×

Espanyol Manager Quique Sánchez Flores: "Cristiano Ronaldo is in the top 10 best players of all time, Messi is the best in history" by ViscaEspanya in soccer

[–]thelordoftheweird -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Would Messi have had the same success playing alongside O'Shea, Fletcher, Brown, Anderson?

Messi has inspired his national team to how much success, fuck all lads, an international failure

Messi has never proved it at Middleborough on a freezing cold Wednesday in February with tens of thousands of chemically altered mutant humans bearing down on you if you go anywhere near the ball

Ronaldo is more attractive and has funnier statues

Over 1,800 ulema in Pakistan declare suicide attacks ‘haram’ by tinkthank in islam

[–]thelordoftheweird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There is voluminous amounts of research into radicalisation, terrorism theory, jihadism and militant islamism. Suicide bombs are a kamikaze military strategy right.

I'd start with Shiraz Maher's salafi-jihadism the history of an idea. He explains the ideology behind these groups so well.

I put some links to radicalisation theories at the bottom of this post

http://goedhartvoordieren.nl/?page=r/worldnews/comments/7qs5ze/z/dssylsi

Over 1,800 ulema in Pakistan declare suicide attacks ‘haram’ by tinkthank in islam

[–]thelordoftheweird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I explained this elsewhere

http://goedhartvoordieren.nl/?page=r/worldnews/comments/7qs5ze/z/dssh7di

but the ideological justification is actually remarkably bone chillingly simple, these groups aren't attracting educated Muslims with a sound knowledge of islam

Shiraz Maher explained how simple the theory that abdallah azzam developed to justify jihad

1 Islam is not a passive faith it requires action

Islam requires you to exert effort, you can't just say you're a Muslim and not pray, not fast during Ramadan, these are mandatory. Azzam and the jihadis argued that jihad was more important than prayer and fasting because both of these are not mandatory while fighting.

2 Predestination is an article of faith

Muslims believe that their lives are already written, predestination is one of the articles of faith. Predestination versus free will is one of the oldest theological debates in Islam and abuse of predestination has been the cause of entire caliphates ending.

3 Muslims are expected to fear nothing but Allah

Azzam argued that you can only prove this when you are on the fields of jihad while bullets are flying past you and bombs are dropping all around you. It's Allah's choice at that point whether you live or die.

And with that he creates an Ubermensch, strap this bomb belt on, if it goes off it's Allah's will and you're on the way to jannah bro.

Shiraz Maher explains it so much better than I can, I can recommend his book on the ideology behind salafi-jihadism, it's excellent.

Over 1,800 Muslim clerics in Pakistan issue fatwa against suicide bombings and label them un-Islamic by elusive_newsman in worldnews

[–]thelordoftheweird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry if this is a bit long I got carried away lol

But how do those on the mainstream side convince a would be radical that the violent interpretation is illegitimate?

By educating the jihadis in normative Islamic beliefs?

It seems to be a case of where the Koran and related texts provide a smorgasbord for one to pick and choose whatever ideas and values serve your purpose.

I have to explain something

The divisions at a theological level is largely between rationalism and the use of logic and reason to interpret the texts versus more literal interpretations. The debates have been fierce and debates 1400 years old still reverberate today. The use of reason rationalism and logic, essentially a carry over from the ancient Hellenic debating tradition which was the norm in the Levant when they expanded into it which the early Muslims got involved in and they actually couldn't avoid, didn't stop at theology they found their way into law and how to apply the texts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sources_of_sharia#Secondary_sources

The rules around the debates were that they were structured around Aristotle's categories (cosmology, ontology and so on) and each party could only use logic and reason and rationalism, essentially neoplatonic arguments and they were being challenged to explain their ideology not using the texts but use these Hellenic methods. So you have these schools of rationalism and then on the other side a school of traditionalism which rejected this because it was causing weird interpretations. This has led to lots of discourse, agreement, disputes and interpretations.

So you have to ask the question,why isn't there more conflict between islamic movements if there has been these differences and it's because they developed a formal method of disagreement, ikhtilaf

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikhtilaf

This has led to different schools of thought developing independent legal canons and precedent but where they all agree on an issue,for example whether or not it is okay to play the part of Mohamed in a movie, they all agreed it isn't, then that becomes part of the law for all of them, ijma means consensus among all schools of thought

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ijma

Islamic movements largely accepted this plurality of thought. Even quietist apolitical non violent fundamentalist such as purist salafis accept there are multiple perspectives on Islam even though they disagree and are willing to take on everyone else in debates it stops at verbals.

The jihadis don't. The jihadis reject all forms of existing rule in Islamic countries because they don't rule by a version of Sharia they consider remotely authentic, all international systems (the UN, NATO, the EU), they reject democracy, they reject secularism, their goal is to impose a theocracy ruling by a version of Sharia which mirrors their nature, brutal, intolerant, inflexible, violent. ISIS.

If the texts themselves do not provide a clear and unambiguous hierarchy of values that makes violent acts against innocents, muslims of different faiths, etc unacceptable, then how can one legitimately say what is the correct interpretation and what isn't?

Because the vast majority of the world's Muslims reject their actions ideologically and have over a thousand years of evidence to support that. However once a jihadi becomes joins a jihadi group they are subject to a form of in/out group control they are encouraged to reject and disassociate with anything else but that group and their ideology and to only believe that groups beliefs, this is based on a concept called Al Wala Wal Bara (loyalty and disavowal) which some islamic traditions have used in the past to protect from outside influences. It's a form of in-group control. Anyone that rejects the groups ideology is subject to takfir (excommunication) which to a jihadi mindset justifies killing them which is a form of our group control. It's a trap, once you are in there is no way out.

And even if one could say which is correct, what does it really matter?

It matters because islam in history is a much broader ideology with multiple interpretations, beliefs, doctrines, history, legal canons and methodologies.

Ultimately the jihadists are fighting under the banner of Islam whether or not the rest of the world considers it a legitimate interpretation.

They claim to be but that claim is rejected by 99.9% of all other Muslims, their ideology is rejected by 99.9% of other Muslims and all those other Muslims absolutely fucking hate them and despise and reject their ideology, conflating this tiny percentage of violent cunts with the vast majority of Muslims is unjust and immensely unfair. It's like saying the KKK represent all white people,the IRA represent all irish people, or that people who put pineapple on pizzas represent all pizza eaters. There is a vast difference between the religious beliefs of ISIS and Al-Qaeda and normative Islam, their beliefs are twisted to support a political ideology, militant islamism that defines the need for a theocratic caliphate ruled by Sharia as a political solution for the worlds Muslims. A caliphate none of them would want to live in anyway.

Even if we could eliminate every active extremist and person holding extremist ideals, it seems that these ideas would foment again.

Yes it's possible, the only solution is education. IMO the state is islamic education in my country is piss poor, you have islamic movements teaching their own variant of Islam but failing to educate in their own language the broader picture of Islam globally, islamic history, the theological movements, the broader picture, but that's just me. The purist salafis do a great job of education it's a core focus for them, twenty years ago London's streets were full of islamists ranting about how shit western society is and how Islam was gonna take over, now the purist salafis proselytise and they are warm, polite, friendly and you can have an intellectual debate with them without them forcing anything onto anyone and shakes hands at the end. Long gone are the days of ranting islamists. Maybe that's the solution, for non violent islamic movements to go and take the streets.

When even (relatively) well off middle class westerners are attracted to something about these extremist ideologies, there's clearly something going on beyond a question of accurate interpretation. It's clearly not just about religion or Islam in particular, but Islamic ideas seem particularly susceptible to creating extremists. Nuance

Radicalisation can happen to anyone given the personal and political circumstances, this review of radicalisation models is pretty good

http://www.terra-net.eu/files/publications/20140227160036Literature%2520review%2520incl%2520cover%2520in%2520color.pdf

And

https://muep.mau.se/bitstream/handle/2043/23155/Annemette%2520thesis%2520final%2520version.pdf

Over 1,800 Muslim clerics in Pakistan issue fatwa against suicide bombings and label them un-Islamic by elusive_newsman in worldnews

[–]thelordoftheweird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure you can easily fix those that are radicalized but you can fix the next generation.

your point is correct while islam derives from a common set of doctrines there has never been a single interpretation

the jihadis politics are caliphatism/militant islamism, a rejection of secularism, democracy, all government's in islamic lands and all existing international forms of rule to replace with a caliphate imposing sharia, their method of achieving that is through revolutionary means and their interpretation of islam has been geared entirely towards achieving that, justifying things that are completely alien to normative islam.

Over 1,800 Muslim clerics in Pakistan issue fatwa against suicide bombings and label them un-Islamic by elusive_newsman in worldnews

[–]thelordoftheweird 0 points1 point  (0 children)

loudmouth showoffs

interesting though if they did start doing that would it be a hate crime or terrorism?

Over 1,800 Muslim clerics in Pakistan issue fatwa against suicide bombings and label them un-Islamic by elusive_newsman in worldnews

[–]thelordoftheweird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

in Islam to get to heaven you need to

repent your sins (purify your soul)

avoid sinful acts

perform good deeds

essentially the same as christianity.

if you have spent a lifetime screwing around, taking drugs, drinking alcohol, robbing, stealing and you have no idea how to fix that religiously then the fast route to heaven because you really dont understand the faith (sure your parents made you attend quran classes but they were in Arabic and you didn't really get it and learned to repeat without fully understanding or because you were born into a family that didn't explain the faith to you) the salvation theory of the jihadis might sound appealing.

Shiraz Maher explained how simple the theory that abdallah azzam developed

1 Islam is not a passive faith it requires action

Islam requires you to exert effort, you can't just say you're a Muslim and not pray, not fast during Ramadan, these are mandatory. Azzam and the jihadis argued that jihad was more important than prayer and fasting because both of these are not mandatory while fighting.

2 Predestination is an article of faith

Muslims believe that their lives are already written, predestination is one of the articles of faith. Predestination versus free will is one of the oldest theological debates in Islam and abuse of predestination has been the cause of entire caliphates ending.

3 Muslims are expected to fear nothing but Allah

Azzam argued that you can only prove this unless you are on the fields of jihad while bullets are flying past you and bombs are dropping all around you. It's Allah's choice at that point whether you live or die.

In normative Islam its not required to prove you fear nothing but allah, normative Islam says while your life is predestined its up to you to commit sin (because otherwise it would mean god would predestine sin which means god would predestine evil acts) and while Islam does require action it doesn't require you to kill yourself and absolute forbids killing Innocents.

so from an islamic perspective those justifications for being a suicide bomb are actually transparent, its a fundamental Islamic tenet that only purified souls get into heaven and we have these guys telling the jihadis that the best way is to kill innocents and yourself along the way, any practising and knowledgeable Muslim would be able to immediately see through those arguments.

they didn't develop deep theological arguments they developed simplistic, arbitary and innovative justifications that would appeal to people that didn't know anything about islam.

There are vast ideological differences between jihadi ideology and normative islamic beliefs.

Hence why it actually makes sense that having a strong Islamic Identity and practising the faith including seeking knowledge protects against jihadism

Over 1,800 Muslim clerics in Pakistan issue fatwa against suicide bombings and label them un-Islamic by elusive_newsman in worldnews

[–]thelordoftheweird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I wrote a response here

http://goedhartvoordieren.nl/?page=r/worldnews/comments/7qs5ze/over_1800_muslim_clerics_in_pakistan_issue_fatwa/dssdhwm

I'm not denying they aren't Muslims and aren't attracted to an ideology and a utopian political ideology that claims to be the most authentic implementation of Islam but significant numbers of people attracted to militant Islamist groups lived criminal lifestyles, weren't practicing Muslims, didn't follow or much care for the rules or even know very much about the faith.

Over 1,800 Muslim clerics in Pakistan issue fatwa against suicide bombings and label them un-Islamic by elusive_newsman in worldnews

[–]thelordoftheweird 1 point2 points  (0 children)

it isn't silly, there is a lack of evidence that religion causes someone to join a terrorist group, radicalisation models point to social alienation and societal disenfranchisement as primary​ factors in radicalisation, combine this with a perceived attack on an in group and a lack of political options and that's the ground terrorist groups recruit from, terrorists themselves have their ideology, their utopian visions and their political solutions and these can act as pull factors, but if we claim that religion is the driving factor then that requires evidence and I've not seen much evidence that is the case even though the neoconservatives have pushed that claim for years it lacks evidence