What is true Islam vs what the extremists are doing

[cptau 169]

When dealing with Islam, start with the fact that one of their most promised heavenly rewards is getting to rape 72 virgins. Once you grasp that, the rest of what we're seeing falls right into place.

Me too!

Cool, then you'll quote the shurah in the Quran that mentions that? You seem pretty sure of yourself.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5

Keep in mind most Moslems believe that the Koran is only the Koran when it is in the original Arabic. Once it is translated it ceases to be the Koran, which is where problems start...........

What of the rewards in paradise? The Islamic paradise is described in great sensual detail in the Koran and the Traditions; for instance, Koran sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura 76 verses 12-22. I shall quote the celebrated Penguin translation by NJ Dawood of sura 56 verses 12- 39: "They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds... We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand..."

One should note that most translations, even those by Muslims themselves such as A Yusuf Ali, and the British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, translate the Arabic (plural) word Abkarun as virgins, as do well-known lexicons such the one by John Penrice. I emphasise this fact since many pudic and embarrassed Muslims claim there has been a mistranslation, that "virgins" should be replaced by "angels". In sura 55 verses 72-74, Dawood translates the Arabic word " hur " as "virgins", and the context makes clear that virgin is the appropriate translation: "Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents (which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?) whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before." The word hur occurs four times in the Koran and is usually translated as a "maiden with dark eyes".

Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise".

[Auburn06 76]

Did anyone read the booklet I posted? lol...

[AUloggerhead 2,227]

Interesting story of one young Egyptian's transformation to a jihadist (video & article):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/from-a-private-school-in-cairo-to-isis-killing-fields-in-syria-with-video/ar-BBhII7I?ocid=mailsignout

His story sounds similar to the Boston bomber (the one that was killed.)

[Strychnine 1,802]

Interesting story of one young Egyptian's transformation to a jihadist (video & article):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/from-a-private-school-in-cairo-to-isis-killing-fields-in-syria-with-video/ar-BBhII7I?ocid=mailsignout

His story sounds similar to the Boston bomber (the one that was killed.)

Two other articles about him (the latter indicates he died in a suicide attack):

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/variety/2014/08/03/Meet-Islam-Yaken-a-cosmopolitan-Egyptian-who-turned-into-ISIS-fighter-.html

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/perspective/features/2014/12/02/Egyptian-Hipster-ISIS-fighter-Islam-Yaken-killed-in-Kobane.html

[DKW 86 7,419]

Did anyone read the booklet I posted? lol...

guess i missed it? Link?

[Auburn06 76]

Did anyone read the booklet I posted? lol...

guess i missed it? Link?

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/downloads/islam_is.pdf

[DKW 86 7,419]

Did anyone read the booklet I posted? lol...

guess i missed it? Link?

http://www.islamtomo...ds/islam_is.pdf

Thank you.

But now can we have a discussion on dhimmis practices & taqiyya and pages 49-53?

[Auburn06 76]

Thank you.

But now can we have a discussion on dhimmis practices & taqiyya and pages 49-53?

Dhimmis is just the name giving to non-Muslims who live in an actual Islamic state(none of which exists now)

After searching google; taqiyya is when someone conceals their religious or political beliefs out of fear of being killed for it.

What about 49-53 do you have a question about?

[Mims44 1,867]

Thank you.

But now can we have a discussion on dhimmis practices & taqiyya and pages 49-53?

Dhimmis is just the name giving to non-Muslims who live in an actual Islamic state(none of which exists now)

After searching google; taqiyya is when someone conceals their religious or political beliefs out of fear of being killed for it.

What about 49-53 do you have a question about?

Haven't peeked at the reading, but from what has been said it looks like you are going with accepted definitions.

taqiyya for example was used previously to keep from being killed, most still see it that way. I believe Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL use the same word, but define it more as a way to use subterfuge to engage the enemy without angering God.

It would be nice to get the comparisons side by side, to see how much of a stretch the extremists teachings are.

[Auburn06 76]

Haven't peeked at the reading, but from what has been said it looks like you are going with accepted definitions.

taqiyya for example was used previously to keep from being killed, most still see it that way. I believe Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL use the same word, but define it more as a way to use subterfuge to engage the enemy without angering God.

It would be nice to get the comparisons side by side, to see how much of a stretch the extremists teachings are.

Who cares about what they do or how they define something??

They do not represent Islam...

If we as a country had no government(like the Middle Eastern areas controlled by these groups) where the crazies & prisoners are free to run amok then we would have the same problems of nuts taking over.

[aubfaninga 16]

Did anyone read the booklet I posted? lol...

guess i missed it? Link?

http://www.islamtomo...ds/islam_is.pdf

Thank you.

But now can we have a discussion on dhimmis practices & taqiyya and pages 49-53?

taqiyya

This is an interesting word. I sure hope that people are teaching this term out of ignorance and not purposely promoting false truth.

Quote from link below

"The Anti-Muslim demagogues love to talk about this weird, so called, rule that permits Muslims to lie to spread Islam. I had never even heard of it until I was accused of it by someone in a discussion once. The basic idea, according to them, is that if any Muslim ever denies being a blood thirsty lunatic engaged in perpetual war against the West, they must be lying. Muslims are simply presumed guilty, and if we profess innocence that is only further evidence of our guilt.

It should be fairly clear to any rational being that lying to spread a religion is nonsensical. If I lie to you about what Islam is and you convert I haven't spread Islam because what you have accepted was a lie.

These constant stream of Islamophobes carping on about how Muslims are allowed to lie to non-Muslims whilst appealing to something called “taqiyyah” (also spelled, “takiya” and “taqiyya”) also end up convincing the average joe non muslim about this myth

Rather than relying on shoddy hate sites/Christian missionaries to educate us about taqiyyah we shall rely on SCHOLARLY authority – largely in the form of R. Strothmann’s relevant section in “Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam” (by H.A.R. Gibb and J.H. Kramers) and Cyril Glasse’s Concise Encyclopedia of Islam"

The Anti-Muslim demagogues love to talk about this weird, so called, rule that permits Muslims to lie to spread Islam. I had never even heard of it until I was accused of it by someone in a discussion once. The basic idea, according to them, is that if any Muslim ever denies being a blood thirsty lunatic engaged in perpetual war against the West, they must be lying. Muslims are simply presumed guilty, and if we profess innocence that is only further evidence of our guilt.

http://islamicrespon...is-taqiyya.html

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

As has been said here before, the "problem" is that ISIS THINKS they are Islam. They want to establish a Caliphate with an Islamic gov't.

http://www.britannic...89739/Caliphate

I don't know how much clearer that could be. We can discuss the purist Muslim religion all day long. ISIS couldn't care less.

Islam is kind of like Christianity. There are a lot of "denominations" that all see things a little differently, i.e, Sunnis, Shites. etc.

BUT.....right now we need to be focused on ISIS and calling them what they are.....radical Islamist terrorists.

[Strychnine 1,802]

As has been said here before, the "problem" is that ISIS THINKS they are Islam. They want to establish a Caliphate with an Islamic gov't.

http://www.britannic...89739/Caliphate

I don't know how much clearer that could be. We can discuss the purist Muslim religion all day long. ISIS couldn't care less.

That is correct, ISIS does indeed think that they represent the correct / true interpretation of Islam, and that they are compelled to establish a caliphate. I do not think that anyone here or in our government (including the President) is confused about that.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Stry...I hope you are right but that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Mikey 16,566]

When dealing with Islam, start with the fact that one of their most promised heavenly rewards is getting to rape 72 virgins. Once you grasp that, the rest of what we're seeing falls right into place.

Me too!

Cool, then you'll quote the shurah in the Quran that mentions that? You seem pretty sure of yourself.

http://www.theguardi...guardianreview5

Keep in mind most Moslems believe that the Koran is only the Koran when it is in the original Arabic. Once it is translated it ceases to be the Koran, which is where problems start...........

What of the rewards in paradise? The Islamic paradise is described in great sensual detail in the Koran and the Traditions; for instance, Koran sura 56 verses 12 -40 ; sura 55 verses 54-56 ; sura 76 verses 12-22. I shall quote the celebrated Penguin translation by NJ Dawood of sura 56 verses 12- 39: "They shall recline on jewelled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris, chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds... We created the houris and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand..."

One should note that most translations, even those by Muslims themselves such as A Yusuf Ali, and the British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, translate the Arabic (plural) word Abkarun as virgins, as do well-known lexicons such the one by John Penrice. I emphasise this fact since many pudic and embarrassed Muslims claim there has been a mistranslation, that "virgins" should be replaced by "angels". In sura 55 verses 72-74, Dawood translates the Arabic word " hur " as "virgins", and the context makes clear that virgin is the appropriate translation: "Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents (which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?) whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before." The word hur occurs four times in the Koran and is usually translated as a "maiden with dark eyes".

Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise".

+

Thanks for doing the lifting for me, cptau.

[Mims44 1,867]

Haven't peeked at the reading, but from what has been said it looks like you are going with accepted definitions.

taqiyya for example was used previously to keep from being killed, most still see it that way. I believe Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL use the same word, but define it more as a way to use subterfuge to engage the enemy without angering God.

It would be nice to get the comparisons side by side, to see how much of a stretch the extremists teachings are.

Who cares about what they do or how they define something??

They do not represent Islam...

If we as a country had no government(like the Middle Eastern areas controlled by these groups) where the crazies & prisoners are free to run amok then we would have the same problems of nuts taking over.

To answer the obvious question; Who cares?, obviously I am interested or I would not have asked.

And as for them not representing Islam. In their minds they do, in the minds of their converts they do.

With things such as this perception shapes reality, it doesn't matter if we say "hey guys, you aren't real muslims" If they beleive they are, and are willing to fight and die for that belief it doesn't matter.

[Strychnine 1,802]

As has been said here before, the "problem" is that ISIS THINKS they are Islam. They want to establish a Caliphate with an Islamic gov't.

http://www.britannic...89739/Caliphate

I don't know how much clearer that could be. We can discuss the purist Muslim religion all day long. ISIS couldn't care less.

Islam is kind of like Christianity. There are a lot of "denominations" that all see things a little differently, i.e, Sunnis, Shites. etc.

BUT.....right now we need to be focused on ISIS and calling them what they are.....radical Islamist terrorists.

That is correct, ISIS does indeed think that they represent the correct / true interpretation of Islam, and that they are compelled to establish a caliphate. I do not think that anyone here or in our government (including the President) is confused about that.

Why is it necessary to focus on us publicly calling them radical Islamist terrorists, instead of simply radical terrorists? I can think of nothing that it accomplishes, but I can easily see how focusing on the Islam part becomes detrimental in light of our goal to keep a coalition composed primarily of the region's leading Muslim countries together. Whatever brand of Islam they adhere to is irrelevant with regard to conducting coalition military operations against them. Their ideology is something that we, as the symbols of ultimate infidels, are not capable of doing anything about. The best thing that we can do in public speaking is distance them as much as possible from Islam, or avoid the subject of Islam altogether.

[homersapien 11,357]

Stry...I hope you are right but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Get real.

They justify every barbaric act they do with the Koran. They have proclaimed a new Caliphate. And they are proud to publicize it all. The idea that any sane person could doubt they are Islamic extremists is ludicrous.

Where does this notion of us needing to recognize their nature come from anyway?

There is absolutely no problem with anyone not recognizing them as Islamic extremists.

[homersapien 11,357]

As has been said here before, the "problem" is that ISIS THINKS they are Islam. They want to establish a Caliphate with an Islamic gov't.

http://www.britannic...89739/Caliphate

I don't know how much clearer that could be. We can discuss the purist Muslim religion all day long. ISIS couldn't care less.

Islam is kind of like Christianity. There are a lot of "denominations" that all see things a little differently, i.e, Sunnis, Shites. etc.

BUT.....right now we need to be focused on ISIS and calling them what they are.....radical Islamist terrorists.

That is correct, ISIS does indeed think that they represent the correct / true interpretation of Islam, and that they are compelled to establish a caliphate. I do not think that anyone here or in our government (including the President) is confused about that.

Why is it necessary to focus on us publicly calling them radical Islamist terrorists, instead of simply radical terrorists? I can think of nothing that it accomplishes, but I can easily see how focusing on the Islam part becomes detrimental in light of our goal to keep a coalition composed primarily of the region's leading Muslim countries together. Whatever brand of Islam they adhere to is irrelevant with regard to conducting coalition military operations against them. Their ideology is something that we, as the symbols of ultimate infidels, are not capable of doing anything about. The best thing that we can do in public speaking is distance them as much as possible from Islam, or avoid the subject of Islam altogether.

Exactly.

[homersapien 11,357]

Haven't peeked at the reading, but from what has been said it looks like you are going with accepted definitions.

taqiyya for example was used previously to keep from being killed, most still see it that way. I believe Al Qaeda and ISIS/ISIL use the same word, but define it more as a way to use subterfuge to engage the enemy without angering God.

It would be nice to get the comparisons side by side, to see how much of a stretch the extremists teachings are.

Who cares about what they do or how they define something??

They do not represent Islam...

If we as a country had no government(like the Middle Eastern areas controlled by these groups) where the crazies & prisoners are free to run amok then we would have the same problems of nuts taking over.

To answer the obvious question; Who cares?, obviously I am interested or I would not have asked.

And as for them not representing Islam. In their minds they do, in the minds of their converts they do.

With things such as this perception shapes reality, it doesn't matter if we say "hey guys, you aren't real muslims" If they beleive they are, and are willing to fight and die for that belief it doesn't matter.

What do you mean it "doesn't matter"?

It certainly matters to most Muslims. Why should we not make a distinction between radicals and Muslims that simply want to live in peace and prosper?

Does it matter that Westboro Baptist Church (for example) don't represent the basic values of Christianity, simply because they call themselves Christian?

Should we not make a distinction between them and most Christians and what Christianity stands for?

[AUUSN 823]

This guy is holding a Bible. That means he represents all Christians!?

[DKW 86 7,419]

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/011-taqiyya.htm

Islamophobe huh?

I simply asked a question and get called an islamophobe.

Really nice discussion we are going to have here.

[DKW 86 7,419]

https://www.youtube....h?v=qsqEyGdLh8I

While there is alot of truth to FGM/C being PRIMARILY cultural, it is also true that it is indeed taught in Muslim circles as part of the sunnah.

https://muslimstatis...-farrukh-salem/

Dr Farrukh Saleem (FROM 2009)

Farrukh Saleem (Urdu: فاروخ سليم; PhD), is a Pakistani political scientist, game and economic theorist, financial analyst writer, and television personality. Currently working on specialising the discipline of finance and education, he has extensively published articles on geopolitics, economic competition, and education reforms in Pakistan, and the world. Currently, he is leading the research project on politics and education at the Center for Research and Security Studies (CRSS).

http://en.wikipedia..../Farrukh_Saleem

The combined annual GDP of 57 Muslim countries remains under $2 trillion.

America, just by herself, produces goods and services worth $10.4 trillion;

China $5.7 trillion, Japan $3.5 trillion and Germany $2.1 trillion. Even India’s GDP is estimated at over $3 trillion (purchasing power parity basis).

Oil rich Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Kuwait and Qatar collectively produce goods and services (mostly oil) worth $430 billion; Netherlands alone has a higher annual GDP while Buddhist Thailand produces goods and services worth $429 billion.

Muslims are 22 percent of the world population and produce less than five percent of global GDP. (DKW: This is strong evidence that a strong jobs program could do nothing BUT HELP)

Even more worrying is that the Muslim countries’ GDP as a percent of the global GDP is going down over time. The Arabs, it seems, are particularly worse off. According to the United Nations’ Arab Development Report:

“Half of Arab women cannot read; One in five Arabs live on less than $2 per day; Only 1 percent of the Arab population has a personal computer, and only half of 1 percent use the Internet; Fifteen percent of the Arab workforce is unemployed, and this number could double by 2010; The average growth rate of the per capita income during the preceding 20 years in the Arab world was only one-half of 1 percent per annum, worse than anywhere but sub-Saharan Africa.”

The planet’s poorest countries include Ethiopia, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Somalia, Nigeria, Pakistan and Mozambique. At least six of the poorest of the poor are countries with a Muslim majority.

Conclusion: Muslims of the world are among the poorest of the poor.

Fifty-seven Muslim majority countries have an average of ten universities each for a total of less than 600 universities for 1.4 billion people; India has 8,407 universities, the U.S. has 5,758. From within 1.4 billion Muslims Abdus Salam and Ahmed Zewail are the only two Muslim men who won a Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry (Salam pursued his scientific work in Italy and the UK, Zewail at California Institute of Technology). Dr Salam in his home country is not even considered a Muslim.

Over the past 105 years, 1.4 billion Muslims have produced eight Nobel Laureates while a mere 14 million Jews have produced 167 Nobel Laureates. Of the 1.4 billion Muslims less than 300,000 qualify as ‘scientists’, and that converts to a ratio of 230 scientists per one million Muslims. The United States of America has 1.1 million scientists (4,099 per million); Japan has 700,000 (5,095 per million).

Fact: Of the 1.4 billion Muslims 800 million are illiterate (6 out of 10 Muslims cannot read). In Christendom, adult literacy rate stands at 78 percent.

Consider, for instance, that Muslims constitute 22 percent of world population with a 1 percent share of Nobel Prizes. Jews constitute 0.23 percent of world population with a 22 percent share of Nobel Prizes.

What really went wrong? Muslims are poor, illiterate and weak. What went wrong? Arriving at the right diagnosis is extremely critical because the prescription depends on it. Consider this:

Diagnosis 1: Muslims are poor, illiterate and weak because they have ‘abandoned the divine heritage of Islam’. Prescription: We must return to our real or imagined past.

Diagnosis 2: Muslims are poor, illiterate and weak because we have refused to change with time. Keep pace with time — al Quran

The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist

[cooltigger21 0]

As has been said here before, the "problem" is that ISIS THINKS they are Islam. They want to establish a Caliphate with an Islamic gov't.

http://www.britannic...89739/Caliphate

I don't know how much clearer that could be. We can discuss the purist Muslim religion all day long. ISIS couldn't care less.

Islam is kind of like Christianity. There are a lot of "denominations" that all see things a little differently, i.e, Sunnis, Shites. etc.

BUT.....right now we need to be focused on ISIS and calling them what they are.....radical Islamist terrorists.

That is correct, ISIS does indeed think that they represent the correct / true interpretation of Islam, and that they are compelled to establish a caliphate. I do not think that anyone here or in our government (including the President) is confused about that.

Why is it necessary to focus on us publicly calling them radical Islamist terrorists, instead of simply radical terrorists? I can think of nothing that it accomplishes, but I can easily see how focusing on the Islam part becomes detrimental in light of our goal to keep a coalition composed primarily of the region's leading Muslim countries together. Whatever brand of Islam they adhere to is irrelevant with regard to conducting coalition military operations against them. Their ideology is something that we, as the symbols of ultimate infidels, are not capable of doing anything about. The best thing that we can do in public speaking is distance them as much as possible from Islam, or avoid the subject of Islam altogether.

We can't ignore who they are. We do call them Islamic because you have to understand where their thinking is. Isis gets s lot of backing and help from Iran. Iran wants to be the big dog in the region. They intend to impose their view of Islam, which coincide with ISIS, on the middle East and around the world. They are the main instigator. If they get a nuclear missile, it is game set and match. Islam is the one religion in the world that just cannot coexist with others where Islam thrives other religions die out. Govto any muslin country and try to practice Christianity or Judaism orxsny other faith. Good luck with that. It isn't just ISIS. The rest may not want to lop off your head but that doesn't mean they aren't a threat.

[Strychnine 1,802]

As has been said here before, the "problem" is that ISIS THINKS they are Islam. They want to establish a Caliphate with an Islamic gov't.

http://www.britannic...89739/Caliphate

I don't know how much clearer that could be. We can discuss the purist Muslim religion all day long. ISIS couldn't care less.

Islam is kind of like Christianity. There are a lot of "denominations" that all see things a little differently, i.e, Sunnis, Shites. etc.

BUT.....right now we need to be focused on ISIS and calling them what they are.....radical Islamist terrorists.

That is correct, ISIS does indeed think that they represent the correct / true interpretation of Islam, and that they are compelled to establish a caliphate. I do not think that anyone here or in our government (including the President) is confused about that.

Why is it necessary to focus on us publicly calling them radical Islamist terrorists, instead of simply radical terrorists? I can think of nothing that it accomplishes, but I can easily see how focusing on the Islam part becomes detrimental in light of our goal to keep a coalition composed primarily of the region's leading Muslim countries together. Whatever brand of Islam they adhere to is irrelevant with regard to conducting coalition military operations against them. Their ideology is something that we, as the symbols of ultimate infidels, are not capable of doing anything about. The best thing that we can do in public speaking is distance them as much as possible from Islam, or avoid the subject of Islam altogether.

We can't ignore who they are. We do call them Islamic because you have to understand where their thinking is. Isis gets s lot of backing and help from Iran. Iran wants to be the big dog in the region. They intend to impose their view of Islam, which coincide with ISIS, on the middle East and around the world. They are the main instigator. If they get a nuclear missile, it is game set and match. Islam is the one religion in the world that just cannot coexist with others where Islam thrives other religions die out. Govto any muslin country and try to practice Christianity or Judaism orxsny other faith. Good luck with that. It isn't just ISIS. The rest may not want to lop off your head but that doesn't mean they aren't a threat.

Iran's view of Islam does not coincide with ISIS, they are polar opposites. Iran is not supporting ISIS, they are supporting the Shiite militias that are fighting ISIS. That makes perfect sense too, when you consider the fact that Iran is a Shiite country, and those Muslims ISIS is killing are also Shiite.

As for other religions, you do realize that Iran has the largest Jewish population of any Muslim country, and that they also have plenty of Christians as well, right? They can practice their religion "freely", and they even have constitutionally-guaranteed seats in their parliament. I say "freely" because it's not freely in the sense of religious practice here, but their rules are pretty simple: obey the law, which forbids attempting to convert Muslims. Christians get into trouble in Iran primarily because of trying to spread their faith. It is illegal, and just a bad idea in general when you are in a Muslim theocracy. I do not agree with that law, but I do respect their right to have it.