Sadly, they believe themselves followers the "True Islam" whatever that is - a piece of warped **** which has now and never anything to do with true humanity, but I agree, they are unlike any of the Muslims I know either.
If IS believe they are doing what their god demands, then I will suggest they have picked the wrong god. We have a similar one in Christianity....called Satan. I think it is important for Muslims who don't agree with this version of their religion to make themselves seen. I know that takes courage, but don't they believe enough in their faith to want it to be untainted by association.
Trouble is, it's hard for them to do so, as in reality IS are following precisely what is in the Qu'ran, and to deny it is to question the purity of the book - which is a big no-no (to put it mildly) in Islam.
One of the big problems with the Koran is that it states itself to be the final word of god. That means there is no doubting it whatsoever as anything said afterwards, any interpretation, is not god's word. So it's taken literally. However, its early written versions vary quite widely. Add to that the fact that in Arabic, vowels are often omitted, so the same texts can be read to have differing meanings. The interpretations can be endless and frankly pointless but they allow people to justify pretty much anything. Throw into the mix that doubting the text is a capital crime and you're in a world that's incomprehensible to rational thought and self-servingly unassailable. Then again, when was any religion anything but a force for confusion, disruption and misunderstanding? Vin
I make a point to avoid anyone who claims to know anything with absolute certainty. You can apply that rule to religion, politics, science or football. It's all about opinions, and enlightened individuals (and cultures) make a point of respecting those of others. There is, in effect, never a last word on anything. Those who claim there is have just stopped listening
There are quite a few people on this forum with strongly held opinions. But I bet they'd all admit to having been wrong once or twice. Well, once anyway.
A man in Bradford has been attacked because his family switched to Christianity. The men involved must view their religion as very weak if it cannot tolerate someone switching religions. This sort of behaviour occurred and belongs in the past.
Just went on my BT account and casually looked at my personal details....I was apparently born in 1898 I'm going for a lie down.
Again, I'm not sure it does! "Rebellious Scots" were, due to the Scottish Stuarts(1603) and the decision of the Scottish parliament (1707), subjects of the British Royalty when that dirge was written. They weren't defeated subjects of an imperial occupation. As for "foeman trampling the land underfoot", they needn't have been tyrants. Foreigners is what they were (in other words, us). There have always been, and always will be, plenty of tyrants exercising authority over their own people. The gist of both anthems is that of foreign invasion and keeping the country "pure" to the point of La Marseillaise imploring "Let impure blood water our furrows!" Ours is rather restrained.
You're entitled to that opinion, of course. Recent developments in Quantum mechanics might challenge it's absolute veracity though.
