The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[The Human Q-Tip]

The Qur'an itself has been completely ignored by multiple posters in this thread.

First -- I assume this is directed at least in part at me given that you've responded specifically to my focus on apostasy (though not addressing blasphemy/proselytizing). So, I'll just assume you missed my earlier post that included three direct quotes from the Quran that themselves were completely ignored by you and others. And that post (and the Wiki article) also linked to numerous Islamic religious authorities interpreting/analyzing the issue of apostasy. You can follow those links if you'd like to, and read those scholars citing the Quran themselves if you'd like. Here it is again:

....Second, as soon as I read that statement, my first thought was "how can anybody be an apostate --which is certainly a recognized concept in Islam ("riddah", I think)-- if they can never actually leave the religion? So I looked up apostasy, and found this stuff: Please believe me, I'm not trying to misrepresent or distort anything -- this is just how it was described in Wikipedia:

But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray.
— Quran 3:90

Make ye no excuses: ye have rejected Faith after ye had accepted it. If We pardon some of you, We will punish others amongst you, for that they are in sin.
— Quran 9:66

He who disbelieves in Allah after his having believed, not he who is compelled while his heart is at rest on account of faith, but he who opens (his) breast to disbelief-- on these is the wrath of Allah, and they shall have a grievous chastisement. — Quran 16:106


Contemporary Egyptian jurisprudence prohibits apostasy from Islam, but has also remained silent about death penalty.[122] Article 2 of the Constitution of Egypt enshrines sharia.[123]

Both Court of Cassation and the Supreme Administrative Court of Egypt have ruled that, “it is completely acceptable for non-Muslims to embrace Islam but by consensus Muslims are not allowed to embrace another religion or to become of no religion at all [in Egypt].”[122]

The silence about punishment for apostasy along with constitutional enshrinement of Sharia, means death sentence for apostasy is possibility. In practice, Egypt has prosecuted apostasy from Islam under its blasphemy laws using the Hisbah doctrine;[124] and non-state Islamic groups have taken the law into their own hands and executed apostates.[125]

A 2010 Pew Research Center poll showed that 84% of Egyptian Muslims believe those who leave Islam should be punished by death.[126]

In 1992 Islamist militants gunned down Egyptian secularist and sharia law opponent Farag Foda. Before his death he had been declared an apostate and foe of Islam by ulama at Al Azhar. During the trial of the murderers, Al-Azhar scholar Mohammed al-Ghazali testified that when the state fails to punish apostates, somebody else has to do it.

Second, as I also mentioned in another post, a modern religion has to be defined by how it is currently taught by scholars/religious leaders, and how it is currently understood by practitioners. And it is quite common for there to be disagreements regarding the correct interpretations of those texts. Arguments about "correct" textual interpretations really go more to what a religion "should" be rather than what it actually is.

Saying the Pew poll results are end all be all is ridiculous to me.

Nobody said it was the only thing that mattered, but the prevalence of current religious practices and beliefs certainly are relevant when discussing what a religion "is" in the modern world. But I also backed that up with links to Islamic scholars, courts, etc.

Entire countries and populations were excluded.

Iran was omitted because they couldn't get access, but that doesn't invalidate the results from every other nation, which --other than Iran -- including the 10 largest Muslim-majority nations.
So other than Iran, what major Islamic nation was omitted?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

First, kosis, , I want to say that you are making a great argument for how//why some modern interpretations of Islam should change, and how those changes can still be consistent with Islam. All very good stuff from my perspective because I do not believe in condemning the religion as a whole simply because some of the modern mainstream views are problematic. Those views can change/adapt, but I don't think that happens unless people first acknowledge the existence and problematic nature of some of those beliefs.

To be clear, death penalty for apostasy is not in the Qur'an. Any mention of apostasy (riddah) is supplemented with consequences for the afterlife, which is irrelevant to this discussion.

Again, this is your view (and I object to laws against apostasy even if death is not the prescribed punishment) , but other Msulims clearly disagree. I'll just cite that portion of the wiki article (that again includes specific links and citations to Muslim scholars, etc::

Apostasy in Islam includes in its scope not only former Muslims who have renounced Islam to join another religion or become non-religious, but Muslims who have questioned or denied any "fundamental tenet or creed" of Islam such as Sharia law, or who have mocked Allah, worshipped one or more idols, or knowingly believed in an interpretation of Sharia that is contrary to the consensus of ummah (Islamic community).[5][6] The term has also been used for people of religions that trace their origins to Islam, such as Bahá'ís in Iran, and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia.[7][8]

The definition and appropriate punishment for apostasy in Islam is controversial, and it varies among Islamic scholars.[9] In Islam’s history, the vast majority of scholars have held that apostasy in Islam is a crime punishable with the death penalty, typically after a waiting period to allow the apostate time to repent and return to Islam.[10][11][12] Some contemporary Muslim scholars also hold the traditional view that the death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - the Quran and the Hadiths - while others argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment.[13][14] A majority considers apostasy in Islam to be some form of religious crime, although some reject the use of the death penalty[15][16][17] while a minority of contemporary Islamic scholars, relying on the Quran, hold the view that apostasy in Islam is not a crime.[9][18][19]

These laws do exist in some countries, and although I do not agree with them, they date back the riddah wars that occurred shortly after the death of the Prophet. Islamic belief split into Sunni and Shia, both sides believing the other was guilty of apostasy. Those wars produced the first sequence of punishments dictated by riddah.

During war, apostasy was essentially desertion/treason. The Ottomans can be seen as a transition point, where apostasy did not necessarily mean death.

First, this really amounts to a "they're wrong, and I'm right" argument in terms of interpreting Islamic texts (including both the Koran and haditha), which is rather besides the point when defining what Islam is right now. Though as I've said, it does provide a doctrinal roadmap for change. But in the context of defining what lslam is right now, what matters is whether or not those views are held by a significant percentage of Muslims, and whether or not they have support among Islamic scholars.

Second, modern interpretations of Christianity are likewise affected by a whole bunch of political considerations that were a product of their times. The history of the early Church, arguments over which gospels belonged, the wording of various statements, etc.., were very much political. But that political background doesn't make those commonly-understood doctrines any less a part of modern Christianity.

These traditions continued during nation building, as it was a part of Islamic history, not Islam (There's a difference).

Part of the problem is that Muhammed himself was both a religious and political/military leader, which is why I previously raised the whole issue of church/state separation. It makes the doctrinal hurdle a bit tougher to overcome. Islam's own history and founding documents blur that distinction and again, some Muslims believe that there is not, and should not be, a distinction. That's largely the concept of a Caliphate, which is a term that has a long history (forget the ISIS bozos) including the Cordoba Caliphate of the Umayyads in Spain, and the Fatimid and Abbasid Caliphates in the ME region.

It may have been pointed out in this thread, but survey results from the population in these countries is something hard for me to get on board with. Citizens are likely to vote a certain way out of fear/uncertainty. Only certain provinces are polled (as the report states). Statistics has taught me that your data is only as good as the willingness of your population to be honest, and to be representative of the rest.

But what else are we supposed to go on? I mean, on the one hand, you ask people to dismiss ISIS and other radicals, including Wahhabis, because "they're such a small percentage of Muslims. But I don't recall you relying on some rigorously-conducted survey with perfect methodology to support that opinion. Going off the prevalence of such laws in Muslim majority nations, the statements of various Islamic scholars, and the results of that survey seem to me to be pretty reliable indicators that those beliefs are mainstream, even if we can quibble about the exact percentages.

Those laws/beliefs are mainstream only because that's how it is and has been.

Agree on both counts.

 

[The Oi]

Wasn't attacking you or your arguments.

I actually don't disagree. There is a reason uprisings against "secular" governments in the Islamic World followed a generational pattern until recently. Unemployed, angry young men are susceptible to the preachings of radicals.

I actually think this is the greatest factor of all. People that are satisfied with their life positions generally don't commit violent attacks or commit suicide.

You're not going to find a hell of a lot of individuals that are gainfully employed in happy marriages that feel generally free and fulfilled subscribing to radical systems that require them to harm others or throw away their lives.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I actually think this is the greatest factor of all. People that are satisfied with their life positions generally don't commit violent attacks or commit suicide.

You're not going to find a hell of a lot of individuals that are gainfully employed in happy marriages that feel generally free and fulfilled subscribing to radical systems that require them to harm others or throw away their lives.

Well, can't fix dudes who can't get laid.

But in terms of gainful employment, the 9/11 hijackers generally came from middle class or wealthy families, and were more educated than most. And the idea that poverty is the "root cause" of terrorism (as John Kerry said), is not supported by facts. Google "is terrorism caused by poverty", and it's pretty amazing that pretty much across the ideological spectrum, the actual evidence seems to say "no". First article discusses what seems to be a very widely cited study, and the second is an article from the left-leaning New Republic.

http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/91841/does-poverty-cause-terrorism

I'm not sure whether this is funny or sad, but one thing that came up when I googled this was an article quoting one of our Common Core GED testing books, which stated (in the context of why wealthy nations should provide foreign aid) that the 9/11 hijackers were "poor Afghans", both of which are demonstrably false.

oh well....

 

[The Oi]

Well, can't fix dudes who can't get laid.

But in terms of gainful employment, the 9/11 hijackers generally came from middle class or wealthy families, and were more educated than most. And the idea that poverty is the "root cause" of terrorism (as John Kerry said), is not supported by facts. Google "is terrorism caused by poverty", and it's pretty amazing that pretty much across the ideological spectrum, the actual evidence seems to say "no". First article discusses what seems to be a very widely cited study, and the second is an article from the left-leaning New Republic.

http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/91841/does-poverty-cause-terrorism

I'm not sure whether this is funny or sad, but one thing that came up when I googled this was an article quoting one of our Common Core GED testing books, which stated (in the context of why wealthy nations should provide foreign aid) that the 9/11 hijackers were "poor Afghans", both of which are demonstrably false.

oh well....

Yeah, I'm not claiming poverty itself is the sole cause. I think poverty is a part of the picture and one factor that feeds into the unrest that leads certain people to radical concepts. I just think these are, for the vast majority, people who are very unhappy with their lot in life.

Being poor is one thing that might cause great stress and anger for an individual, but when you couple that with a variety of other factors that cause even more stress...you have very unhappy people who want to take their anger out on others.

To quote Louis CK, "If two people were married and they just had a great thing and they got divorced, that would be really sad. But that has happened zero times."

Same goes for someone that kills themselves for a religious cause or kills innocent people. If you really enjoy your life, I don't give a shit what you tell people, you don't just kill yourself because a book told you to. I find it very difficult to believe that the vast majority of ISIS, for example, are people that are happy with themselves and their place in life. And these people that commit suicide in order to take others down...there's no way these were people that were satisfied with their lives.

 

[Jordan]

Well, can't fix dudes who can't get laid.

But in terms of gainful employment, the 9/11 hijackers generally came from middle class or wealthy families, and were more educated than most. And the idea that poverty is the "root cause" of terrorism (as John Kerry said), is not supported by facts. Google "is terrorism caused by poverty", and it's pretty amazing that pretty much across the ideological spectrum, the actual evidence seems to say "no". First article discusses what seems to be a very widely cited study, and the second is an article from the left-leaning New Republic.

http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/books-and-arts/91841/does-poverty-cause-terrorism

I'm not sure whether this is funny or sad, but one thing that came up when I googled this was an article quoting one of our Common Core GED testing books, which stated (in the context of why wealthy nations should provide foreign aid) that the 9/11 hijackers were "poor Afghans", both of which are demonstrably false.

oh well....

I think my argument was that class conditions in a country leads to one embracing Islamism. So in Syria the government firmly established the business class to solidify the regime. This led to many who worked in industry and agriculture to feel frustrated and when this combined with the barrel bombs and uprisings this led to many joining Islamist groups.

Now, what makes someone engage in a suicide attack, or even attacking the West as opposed to the regime fostering anger, is a totally different discussion.

 

[The Oi]

Now, what makes someone engage in a suicide attack, or even attacking the West as opposed to the regime fostering anger, is a totally different discussion.

Let's have it. What do you think causes it?

 

[gourimoko]

I think my argument was that class conditions in a country leads to one embracing Islamism. So in Syria the government firmly established the business class to solidify the regime. This led to many who worked in industry and agriculture to feel frustrated and when this combined with the barrel bombs and uprisings this led to many joining Islamist groups.

Now, what makes someone engage in a suicide attack, or even attacking the West as opposed to the regime fostering anger, is a totally different discussion.

As well as the level of class competition and diversity in a particular country/region; specifically where there is no clear cut dominant majority.

Christians in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine are a prime example of this. Muslims living in areas nearer Christian enclaves are generally prone to stricter, more fanatical interpretations of Islam.

 

[Otsego Mar]

Let's have it. What do you think causes it?

Mostly stupidity. Probably some sense of honor - referring to blowing up a church or your run of the mill "terrorist" attack.

I can see the usefulness of such a suicide attack in certain cases (think of the hero in movies sacrificing himself to blow up the mothership, etc).

But the religious zealot? Yea, stupidity.

 

[Jordan]

Let's have it. What do you think causes it?

Alright, so I'm going to preface this with that most of my studies deal with Islamism, and not Jihadism [For the sake of this discussion, and this is an oversimplification, I am referring to terrorists that utilize violent means as Jihadists.]. In my opinion, many people become Islamists due to economic conditions. Furthermore, when you examine groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas, and how they garner support, it has a lot to do with economics. Both of these groups are comprised of three wings: political, welfare, and militarist. Welfare is the starting point. For example, in Lebanon, welfare is provided along sectarian lines. Therefore Hezbollah gains support for providing healthcare and other services to predominantly Shi'a, but also other groups. This serves the purposes of the other two wings because they garner votes and gain recruiting ground for terrorists. A great book on this subject is the recently published Compassionate Communalism by Melani Cammett.

With that said, I still have not answered your question, and I warn you I may not. From here on I am going to refute a few theories about what causes terrorism.

Robert Pape has written two different books about what causes suicide terrorism. In both accounts his answer is western intervention/occupation in the Middle East. This is problematic for many reasons. First, suicide terrorism originated with the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, which is not in the Middle East and therefore not subject to Pape's linkage. Secondly, if you buy the argument that it does not have to be an occupation of the Middle East, the west was occupying India for years and years with no acts of suicide terrorism. This gets to the point that foreign occupation has been around for centuries but suicide terrorism is a relatively recent phenomena.

Secondly, and this will be brief, there is an argument that is mainly lonely, poor individuals who become a terrorist. Or at least people who can't find jobs are more inclined to terrorism. While I believe this holds true empirically for Islamism, I am not sure about terrorism/jihadism. For example, many of the 9/11 attackers were wealthy and married.

Finally, there is the argument that terrorism is a response to abuse of power by the state or other occupying force. I think this is closest to my belief but not entirely accurate. For example, Saudi Arabia has been totalitarian for decades but have only encountered two major terrorist attacks against the regime since 1969, a host of minor ones, and many targeting foreigners.

My opinion, which is not totally founded upon research, is an anti-explanation of sorts. I believe when poor economic conditions, violence by the regime, and feeling that some sort of war (whether it be civil, global, or geopolitical) is occurring, mixed in with certain opportunities, you see terrorism.

 

[Sebastian]

Terrorism is the tool of those with no voice, and nothing better to do.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Terrorism is the tool of those with no voice, and nothing better to do.

Eh, they have a voice, same as every else. They're just so narcissistic that they believe other people have an obligation to listen to them.

It just occurred to me that talking about the "root causes" of terrorism is nonsensical period. Terrorism is not a goal or desired result. You don't engage in terrorism for its own sake -- it is simply a particular method of accomplishing a certain goal. So while you can ask "why do they choose the tactic of terrorism", that doesn't answer the "root cause" question of why they are fighting in the first place.

So really, the answer to the "root cause" of terrorism is no different than asking the "root cause" of war/armed conflict period.

Once you rephrase the question to "what is the root cause of war", it becomes pretty clear why it is a stupid question.

 

[kosis]

First -- I assume this is directed at least in part at me given that you've responded specifically to my focus on apostasy (though not addressing blasphemy/proselytizing). So, I'll just assume you missed my earlier post that included three direct quotes from the Quran that themselves were completely ignored by you and others. And that post (and the Wiki article) also linked to numerous Islamic religious authorities interpreting/analyzing the issue of apostasy. You can follow those links if you'd like to, and read those scholars citing the Quran themselves if you'd like. Here it is again:

It was a general remark, as it has happened multiple times in this thread. No one ignored your post. I just don't see all the posts and don't always have time to reply to everything. You'll find plenty of scholars with different interpretations, and I feel like we've already come to an understanding of that being that case. I don't see the value in listing sources on both ends of the spectrum arguing their unique perspectives.

Second, as I also mentioned in another post, a modern religion has to be defined by how it is currently taught by scholars/religious leaders, and how it is currently understood by practitioners. And it is quite common for there to be disagreements regarding the correct interpretations of those texts. Arguments about "correct" textual interpretations really go more to what a religion "should" be rather than what it actually is.

Nobody said it was the only thing that mattered, but the prevalence of current religious practices and beliefs certainly are relevant when discussing what a religion "is" in the modern world. But I also backed that up with links to Islamic scholars, courts, etc.

OK. Islam is currently taught in mosques and schools in ways I've described. I've been to schools, masjid, madrasas, etc... in multiple countries and have seen nothing but peace and love. I assure you that if you went, you'd experience the same. Though part of Islamic history, current government standings are separate teachings to everything else, i.e. life. If you plan on learning about apostasy, you'd have to seek out politics. Again, I know this is religious in tone, and relevant in specific societies, but a vast majority of Muslims don't study that type of thing.

Iran was omitted because they couldn't get access, but that doesn't invalidate the results from every other nation, which --other than Iran -- including the 10 largest Muslim-majority nations.
So other than Iran, what major Islamic nation was omitted?

Well the first that came to mind was Iran. But the second thought I had was: what part of Bosnia? Travnik, Cazin, Sarajevo, Mostar...? Having familiarity with the region and knowing how different the regions are, the mind state and likelihood of cooperation are completely different. Depending on internal politics, past conflicts, family tradition... all can give credence to a certain type of answer. And that's just Bosnia. Pardon my skepticism that a report based on 38,000 interviews worldwide is not a fair representation of attitude.

And I'm sure the whole thing is legit, fair (as possible), and interesting intel. Not at all questioning the credibility of the Pew Report. Throughout my life, I've taken part in administrating a multitude of surveys, reporting on demographics and political opinion. Nothing as extensive as this, of course, but I at least get the value and limitations.

 

[kosis]

First, kosis, , I want to say that you are making a great argument for how//why some modern interpretations of Islam should change, and how those changes can still be consistent with Islam. All very good stuff from my perspective because I do not believe in condemning the religion as a whole simply because some of the modern mainstream views are problematic. Those views can change/adapt, but I don't think that happens unless people first acknowledge the existence and problematic nature of some of those beliefs.



Again, this is your view (and I object to laws against apostasy even if death is not the prescribed punishment) , but other Msulims clearly disagree. I'll just cite that portion of the wiki article (that again includes specific links and citations to Muslim scholars, etc::

Apostasy in Islam includes in its scope not only former Muslims who have renounced Islam to join another religion or become non-religious, but Muslims who have questioned or denied any "fundamental tenet or creed" of Islam such as Sharia law, or who have mocked Allah, worshipped one or more idols, or knowingly believed in an interpretation of Sharia that is contrary to the consensus of ummah (Islamic community).[5][6] The term has also been used for people of religions that trace their origins to Islam, such as Bahá'ís in Iran, and Ahmadiyya Muslims in Pakistan and Indonesia.[7][8]

The definition and appropriate punishment for apostasy in Islam is controversial, and it varies among Islamic scholars.[9] In Islam’s history, the vast majority of scholars have held that apostasy in Islam is a crime punishable with the death penalty, typically after a waiting period to allow the apostate time to repent and return to Islam.[10][11][12] Some contemporary Muslim scholars also hold the traditional view that the death penalty for apostasy is required by the two primary sources of Sharia - the Quran and the Hadiths - while others argue that the death penalty is an inappropriate punishment.[13][14] A majority considers apostasy in Islam to be some form of religious crime, although some reject the use of the death penalty[15][16][17] while a minority of contemporary Islamic scholars, relying on the Quran, hold the view that apostasy in Islam is not a crime.[9][18][19]

But it's not MY view that apostasy is not a punishable offense within the Qur'an. It's not there. Anything that IS there references afterlife. God's rewards and punishment. You (not you specifically) can go ahead and say that, in your opinion, 40 virgins rode on triceratops' backs in the Qur'an, but that doesn't make it true. You can take cases from Christian and Islamic history, apply that to law, then trace back to the texts and find cases that may match in feel and tone, but you can do that with anything. Nothing will ever stop someone from using that method. My whole point is that it is not sanctioned in the Qur'an. You can quote certain hadith, but those are subjective, sometimes conversational, and not indisputable text, so it's harder to draw arguments from them.

First, this really amounts to a "they're wrong, and I'm right" argument in terms of interpreting Islamic texts (including both the Koran and haditha), which is rather besides the point when defining what Islam is right now. Though as I've said, it does provide a doctrinal roadmap for change. But in the context of defining what lslam is right now, what matters is whether or not those views are held by a significant percentage of Muslims, and whether or not they have support among Islamic scholars.

Understand, that I get what you're saying: Regardless of what is the correct "truth", the world is as it is today. I'm sure you understand that there is a substantial amount Islamic scholars around the globe? Just last month an Islamic scholar in Bosnia was beaten up for saying Bosnians should stay out of Syria. The message has been echoed by other imams/professors across the country. Most of the disagreement there stems not from Islamic doctrine, but from proper Muslim reaction to the ME. Do we support the West, Syrian government, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Kurds even, Sunnis, Shias, etc... Unrest is causing these splinter cells to raise up because the Muslim population is tired of being victim to exploitation and legal terror. It's why ISIS exists in the first place. It's why current inhumane laws are swept under the rug. Maybe we can have a UN referendum on apostasy law and have that discussion. The problem is that it has become almost impossible for the West to approach the ME without war or condescension.

Second, modern interpretations of Christianity are likewise affected by a whole bunch of political considerations that were a product of their times. The history of the early Church, arguments over which gospels belonged, the wording of various statements, etc.., were very much political. But that political background doesn't make those commonly-understood doctrines any less a part of modern Christianity.

Part of the problem is that Muhammed himself was both a religious and political/military leader, which is why I previously raised the whole issue of church/state separation. It makes the doctrinal hurdle a bit tougher to overcome. Islam's own history and founding documents blur that distinction and again, some Muslims believe that there is not, and should not be, a distinction. That's largely the concept of a Caliphate, which is a term that has a long history (forget the ISIS bozos) including the Cordoba Caliphate of the Umayyads in Spain, and the Fatimid and Abbasid Caliphates in the ME region.

Politics within Islam and society/ history are intertwined to a degree, that's true.

But what else are we supposed to go on? I mean, on the one hand, you ask people to dismiss ISIS and other radicals, including Wahhabis, because "they're such a small percentage of Muslims. But I don't recall you relying on some rigorously-conducted survey with perfect methodology to support that opinion. Going off the prevalence of such laws in Muslim majority nations, the statements of various Islamic scholars, and the results of that survey seem to me to be pretty reliable indicators that those beliefs are mainstream, even if we can quibble about the exact percentages.

I don't know what to tell you. I've discussed this a bit in my last post.

Agree on both counts.

Mainstream and majority-opinion are not one in the same, though.

 

[gourimoko]

But it's not MY view that apostasy is not a punishable offense within the Qur'an. It's not there. Anything that IS there references afterlife. God's rewards and punishment. You (not you specifically) can go ahead and say that, in your opinion, 40 virgins rode on triceratops' backs in the Qur'an, but that doesn't make it true. You can take cases from Christian and Islamic history, apply that to law, then trace back to the texts and find cases that may match in feel and tone, but you can do that with anything. Nothing will ever stop someone from using that method. My whole point is that it is not sanctioned in the Qur'an. You can quote certain hadith, but those are subjective, sometimes conversational, and not indisputable text, so it's harder to draw arguments from them.



Understand, that I get what you're saying: Regardless of what is the correct "truth", the world is as it is today. I'm sure you understand that there is a substantial amount Islamic scholars around the globe? Just last month an Islamic scholar in Bosnia was beaten up for saying Bosnians should stay out of Syria. The message has been echoed by other imams/professors across the country. Most of the disagreement there stems not from Islamic doctrine, but from proper Muslim reaction to the ME. Do we support the West, Syrian government, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, the Kurds even, Sunnis, Shias, etc... Unrest is causing these splinter cells to raise up because the Muslim population is tired of being victim to exploitation and legal terror. It's why ISIS exists in the first place. It's why current inhumane laws are swept under the rug. Maybe we can have a UN referendum on apostasy law and have that discussion. The problem is that it has become almost impossible for the West to approach the ME without war or condescension.



Politics within Islam and society/ history are intertwined to a degree, that's true.



I don't know what to tell you. I've discussed this a bit in my last post.



Mainstream and majority-opinion are not one in the same, though.

Agreed.

Too often people are speaking for "Islam," including Muslims and Christians, and those folks are twisting the faith to suit their own political needs.