• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama: "ISIL Is Not Islamic"

They ARE very 'Christian'. they are fundamentalist extremists, not unlike the Muslim fundamentalist extremists. The big differences of course being 1-They arent beheading people, 2-They dont have liberals tripping over themselves to distance them from Christianity (in fact, usually it is quite the opposite).

They have decent people of any poltical stripe trying to distance them from Christianity. Nice try to blame this on liberals, which is kind of like you unfortunately.
 
At one point in time it was. If you go back 150-200 years, that kind of racist mindset was extremely common in Christianity, much of American slavery was built on Christian theology. Today? Not so much. But then again, we've had the moderating influence of secular society in the west that has largely neutered that kind of religious fanaticism, something the Middle East has yet to experience.
In fact it was Christian theology which helped end slavery, but perhaps we should focus on what many Muslims are up to today.
 
They have decent people of any poltical stripe trying to distance them from Christianity. Nice try to blame this on liberals, which is kind of like you unfortunately.
It is 'liberals' who are trying to deflect from the fact that ISL is Islamic by bringing in another religion. Why is that? Is it anther of those 'they all do it' arguments and, if so, what's the point?
 
this iis just epic fail all over it.

they are islamic because they follow islam. so yes they are an islamic group.
they are not different than the taliban or hamas or any other islamic terrorist group.

they still follow islam.
Ultimately this all gets reduced down to who is empowered to define something. Do we allow a group of rebels to define themselves and their relationship to a billion other humans or do we retain control over their narrative just as we intend to control peace in the region?
 
Oh NIMBY. Dont' be such a drama queen. You don't have to do battle. Live, love and laugh. It's much, much better for you. And besides, ISIS is Islamic in origen - or did you think they got their inspiration from Jerry Falwell?

Just like the Klu Klux Clan is Christian in origin. Do you think they represent Christians or did they get their inspiration from the Koran?
 
In fact it was Christian theology which helped end slavery, but perhaps we should focus on what many Muslims are up to today.

And it was Christian theology that inspired the Klu Klux clan too.
 
Just like the Klu Klux Clan is Christian in origin. Do you think they represent Christians or did they get their inspiration from the Koran?

The KKK were not Christian in origin, the were racist in origin.
 
And what of today? What is it with you people (and by that, I mean blind supporters of Islam being a religion of peace) in needing to dredge up history in order to support your stance. Keep in mind, all you are doing is defeating your own argument. This isn't a question of which religion is better than another, it's about which religion is the greater threat to innocent lives in the world today. By bringing up examples like that, you only show that Christianity has moved passed those stances.

Look as a Christian, I am not a big fan of Islam...or Buddhism...or Hinduism. But that is base on their beliefs. But to say that their faith is built on hate is nonsense. Please show me in the Islamic doctrine that they are a religion of hate.

And lets make a few things clear. religion is a man made entity. through out history, wars and movements have been declared in the name of God. Regardless if it is today or 500 years ago, innocent blood has been spilled in the name of Christianity. But the core principle of Christianity is still intact because of our doctrine (the Bible) represent peace.
 
And it was Christian theology that inspired the Klu Klux clan too.

No, it was not. But, even if it were, what is your point in deflecting from the topic of "ISIL Is Not Islamic" when it is clear it is? Mohammed was quite clear on the subject.
 
They have decent people of any poltical stripe trying to distance them from Christianity. Nice try to blame this on liberals, which is kind of like you unfortunately.
Oh dood...you are so full of **** its scary. Anytime it is convenient, liberals rush to drag them in as an example of 'Christianity'. Every liberal? No. But plenty of them? You bet.
 
But I would argue that there isn't wide-spread support for it. If there was, then ISIS/ISIL wouldn't have to be attacking these Muslim countries, they wouldn't have to be fighting in Syria and Iraq and Iran and the Muslim parts of India. Those countries would simply turn themselves over to ISIS/ISIL control. There is widespread opposition among the Muslim nations against these Islamic extremist groups. However, what makes this different is that these groups have the ability and freedom to act in that part of the world because they have the money and the freedom to act as an Islamic group. There is no secular influence moderating the religious insanity in the Middle East. This kind of thing could never happen in the west.

And no, while I would say that there's something wrong with Islam, just like there's something wrong with every religion, the only one you can blame for the actions of that kid is that kid. There was something seriously wrong with that kid's brain wiring.

When I say wide spread support, I'm referring to polls that have consistently showed that the majority are in support of Sharia Law being implemented (or more strictly) or for violent acts against civilian targets. There was an Al Jazeera poll about a year or so ago, where they asked whether they wanted a more secular Sharia Law, and only 33% of those did. The rest, preferred a more violent application of Islam and Sharia Law. Or how about in 2010, when another poll showed that half of Arabs supported Bin Laden. Or just look at the elections that have been had in this countries. Instead of electing moderate, secular governments, they keep electing in religious radicals like in Egypt with the Brotherhood, or in Iraq where they keep electing Maliki. Also, to your point, just because their is violence between muslims, doesn't make them any less dangerous. The whole reason ISIS got a foothold in Iraq, was the ****ty why that the Shia was treating the Sunni. This is why ISIS found such inroads into Iraq, because the Sunnis (of which, ISIS is as well) were sick and tired of being oppressed.

Also, it's not like the MacArthur kids is the first western Muslim to resort to violence against their own country you know? You have the shooter at Ft. Hood for one. The London bombings were carried out by English men.
 
When I say wide spread support, I'm referring to polls that have consistently showed that the majority are in support of Sharia Law being implemented (or more strictly) or for violent acts against civilian targets. There was an Al Jazeera poll about a year or so ago, where they asked whether they wanted a more secular Sharia Law, and only 33% of those did. The rest, preferred a more violent application of Islam and Sharia Law. Or how about in 2010, when another poll showed that half of Arabs supported Bin Laden. Or just look at the elections that have been had in this countries. Instead of electing moderate, secular governments, they keep electing in religious radicals like in Egypt with the Brotherhood, or in Iraq where they keep electing Maliki. Also, to your point, just because their is violence between muslims, doesn't make them any less dangerous. The whole reason ISIS got a foothold in Iraq, was the ****ty why that the Shia was treating the Sunni. This is why ISIS found such inroads into Iraq, because the Sunnis (of which, ISIS is as well) were sick and tired of being oppressed.

Also, it's not like the MacArthur kids is the first western Muslim to resort to violence against their own country you know? You have the shooter at Ft. Hood for one. The London bombings were carried out by English men.

And more Islamists, like Richard Reid as another example, will continue to carry out terrorist attacks at western targets. They are an army of individuals who are not fearful of being killed or going to jail.
 
In fact it was Christian theology which helped end slavery, but perhaps we should focus on what many Muslims are up to today.

I've actually made the point that, according to some claims, only 15-20% of Muslims are radicalized. If that's really the case, then why don't the 80-85% of non-radicalized Muslims stand up and stop the crazies? To some degree, the U.S. has a bit of that responsibility, there are cases where we've actively helped the radicals to stomp on the peaceful demonstrating Muslims, but for the most part, it's because the non-radicals aren't willing to put themselves on the line to fight back. I get it, of course, but I can't help thinking that some part of it is because Islam, as a religion, doesn't allow the non-radicals to take up arms against their radical brethren, the religion gets in the way.

I don't know, I just know that it's a mess.

And Christian theology fell on both sides of the slavery conflict, proving that the Bible is just the Big Book of Multiple Choice. Anyone can get anything they want out of it by cherry picking. The same is likely true of the Qur'an.
 
No, it was not. But, even if it were, what is your point in deflecting from the topic of "ISIL Is Not Islamic" when it is clear it is? Mohammed was quite clear on the subject.

Well it is at least clear that you wish to wage war on the entire religion of 1.6 billion followers. That is just nuts.
 
When I say wide spread support, I'm referring to polls that have consistently showed that the majority are in support of Sharia Law being implemented (or more strictly) or for violent acts against civilian targets. There was an Al Jazeera poll about a year or so ago, where they asked whether they wanted a more secular Sharia Law, and only 33% of those did. The rest, preferred a more violent application of Islam and Sharia Law. Or how about in 2010, when another poll showed that half of Arabs supported Bin Laden. Or just look at the elections that have been had in this countries. Instead of electing moderate, secular governments, they keep electing in religious radicals like in Egypt with the Brotherhood, or in Iraq where they keep electing Maliki. Also, to your point, just because their is violence between muslims, doesn't make them any less dangerous. The whole reason ISIS got a foothold in Iraq, was the ****ty why that the Shia was treating the Sunni. This is why ISIS found such inroads into Iraq, because the Sunnis (of which, ISIS is as well) were sick and tired of being oppressed.

Also, it's not like the MacArthur kids is the first western Muslim to resort to violence against their own country you know? You have the shooter at Ft. Hood for one. The London bombings were carried out by English men.

A lot of that is because these radical groups tend to provide for the people. When you're starving and the local radical group shows up with truck loads of food, you don't tend to ask too many questions about their politics, so long as they keep feeding you. In many places, the radicalized groups are more humanitarian than the governments that are in place.

And let's be honest, you're talking about a couple of individuals out of how many Muslims in the United States? What's the percentage of American Muslims that go to fight for ISIS or shoot up military bases? How many zeroes do we have to put in front to have an accurate percentage? .000000000001%? Let's not act like this is an epidemic.
 
People who are bringing up the Westboro Baptist Church or the KKK need to stop. That argument is irrelevant. I personally agree that comparisons can be drawn, but the topic of this thread is about whether ISIS is legitimately Islam or not and Obama's statement on that. Deflecting this by saying 'oh well Christians do it too so maybe you should take a look in the mirror' is just a strawman. (Even if it's technically correct and the cons can't handle it)

As far as the OP goes, Obama got it wrong here IMO. 19 people were beheaded in Saudi Arabia, an established Muslim country, in the last month. The establishment of the caliphate is a central tenet to the Qur'an, and the slaughter of innocents in the qur'an is only forbidden under specific definitions of innocent (e.g. if you're older than 10 and not a muslim you're guilty). ISIS might be hardline islam but it's well within the parameters of the religion as defined in its holy books even if the majority of muslims do not subscribe to it. Obama didn't have much of a choice in this speech, lest he alienate a massive population and enable hatred towards innocent muslims. There needs to be a shift in viewpoint on how we view Islam, and there is a desperate need to recognize it for what it actually is, but this shift must be via a bottom up approach, a cultural shift in view, rather than top-down. It does seem however, that ISIS are doing all they can right now to propagate that viewpoint.
 
Last edited:
And how many beheadings and acts of barbaric terrorism has Westboro "indirectly" incited ?
As distasteful as Westboro has been, So far as I know they have not been accredited
with any beheadings.
 
Look as a Christian, I am not a big fan of Islam...or Buddhism...or Hinduism. But that is base on their beliefs. But to say that their faith is built on hate is nonsense. Please show me in the Islamic doctrine that they are a religion of hate.

And lets make a few things clear. religion is a man made entity. through out history, wars and movements have been declared in the name of God. Regardless if it is today or 500 years ago, innocent blood has been spilled in the name of Christianity. But the core principle of Christianity is still intact because of our doctrine (the Bible) represent peace.

Here's the flaw in your argument, your not Muslim. The people who are, are the ones espousing this sort of brutality and violence. If you want to know what in the Islamic Doctrine supports this stuff, why don't you go ask someone in ISIS. I'm sure they'd be glad to tell you... then cut head off. You know what the real difference between Christianity and Islam is? 500 years ago we decided that waging war in the name of one's God was a stupid reason, and got rid of that notion. Islam sadly, hasn't given up on that idea.
 
When you can prove that large numbers of people of Christian faiths support the actions/efforts of the KKK just as large numbers of people of Islamic and Muslim faiths support the actions/efforts of ISIL/ISIS/IS then you might have a point.

Many people just want someone to lead them, and there are plenty of wolves in sheep's clothing, in the secular and religious realms willing to accommodate them, ie, Jim Jones.

There were may false prophets before, during and after the time of Christ. There are many people who carry the label 'Christian' with no clue of what it means. Perhaps they were born into a 'Christian' family, and think that if they go to church every week, they are free to do whatever they want the rest of the time. True Christians are the only ones who Christ will recognize at Judgement Day.

As Jesus said, 'You Will Know Them by Their Fruits'

15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.
16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.
19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Matthew 7:15-20
 
I've actually made the point that, according to some claims, only 15-20% of Muslims are radicalized. If that's really the case, then why don't the 80-85% of non-radicalized Muslims stand up and stop the crazies?
Right, and a lot of us are asking the same questions. I think they are afraid and will wait to see what happens before they commit themselves. They will, as bin Laden said, follow the strong horse. Right now that's not us.
To some degree, the U.S. has a bit of that responsibility, there are cases where we've actively helped the radicals to stomp on the peaceful demonstrating Muslims, but for the most part, it's because the non-radicals aren't willing to put themselves on the line to fight back. I get it, of course, but I can't help thinking that some part of it is because Islam, as a religion, doesn't allow the non-radicals to take up arms against their radical brethren, the religion gets in the way.
Yes, that's a very good point. We are being very foolish also in not confronting Islam and not calling out terrorism for what it is. Rather we use euphemisms, like 'workplace violence, or offer excuses such as they were late on their mortgage payments.
You can see a number of posters who also muddy the waters by claiming Christians did it too. It's remarkable to me how many people lie in order to prevent the truth from being told, and that is the most interesting part, to me, in all of this.
I don't know, I just know that it's a mess. And Christian theology fell on both sides of the slavery conflict, proving that the Bible is just the Big Book of Multiple Choice. Anyone can get anything they want out of it by cherry picking. The same is likely true of the Qur'an.
It is a mess but pretending it isn't what it is only makes it messier. What saved Christianity was the New Testement and the teachings of Christ, as well as the Reformation. Islam is still 7th century.
 
Back
Top Bottom