to be sick of people on FB comparing Syrian refugees to the Jewish refugees

[paintandbrush]

Please stop bandying about the terms 'Kindertransport', 'Operation Pied Piper' and so on because I've studied the Holocaust extensively, and it's not actually the same, ok?

This article says it all better than I can, please read: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/12130175/The-plight-of-Syrian-refugees-is-not-on-a-par-with-Jews-fleeing-the-Nazis.html

For the record, I really don't believe we should be bombing them to hell in the first place: in this day and age, wars are not won in the towns and fields of North Africa. Wars are won round a conference table somewhere in Switzerland.

The whole attitude of Cameron's government at the minute seems to be "Let's make their homeland hell on earth, then pat ourselves on the back for letting, say, 10% of them into the UK". What a bloody mess.

Just as no Christian or Hindu wants to or can live by the letter of their religions, nor can the majority of Muslims. The majority of Muslims do not want upset or war, and to a great extent they do cherry-pick as everyone does. However, ISIS is an orthodox, straight-from-the-Koran type of Muslim, condemning modern day mores and decrying all developments as evil.

They are rather like dog breeders, in that they want what they believe to be a perfect perfect example of their breed of choice, even if it means breeding-in physical characteristics which cause distress to the dog, i.e. breathing difficulties in the bulldog.

For a person such as this, no other type of muslim is good enough, especially if that person live peaceably without criticising the supposed derelictions by others. In criminology I think Colin WIlson calls this type of person 'The Right Man' - someone who is never wrong.

Whatever drives crazy breeders of cats and dogs (and I have met a few in my job who seem to be pursuing a vision of perfection that exists only in their minds), imo it is the same impulse but attached to a way of life. These jihadis have been seduced by the notion of founding a caliphate in which everything is orderly, everyone knows their place - women especially - and where men can lay down rules, recind rules, have temporary 'wives' and appease blood lust by watching executions.

But make no mistake, when a jihadi says that he is the living embodiment of the Koran, he means it.

The EU orders Britain to build more homes for EU immigrants

Every political party is going on about building more homes, but as I said yesterday this constant push is all about house bulding for immigrants, not British people who are rotting on the waiting list or living in bad private housing. We have no obligation to build for immigrants/migrants/refugees, etc.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3599970/Migrants-spark-housing-crisis-EU-tells-Britain-build-homes-open-borders-send-population-soaring.html

This is apparently what ISIS believe in, anyone fancy having a go at talking them round?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3598413/Christian-girl-burned-alive-ISIS-told-mother-forgive-lay-dying-arms.html

I must say, I do find it incredibly amusing that liberal Westerners like lecturing Muslims on the meaning of their own religion when they clearly don't see it that way, given the way the structure of their cultures and societies are moving more and more towards conservatism and salafism

I am sure I read an interesting article on this theme once, ie what more do Jihadis have to do to prove to the R Left they are Islamic? Throw gays of buildings, beat women for wearing a bin bag slightly too short, stone women alive for sorts of minor indiscretions, chop heads off for religious issues. Scream Allah Akbar when they commit atrocities....

I was responding to this statement and the question of what is 'true' Islam

Who is the supreme leader in Islam? Christians have the Pope. Where is the no 1 leader of the Islamic faith? You know to issue the no 1 definitive opposition of IS interpretation. Many holy sites are in Saudi and we know the problems with their brand of Islam which is un cannily like IS version .

I think you're still struggling a bit, shake. You've meandered away from the point that you made, which I was responding to. You claim Isis follow 'true' Islam.

I didn't refer to my interpretation of Islam.

We have

Isis's 'interpretation', which justifies violence, rape and slavery etc.

The version of Sunni Muslim leaders that state that Islam condemns violence, slavery, murder etc.

Both claim their version is true. Which one is right?

See? It's not that hard is it?

Interpretation of texts. Isis use texts that appear to justify violence to support their ideology. The Muslim leaders that wrote the letter use texts to support their belief that Islam does not support such an ideology.

If they both use texts to support their claims, who is right or representing 'true' Islam.

Well, someone could use very violent texts from the bible to support a violent agenda or ideology. HOWEVER, using the texts from a religious book and stating you are following them to the letter wouldn't necessarily mean you are following the religion.

Consider what one could perhaps term the 'end goal' of a religion. In Christianity, we have salvation, everlasting life etc. Is that achieved through the violence of the earlier texts in the bible? I would say no. If you behaved in such a manner you would be acting against the directions of Jesus.

Therefore, those supporting violence etc, as the Serbian priests did, would not be follwing 'true' Christianity. The minority of priests that called for peace and help for victims, as the Pope does now, would be 'true' Christians.

Similarly, if the peoplein Isis exploiting texts do so in contravention of the 'end goal' of Islam and its defining principles, as they do, then they are not 'true' Muslims.

You have failed spectacularly to engage with your claim that Isis follow 'true' Islam. You have not paid attention to the basic tenets of the faith. You have gone on a tangent about refugees instead of addressing the question.

'What makes it 'true' is that an awful lot of people believe it is'.

No. Lots of priests and paramilitaries calling on religious rhetoric during the Bosnian war didn't mean their interpretation of Christianity was 'true' either.

As I have stated, you must examine their ideology and interpretation of texts in order to determine if they fit the defining principles and 'end goal.' of Islam. They don't.

'And some European girl who doesn't know much about Islam sitting behind a computer in Eastern Europe who doesn't know much about Islam frantically googling for anything which says otherwise. doesn't mean it's not Islam'.

Why not just engage with the point Bill? Where I live and who I am have no impact on the question of what is true Islam.

I've spent rather a lot of time refuting your claims so I'm clearly not trying to get the thread shut down.

'And Sufis are still Sunnis. Which means to Sunni Salafis they don't fall into the automatic category of fair game for persecution the way Shias or other religions do and aren't automatically in the same danger'.

Irrelevant to what constitutes 'true' Islam.

' Because no religion really can be any more 'true' than the way it's followers interpret and implement it'.

Millions of Muslims give to charity, support refugees, clean up after floods etc, as charity is one ofthe defining principles of Islam. Far more are engaged in good acts than those engaged in the bad acts of Isis. So I don't think that is a credible way of saying Isis support 'true' Islam.

'However, ISIS is an orthodox, straight-from-the-Koran type of Muslim, condemning modern day mores and decrying all developments as evil'.

Can you back this up, shake? You still haven't backed up your claim that Isis represent true Islam.

'But make no mistake, when a jihadi says that he is the living embodiment of the Koran, he means it'.

He can mean it all he likes, still doesn't mean it's not nonsense. Priests described Radovan Karadicz as a true Cristian hero. They believed it wholeheartedly. Still a load of cobblers.

'Who is the supreme leader in Islam? Christians have the Pope. Where is the no 1 leader of the Islamic faith? You know to issue the no 1 definitive opposition of IS interpretation. Many holy sites are in Saudi and we know the problems with their brand of Islam which is un cannily like IS version'

Does this answer what is true Islam, Mint?

I think what everybody is getting at is that pretty much all followers of Islam and most religions think theirs is the true path. Then they go do some bad stuff. This is maybe why quite a lot of people see religion as not such a good idea...Hmm.

It doesn't matter what others think, ISIS people think they are the only way, very little will sway them from this view, so they carry on doing bad Sh**. It doesn't matter to ISIS one jot what you or I or any of the people on MN think they will still carry on thinking that theirs is the only way. It doesn't matter to them what a hundred other moderate Sunni scholars say either. They won't be listening any time soon.

Christians don't have the Pope. He is the leader of Roman Catholics only. That does not include all the other Christians. There are two main objections to 1m muslims more coming to the UK - first some of them will be ISIS infiltrators. Secondly and perhaps worse moderate Muslims who follow Shariah law are very sexist so values we spend hundreds of years as women fighting off instead swamp us (if we live in areas of the UK with many muslims and those old fashioned morally bankrupt values of deserts 2000 years ago get imported into the UK and have an effect on us all in taking us back to medieval values)

usrer I meant catholics {smile}

Sportinguista, the difference with Islam is - your sort of trapped in it, because you can be proclaimed to death for leaving ht faith, or shunned by your community.

Consider what one could perhaps term the 'end goal' of a religion. In Christianity, we have salvation, everlasting life etc. Is that achieved through the violence of the earlier texts in the bible? I would say no. If you behaved in such a manner you would be acting against the directions of Jesus

Jesus stands for love, and inclusion?

By all accounts the Prophet was pretty violent and these Jihadis are acting in his foot steps. Its all been posted on here before by someone who is pretty expert on it, the core of the religion has been described many times before. This is the problem.

order to determine if they fit the defining principles and 'end goal.' of Islam

Its in that article Emily, I dont think you bothered to read it. The end goal is the apocalypse etc.

What would you say the 'end goal' of Islam is, Mint? Also, what are the guiding principles and the basic tenets?

There is violence in the Bible. Should the Bible be viewed only in terms of its violence or as a whole?

Should the Koran be viewed only in terms of violent texts or as a whole? Should it be viewed additionally in what is in the Hadith?

'all been posted on here before by someone who is pretty expert on it'

But what do you think?

I believe that Isis expolit religious texts and symbols in pursuit of a political agenda as Serbian paramiliteries did. Any thoughts on that?

"However, ISIS is an orthodox, straight-from-the-Koran type of Muslim, condemning modern day mores and decrying all developments as evil. "

The word you are looking for is fundamentalist.

"make no mistake, when a jihadi says that he is the living embodiment of the Koran, he means it."

And you know that because you read the Quran? Don't make me laugh.

My three very devout Sunni Muslim relatives would have delighted in educating you. One was a 'hafez' who could recite the entire Quran from memory and another was a 'haji' who had done the pilgrimage to Mecca. You, on the other hand, is someone who has read a bit of Daily Fail and nutty Saudi websites. Seriously, you don't even know enough to recognise the limits of your knowledge.

And I say that as a lifelong atheist who has no patience for religion of any kind.

Today most Christians don't turn to violence (and nor do most muslims for that matter) but Islam has not had its reformation and it is not particularly modernised. It needs a bigger feminist movement and it needs to move forward to modern values.
You could be burnt to death if you rejected your faith etc in the West in around 1500 ish. islamd is just backward and needs to get to the point most modern Christians (and indeed atheists) have reached. The only countries on the planet where there is a death penalty for trying to change religion are Muslim states.

If Jesus advocated violence, it would be a problem wouldn't it? Jesus is the main man.

We can also poke fun at Jesus and Christianity, we can make tv programs about it, talk about it and no one will come to any harm. We can look into dubious corners of catholism and get to the bottom of any wrong doing. It open.

We cant do that with Islam, and the Prophet is the main man, he was violent, had a child bride and so on. its not an open religion and there are many other issues in it.

I understand a great great many people draw comfort from their faith, but that doesn't mean the faith, any faith should be questioned.

The only countries on the planet where there is a death penalty for trying to change religion are Muslim states

A man killed a politician who was trying to relax blasphemy laws in Pakistan. A christian woman was accused of it and either put to death or on trial. This politician tried to save her and speak out. He was killed, his killer has been hailed a hero by hugely influential Immans in the UK who openly supported him on twitter and flew out to his funeral.

There have been people in India, Serbia and other places exploiting Christianity to support a political and violent agenda in recent history, Reformation or not.

User, in the Central African Republic last year, 'Christian' milita burnt people alive.

Could you elaborate with examples other than the one of Serbia, to support your proposition that there has been equal amounts of the use of Christianity to support political and violent purges etc. I believe there is some evidence in India but I am trying to think of some other than this and am drawing a blank.

FWIW I am not a fan of organised religion, I'm pagan and we tend to believe in very much each to their own and tolerance, so not on any 'side'.

The word you are looking for is fundamentalist.

I do not need you to tell me which word to use. I chose not to use the word above. You are very arrogant to tell people how to express themselves.

My parents are both Sunni but from India, and my father when he was a young man did a haj. Of course I have read the Koran though I do not follow any religion now. I try to live an honest life and to show kindness to all.

The jihadis are living the word of the Prophet, certainly before all the 20th & 21st century hadiths were added. Your outburst is ugly and ill-informed.

As Emily says there is this but it appears that not all agree and some Christian clergy are intervening, it also appears to be heavily linked to local beliefs in witchcraft as well.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/centralafricanrepublic/12018588/Christian-militias-in-Central-African-Republic-burnt-witches-at-stake-says-UN-report.html

"By all accounts the Prophet was pretty violent"

In the sense that all generals and heads of state who led armies were "violent". Mohammad wasn't exactly going around smashing people's heads for no reason, or torturing little animals.

The parts of the Quran that talk about killing infidels etc are about/during times of war. ISIS etc use those verses to claim Muslims should always kill non-Muslims. You use them to claim Mohammad was a blood-crazy killer and that Islam tells its followers to always be violent killers.

The only difference between you and them is the direction of misinformation. In your case, it is mostly ignorance. In theirs, I suspect it is deliberate.

Mohammed was of his time. If you look at what was going on as a whole all over the world at that and subsequent centuries the world remained a pretty violent place for many centuries. I suspect strongly that Mohammed did not stand out as particularly violent in terms of leaders of the time. However judged by todays standards, yes he does standout as violent and some of the things he did are now illegal. This is because we've had centuries to move away from the use of violence on an everyday sort of scale.

I think this is why ISIS cause such a reaction of disgust in us as we are not used to such brutality, which is as it should be. As they are trying to follow to the letter ideas that were laid down at a time where there weren't the behavioural norms and laws that we have now this is the issue - it is not something you can or should be doing now.

They do seem to be intent on going further and further apparently they dropped some Iraqi prisoners alive into baths of Nitric acid, a particularly vicious thing to do.

This is why I find some peoples idea of religion particularly off putting.

Shake - "I do not need you to tell me which word to use. I chose not to use the word above."

Why on Earth not use the correct word for what you are describing? ISIS most certainly don't follow "orthodox" (conforming to what is generally or traditionally accepted as right or true; established and approved) Islam, if there even is one. You want to say "fundamentalist" (a person with strict belief in the literal interpretation of his religious texts), which is clear from your description "straight-from-the-Koran type of Muslim, condemning modern day mores and decrying all developments as evil".

"Of course I have read the Koran though I do not follow any religion now."

I don't think you quite understood the context if you think ISIS are the true Muslims.

emily - your post is all mixed up, and quite frankly I cannot be bothered to pick out what is relevant to what I may have posted or others have. Europe has moved away from the eye for an eye of the Old Testament, because it is seen as cruel.

Those that live in a totalitarian religious state such as Pakistan and Saudi have not, and continue to live by the word of the Prophet, not the hadiths that came centuries later. The 'original' Islam is what has captivated the imagination of jihadis, and that is why they slaughter anyone they believe is against them. If a fellow Sunni protests he will be eliminated; if he keeps schtum he may survive. Maximum cruelty is exercised when putting people to death.