplyDelete
  8. I cannot take seriously ANY discussion of Islam; the whole business, Koran, Hadith, Sunnah is transparently false and idiotic. The rational conclusion?
    A tyranny imposed and propagated by terror.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It makes me sick seeing western politicians continually telling us "Islam is the religion of peace... ISIS/Boko Harem/ the Taleban etc are not Muslims". The talking head Mullahs bought out to nod sagely in agreement must be laughing into their beards.

      Delete
  9. The punishment for those who wage war against God and His Prophet, and perpetrate disorders in the land, is to kill or hang them, or have a hand on one side and a foot on the other cut off, or banish them from the land. Such is their disgrace in the world, and in the Hereafter their doom shall be dreadful. (33) But those who repent before they are subdued should know that God is forgiving and kind. (34


    ReplyDelete
  10. Spinoza you've been dissapointingly inactive as of late..

    ReplyDelete