ISIS gives out pamphlets on rules for female slaves

[Screech]

Why don't we pay $200 a month and train locals to fight ISIS? It's cheaper than dropping bombs.

$200 a month + $50 in food + an AK and bullets.

The "give the dubious locals who probably don't really want to fight, a bunch of money and weapons" strategy hasn't exactly paid off particularly well historically, and here would likely be a waste outside of the Kurds because they actually give a shit. For almost anyone else its a good way to funnel money and weapons to ISIS.

edit: and for the most part ISIS only exists where the locals don't completely disagree with their outlook on things....I mean, maybe a lot of people think they are a bit on the harsh side but not nearly enough to a point where they want to put their necks on the chopping block. So there aren't a whole lot of locals who would be willing to fight ISIS; only really shiite, kurd, and other militias that have their own areas which ISIS would have difficulty controlling anyway.

 

[Dari]

They're really not. They're a Sunni militia that has glided over areas where nobody is bothering to give them a real fight - parts of Syria and the parts of Iraq the Shiite majority don't care to die for (in other words, Sunni neighbourhoods). And now they've got the U.S. Air Force on them. We'll see how long they hold on.

There is infighting within our own coalition. Also, these animals live in that region so they will fight to the bitter end. Again, this fight has been going on for like 1400 years (sunni vs. shia) so I doubt it'll end with the US armed forces. We're only there so long as the terrorists are beheading westerners. As soon as they stop we leave. The politicians only care so long as it makes it on the news.

 

[Blue_Max]

There is infighting within our own coalition. Also, these animals live in that region so they will fight to the bitter end. Again, this fight has been going on for like 1400 years (sunni vs. shia) so I doubt it'll end with the US armed forces. We're only there so long as the terrorists are beheading westerners. As soon as they stop we leave. The politicians only care so long as it makes it on the news.

...this reminds me of the events only a few months ago. The not-muslim-enough refugees fleeing ISIL/S were all "help us help us" until they were brought aboard the cruise ship that rescued them -- then they showed their true colours and essentially took over the ship and demanded this and demanded that.
Still monsters, just being chased by even bigger monsters.

This is the only link I could find to the event so far:
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=5424f9718

 

[TheSlamma]

Wish we could hurry these guys through their version of the middle ages.

 

[werepossum]

Your mouth to G-d's ear.

 

[Omar F1]

so everything he said and read is wrong?

No, translation wise he is correct about most of what he said, but as a statements? I'd say he is wrong at them all.
What I mean is, the things are more complicated than he think it's, he really needs to study it all from all sides before throwing any accusations.
You need to know the reasons why the Quran was aggressive against non-believers at the early stages of Islam (which was the main target and cause for providing most of the verses).

Muhammad himself took a child bride (seven - although he manfully waited until she was nine to consummate their marriage) so child rape is nothing new here, nor prohibited by Muhammad's teachings.

Could you count how many of Mohamed followers had married a child back then
As you know that Quraish (the Arabs tribe that ruled Makkah region) after Mohamed had received the prophecy call and started spreading the word, they had insulted him with every possible way, they called him crazy, swindler, sorcerer, poet (even if he said none before and was illiterate), and yet, they never called him a rapist or the guy who married a child, is it possible that you guys got more personal problems with Mohamed than Quraish leaders had? I don't think so.
If it wasn't such a big deal back then (by both the followers & his worst enemies), why should we keep sketching red circles around it.
You know ,when the first time he slept with her it at 9 years old, she already had finished her first period and started to become an adult, we have no idea about her physical and mentality shape, as all the resources say that the people back then in the desert area were much more tough than we're right now.

The marriage of Aa'isha was a special case, fully accepted by her & her parents, also been accepted y the society, and turned out to be his best wife and partner along his life.
Again, if it was totally fine and acceptable thing by all parties back then, I think we could accept that case and move on

 

[werepossum]

No, translation wise he is correct about most of what he said, but as a statements? I'd say he is wrong at them all.
What I mean is, the things are more complicated than he think it's, he really needs to study it all from all sides before throwing any accusations.
You need to know the reasons why the Quran was aggressive against non-believers at the early stages of Islam (which was the main target and cause for providing most of the verses).

Could you count how many of Mohamed followers had married a child back then
As you know that Quraish (the Arabs tribe that ruled Makkah region) after Mohamed had received the prophecy call and started spreading the word, they had insulted him with every possible way, they called him crazy, swindler, sorcerer, poet (even if he said none before and was illiterate), and yet, they never called him a rapist or the guy who married a child, is it possible that you guys got more personal problems with Mohamed than Quraish leaders had? I don't think so.
If it wasn't such a big deal back then (by both the followers & his worst enemies), why should we keep sketching red circles around it.
You know ,when the first time he slept with her it at 9 years old, she already had finished her first period and started to become an adult, we have no idea about her physical and mentality shape, as all the resources say that the people back then in the desert area were much more tough than we're right now.

The marriage of Aa'isha was a special case, fully accepted by her & her parents, also been accepted y the society, and turned out to be his best wife and partner along his life.
Again, if it was totally fine and acceptable thing by all parties back then, I think we could accept that case and move on

Marrying children is okay if it's widespread? Um, okay . . . As for why it's still important, it's justification for thousands of Islamists today raping children. That makes it pretty relevant.

On the vein of marrying children, my wife's great grandmother (whom she knew as her aunt until she was an adult) married at twelve. It's all well and good to say people matured more quickly back then, especially in the harsh conditions of a coal camp, but every day when her husband left for the mine her friends would come around and they'd drag the mattresses outside, then spend the day leaping out the second floor window onto a stack of mattresses. Every day the "lucky" groom would have to drag all the mattresses back inside. Point is, people can mature early when they must, but they are still children, even at twelve.

Personally, the glowing account of Muhammad playing toy soldiers with his wife is one of the creepiest things I've ever read, even if absolutely no one had a problem with it at that time. But I'd still agree that is of no import if it weren't for people actively living by his seventh century ideals AND enforcing them on others. That makes his behavior highly relevant today.

This isn't just Islam either. The Lord's Resistance Army in Africa abides by the very worst of the Old Testament, or at least the parts they find advantageous, and Nazi Germany tried at least a veneer of Christian justification. People can be very devout in any religion and still be thoroughly evil. We just see more of it in the name of Islam because there are more (and more powerful) fanatics in Islam, and because the Middle East is more visible and more important to the rest of the world than is central Africa. As someone pointed out earlier, the veneer of civilization is thin and vulnerable, and requires constant protection lest we find slavery and child brides the standard once again.

 

[RandomWords]

Why on Earth would that humiliate you as a Muslim? You are responsible for your own behavior, not theirs. This IS an Islamist group, following mainstream Islamic beliefs. That has nothing to do with you any more than an abortion doctor murderer has to do with me. Christianity had its reformation, a long and painful process of evolving beyond outdated and yes, evil Biblical teachings. These still crop up in isolated individuals and small groups, and on a large scale in parts of Africa. The vast majority of Muslims live under a similarly reformed view of Muhammad's teachings, and while the evil lives on in a much larger percentage of Muslims, the principle is the same. You are morally responsible for your behavior and that of the groups with which you willingly associate; responsibility for everyone within the same broad faith system is too much to ask of any man.

Well said. As well as below.

 

[Omar F1]

Marrying children is okay if it's widespread? Um, okay . . . As for why it's still important, it's justification for thousands of Islamists today raping children. That makes it pretty relevant.

On the vein of marrying children, my wife's great grandmother (whom she knew as her aunt until she was an adult) married at twelve. It's all well and good to say people matured more quickly back then, especially in the harsh conditions of a coal camp, but every day when her husband left for the mine her friends would come around and they'd drag the mattresses outside, then spend the day leaping out the second floor window onto a stack of mattresses. Every day the "lucky" groom would have to drag all the mattresses back inside. Point is, people can mature early when they must, but they are still children, even at twelve.

Personally, the glowing account of Muhammad playing toy soldiers with his wife is one of the creepiest things I've ever read, even if absolutely no one had a problem with it at that time. But I'd still agree that is of no import if it weren't for people actively living by his seventh century ideals AND enforcing them on others. That makes his behavior highly relevant today.

I meant the contrary actually, what I meant is that we didn't hear it was widely spread among his followers at all (we call it sunnah - the act of the prophet), honestly I never heard about any similar marriage back then in any resource, if I'm mistaken please correct me. So saying it's a justified thing by ISIS is completely wrong thing imo.
Plus, there is a huge difference between marrying a young girl for the whole life with her & her parents absolute agreement, and between raping people in the name of captivity, even it's already been over and people almost forgot about it completely (except those devils I guess).

His wife had never regretted marrying him at that early age, never ever, actually it was her most honor to be the first and only virgin and most beloved one, why would it be called rape is something really we don't get at all

 

[davmat787]

The Western media always use "Islamic State" name, I never seen them calling it by the other name "Daa'ish" which is also a common name for them here in the Arabic world.

As a Muslim, I can think of nothing could humiliate me more than calling those mercs / criminals an Islamist group, or worse, a Sunni Islamic group, as the BBC would like to call them.

Welcome to the board. I feel like we need more Muslims here that can have level headed and civil discussions with us.

First question in regards to the bolded above. Are they not a group of Muslims, hence and Islamist group? What would you call them?

Second question, do you feel that as the atrocities of ISIS reached critical mass, that there is also a growing sentiment among moderate and/or civil Muslims to help root out the extremists from within? I could be right or wrong, but from my point of view it does not seem like the supposed %99.9% of Islam hasn't done really anything tangible from within to root out the terrorists/extremists.

Please accept my questioning in good faith, genuine curiosity and a willingness to listen and learn from your response. Thank you and happy new year to you and yours.

 

[TreVader]

They are a Sunni Islamic group. ISIS/ISIL, Jahbat al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham are all Sunni Islamic terrorist groups.

There are of course Shi'a groups like Hezbollah (who are far more professional than JAN/AQ and ISIS), but they are assisting the SAA against ISIS.

At the moment Assad is using Dagestani and Afghani Shi'a mercenaries against ISIS. He is running out of troops, and his Republican Guard is stuck in Deir Ezzor at the moment.

 

[davmat787]

They are a Sunni Islamic group. ISIS/ISIL, Jahbat al Nusra, Ahrar al Sham are all Sunni Islamic terrorist groups.

There are of course Shi'a groups like Hezbollah (who are far more professional than JAN/AQ and ISIS), but they are assisting the SAA against ISIS.

At the moment Assad is using Dagestani and Afghani Shi'a mercenaries against ISIS. He is running out of troops, and his Republican Guard is stuck in Deir Ezzor at the moment.

More support to the Peshmerga might be a start. Help them become more mobilzed and quick reactionary. Help with further intel, better arms, .etc. But whatever we do, never abandon them again and support a country of their own. Perhaps a joint NATO(US)/Kurdish military installation someday.

 

[Omar F1]

Welcome to the board. I feel like we need more Muslims here that can have level headed and civil discussions with us.

First question in regards to the bolded above. Are they not a group of Muslims, hence and Islamist group? What would you call them?

Second question, do you feel that as the atrocities of ISIS reached critical mass, that there is also a growing sentiment among moderate and/or civil Muslims to help root out the extremists from within? I could be right or wrong, but from my point of view it does not seem like the supposed %99.9% of Islam hasn't done really anything tangible from within to root out the terrorists/extremists.

Please accept my questioning in good faith, genuine curiosity and a willingness to listen and learn from your response. Thank you and happy new year to you and yours.

Thank you, been a long time reader (2002 I guess), and I whish all the Arabs could watch and learn from you guys on how to debate and argue objectively & respectfully over any disputed subject.
May 2015 be safer and happier for all the world nations.

1- I understand your point, but why not simply call them an Arabic terrorist group? in whom interest to make it sound religious and further fuel the religious hatred.
ISIS isn't an arbitrary event, we claim that it's an organized, directed and planned thing against us.
To understand that, we may ask ourselves who could benefit from all that killing and chaos: Islam? Muslims? overall Iraqi population? the Syrian opposition? no chance at all, no way in hell.
In fact, the general accusation here that ISIS and Bashar forces are one, it can't be better for them to make an enemy from within us fighting mercilessly by the name of Islam.
(A lot of reports indicate that Bashar has never fought or threatened the ISIS seriously).

2- Definitely, though you may still find a lot of people who simply don't care and only hear about ISIS as the news tell. Unfortunately, you may also find some blind ignorant people who sympathize them and would simply follow anyone who claim to oppose the US whatever his ways, identity or real intents.

3- Actually, we got very strict rules against "Al-Takfeer" or revolt against the governor, you may search and would be quite surprised about the existence of such rules.
Perhaps I should gather and summarize all Al-Hadith that falsify ISIS claims and prove their lies.

At the moment Assad is using Dagestani and Afghani Shi'a mercenaries against ISIS. He is running out of troops, and his Republican Guard is stuck in Deir Ezzor at the moment.

It's a known thing that, if it wasn't for the unlimited support from Iran, and Russia from behind it, Bashar would be gone from the first year of revolution, as the Syrian people have proved that they're very tough. Honestly we got surprised from their sustainability over the past years.

 

[zephyrprime]

I don't believe that. How can fucking children be attractive? Or even having a slave? How the fuck is that attractive? It's disgusting and I believe it'll lead to a schism within that terror organization. I mean, there are even women joining ISIS. Will they want to be slaves? And what about the young men? How many among them don't have mothers and sisters and whatnot?

I think there will be exactly zero chance that this will cause a schism. How could you think that it would? Policies like this have lots of support among commoners in the middle east.

 

[moonbogg]

Join ISIS & get a sex slave. These people know how to recruit men.

 

[werepossum]

I meant the contrary actually, what I meant is that we didn't hear it was widely spread among his followers at all (we call it sunnah - the act of the prophet), honestly I never heard about any similar marriage back then in any resource, if I'm mistaken please correct me. So saying it's a justified thing by ISIS is completely wrong thing imo.
Plus, there is a huge difference between marrying a young girl for the whole life with her & her parents absolute agreement, and between raping people in the name of captivity, even it's already been over and people almost forgot about it completely (except those devils I guess).

His wife had never regretted marrying him at that early age, never ever, actually it was her most honor to be the first and only virgin and most beloved one, why would it be called rape is something really we don't get at all

It's called rape because she is considered far too young to give consent, although unfortunately this was not a seventh century concept. Regardless of religion, the father had the right to marry off a daughter at virtually any age. Christianity did have strict rules on the age on consummation by the seventh century, but I suspect that a similarly powerful Christian could have easily gotten an indulgence or forgiveness.

Good points though, especially on the difference between rape of a child and marriage to a child. I'm not a fan of either, but certainly they are very different things.

Thank you, been a long time reader (2002 I guess), and I whish all the Arabs could watch and learn from you guys on how to debate and argue objectively & respectfully over any disputed subject.
May 2015 be safer and happier for all the world nations.

1- I understand your point, but why not simply call them an Arabic terrorist group? in whom interest to make it sound religious and further fuel the religious hatred.
ISIS isn't an arbitrary event, we claim that it's an organized, directed and planned thing against us.
To understand that, we may ask ourselves who could benefit from all that killing and chaos: Islam? Muslims? overall Iraqi population? the Syrian opposition? no chance at all, no way in hell.
In fact, the general accusation here that ISIS and Bashar forces are one, it can't be better for them to make an enemy from within us fighting mercilessly by the name of Islam.
(A lot of reports indicate that Bashar has never fought or threatened the ISIS seriously).

2- Definitely, though you may still find a lot of people who simply don't care and only hear about ISIS as the news tell. Unfortunately, you may also find some blind ignorant people who sympathize them and would simply follow anyone who claim to oppose the US whatever his ways, identity or real intents.

3- Actually, we got very strict rules against "Al-Takfeer" or revolt against the governor, you may search and would be quite surprised about the existence of such rules.
Perhaps I should gather and summarize all Al-Hadith that falsify ISIS claims and prove their lies.

It's a known thing that, if it wasn't for the unlimited support from Iran, and Russia from behind it, Bashar would be gone from the first year of revolution, as the Syrian people have proved that they're very tough. Honestly we got surprised from their sustainability over the past years.

But ISIS is based completely around radical Islam, not the Arabic racial identity. There are people from virtually every nation, race and ethnic origin fighting for them or supporting them; only a belief in radical Islam unites them. Arabs who aren't radical Islamists would feel the same shame at having them called an Arabic terrorist group as you feel at having them called an Islamic terrorist group. As to who benefits, only ISIS and those of like mind benefit. We've seem them torture and murder Shi'i and Sunni alike when it fits their ends of establishing a radical Islamic theocracy. (I don't say radical Sunni Islamic theocracy since ISIS seems to me to be too separate from mainstream Sunni religious theory to be allowed that title, in much the same way as I would describe the Lord's Resistance Army as a Christian terrorist group but not as, say, an Anglican or even Protestant Christian terrorist group.)

In any case, their behavior should have no bearing on you or on Islam as you practice it. You have no control over them; therefore you can have no stigma for their actions. Maybe it's an American thing - as a nation of proud mongrels we reject guilt by unwilling association - but this seems pretty clear to me.

Wishing a happy, safe and prosperous 2015 for you and yours.