I propose we call them irhabists from now on . . .

[Aloha Hoosier]

The word "jihad" is considered a worthy and honorable thing and a sacred duty to muslims. Jihadists are doing nothing worthy, honorable or sacred. They're nothing but fanatical killers. They're terrorists. Arabic for terrorism is the word "irhab." These terrorists are irhabists and that's what we should call them. Some other words to use and avoid are listed and explained here if you're interested.

I proposed this several years ago and and a few of us used the word for a while, but I know I've slipped now and then. I'm not going to give them the dignity of being called jihadists again.

 

[Noodle]

How about douchebags? Or scum-suckers? Or better yet, just dead.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

How about douchebags? Or scum-suckers? Or better yet, just dead.

I have no objections to calling them any and every derogatory name in the book. However, I don't know that "douchebag" is quite derogatory enough - we have more than a couple douchebags that post here from time to time.

 

[hoot1]

The word "jihad" is considered a worthy and honorable thing and a sacred duty to muslims. Jihadists are doing nothing worthy, honorable or sacred. They're nothing but fanatical killers. They're terrorists. Arabic for terrorism is the word "irhab." These terrorists are irhabists and that's what we should call them. Some other words to use and avoid are listed and explained here if you're interested.

I proposed this several years ago and and a few of us used the word for a while, but I know I've slipped now and then. I'm not going to give them the dignity of being called jihadists again.

Aloha, good find.

Daesh may be another term with which we can all agree. ISIL doesn't like the term according to this piece so it may be worth considering.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Aloha, good find.

Daesh may be another term with which we can all agree. ISIL doesn't like the term according to this piece so it may be worth considering.

I saw that and I have used Daesh since I read it. The deserve zero respect for anything they do and we should do all that we can do in opposition to them - from irritating them to killing them.

 

[ryanmilli]

Aloha, good find.

Daesh may be another term with which we can all agree. ISIL doesn't like the term according to this piece so it may be worth considering.

Kerry has been using the term in his recent speeches. Obama clearly said the other day he believes he's aiding recruiting efforts when he uses the words Muslim or Islam. I'm not sure language matters as much as the left thinks it does, but I am also not worked up that Obama has made a deliberate choice to avoid using certain words. In the end, I don't think it matters much either way.

 

[Ladoga]

How about douchebags? Or scum-suckers? Or better yet, just dead.

Room temperature is a fine descriptive phrase for them.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The word "jihad" is considered a worthy and honorable thing and a sacred duty to muslims. Jihadists are doing nothing worthy, honorable or sacred. They're nothing but fanatical killers. They're terrorists. Arabic for terrorism is the word "irhab." These terrorists are irhabists and that's what we should call them. Some other words to use and avoid are listed and explained here if you're interested.

I proposed this several years ago and and a few of us used the word for a while, but I know I've slipped now and then. I'm not going to give them the dignity of being called jihadists again.

Playing the name game

Suppose the KKK went international and exported its ideology to different places to burn crosses and lynch blacks. Is there anything to be gained by denying the KKK members are American?

ISIS claims it is Islamic. It spreads its ideology with reference to the Quran, they pray like Muslims pray, and some acknowledged Islamic clerics support the ISIS cause.

Just as we as Americans have an interest in prosecuting the KKK for its crimes, Muslims have a similar interest in cleansing ISIS from its midst. Part of the way we combat the KKK is to understand our own responsibilities. Part of the way to combat ISIS is for Muslims to understand their responsibilities. Playing the name game limits that.

 

[iuwclurker]

Playing the name game

Suppose the KKK went international and exported its ideology to different places to burn crosses and lynch blacks. Is there anything to be gained by denying the KKK members are American?

ISIS claims it is Islamic. It spreads its ideology with reference to the Quran, they pray like Muslims pray, and some acknowledged Islamic clerics support the ISIS cause.

Just as we as Americans have an interest in prosecuting the KKK for its crimes, Muslims have a similar interest in cleansing ISIS from its midst. Part of the way we combat the KKK is to understand our own responsibilities. Part of the way to combat ISIS is for Muslims to understand their responsibilities. Playing the name game limits that.

How does playing the name game limit their responsibility? You make the assert but don't back it up.

Your post finally helps me understand why you don't get Obama's point, as re-iterated by me and now Aloha and hoot above. You pre-assign a link to Muslims and Isis. A priori. Once you have assigned it, it's now an assumption for all further reasoning by you.

Flawed reasoning, because it's illogical. I'm not a Muslim. What's to stop me from forming a terrorist group and advocating jihad? By your logic, I'm now Muslim, but you'd be dead wrong.

What Obama does by refusing to equate them with Islam is to unlink Muslims to Isis. That's the whole point. Now the terrorists or irhabists or Daesh are no longer Muslim. They're not any more Muslim responsibility than anyone else's. That allows all, Muslims and non-Muslims, to freely call for their downfall. No threat to Islam. No violation of any Muslim principles or teachings. Just garbage for the disposal.

 

[Ladoga]

How does playing the name game limit their responsibility? You make the assert but don't back it up.

Your post finally helps me understand why you don't get Obama's point, as re-iterated by me and now Aloha and hoot above. You pre-assign a link to Muslims and Isis. A priori. Once you have assigned it, it's now an assumption for all further reasoning by you.

Flawed reasoning, because it's illogical. I'm not a Muslim. What's to stop me from forming a terrorist group and advocating jihad? By your logic, I'm now Muslim, but you'd be dead wrong.

What Obama does by refusing to equate them with Islam is to unlink Muslims to Isis. That's the whole point. Now the terrorists or irhabists or Daesh are no longer Muslim. They're not any more Muslim responsibility than anyone else's. That allows all, Muslims and non-Muslims, to freely call for their downfall. No threat to Islam. No violation of any Muslim principles or teachings. Just garbage for the disposal.

You could form a terror group. Non-Muslims have done it across the globe from time to time. But, you could not enter into jihad. You're not a Muslim. Jihad is a specific set of acts, varying by situation, but in each act taking up the defense of the religion of Islam. It is taught in the Quran and other writings of the Prophet Muhammad. To undertake jihad you must FIRST be a Muslim. That wouldn't make you a Muslim.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How does playing the name game limit their responsibility?

I thought I made that clear

But I'll make it clearer. If ISIS is Islamic, I think the Muslim religion as a whole has a duty to act. If ISIS is just a gang, like the Crips or the Bloods, not so much. I think this is part of the point al Sisi made in his speech calling for Muslim reformation.

 

[iuwclurker]

I thought I made that clear

But I'll make it clearer. If ISIS is Islamic, I think the Muslim religion as a whole has a duty to act. If ISIS is just a gang, like the Crips or the Bloods, not so much. I think this is part of the point al Sisi made in his speech calling for Muslim reformation.

Perfect. Clearly, ISIS is just a gang, because for any Muslim to consider them Muslims, just because they claim to be, that Muslim has to condone, at least tacitly, their beheadings and other atrocities. That includes al Sisi, whether he's able to think that logically or not.

SInce they're just a gang of psychopaths, that's precisely what they should be labeled, although irhadist might be even better, judging from wha Aloha says, because after all, the goal is to preempt impressionable youths from getting waylaid into unwittingly becoming suicide bombers.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

for any Muslim to consider them Muslims, just because they claim to be, that Muslim has to condone, at least tacitly, their beheadings and other atrocities.

This seems goofy to me

I don't think the act of "condoning" is so easily imposed. Condoning for me requires much more than having a common religion. I guess this is one example where I see Islam being more peaceful than you do. I don't think acknowledging ISIS as being a virulent form of Islam results in Islam condoning their atrocities.

Your point reminds me of Noodle's shot at me in the thread about Kevin Swanson. He, and others in that thread, are much more willing to find guilt by association than I am. I think that is what you are doing with this post.

 

[iuwclurker]

This seems goofy to me

I don't think the act of "condoning" is so easily imposed. Condoning for me requires much more than having a common religion. I guess this is one example where I see Islam being more peaceful than you do. I don't think acknowledging ISIS as being a virulent form of Islam results in Islam condoning their atrocities.

Your point reminds me of Noodle's shot at me in the thread about Kevin Swanson. He, and others in that thread, are much more willing to find guilt by association than I am. I think that is what you are doing with this post.

I didn't like my choice of condoning but was in too much of a hurry to find a better choice. Let me re-state that point, by quoting from my second response to your al Sisi post, which you incidentally never responded to:

In short, there is no way to accept the psychopaths into their tent without saying psychopathic behavior is part of Islam. The quote you provided above does exactly that by categorizing the psychopathic behavior under the rubric of Islamic penal law. My immediate response, frankly, is that al Sisi is not willing to exclude the psychopaths from his tent, so he justifies there behavior, albeit disapprovingly.

This is not guilt by association. Al Sisi clearly includes ISIS into Islam, as do you. By including ISIS and classifying their atrocities as any interpretation of Islamic penal law, al Sisi is accepting it as part of the broader tent of Islam. This is no shot at you. This is a straightforward explanation of why 1) it's absurd to include ISIS under the tent of Islam, 2) recognizing ISIS as Muslim, as you prefer, empowers ISIS to recruit more irhadists rather than the opposite, and 3) even the likes of al Sisi don't understand 1) and 2) and therefore don't realize that there is a solution for handling the ideological problem of ISIS gaining adherents duped into thinking their fighting a jihad when they're just sacrificing themselves as irhadists.

Also, yes, there is every reason to claim that KKK adherents aren't American. They aren't American in any way I view America. They're coprophagic larva in my book.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I didn't like my choice of condoning but was in too much of a hurry to find a better choice. Let me re-state that point, by quoting from my second response to your al Sisi post, which you incidentally never responded to:This is not guilt by association. Al Sisi clearly includes ISIS into Islam, as do you. By including ISIS and classifying their atrocities as any interpretation of Islamic penal law, al Sisi is accepting it as part of the broader tent of Islam. This is no shot at you. This is a straightforward explanation of why 1) it's absurd to include ISIS under the tent of Islam, 2) recognizing ISIS as Muslim, as you prefer, empowers ISIS to recruit more irhadists rather than the opposite, and 3) even the likes of al Sisi don't understand 1) and 2) and therefore don't realize that there is a solution for handling the ideological problem of ISIS gaining adherents duped into thinking their fighting a jihad when they're just sacrificing themselves as irhadists.

Also, yes, there is every reason to claim that KKK adherents aren't American. They aren't American in any way I view America. They're coprophagic larva in my book.

The way I read your post

You seem to have a view of Islam that you think is correct. Okay. But I don't think Islam is all that simple. It is probably the most diverse religion on earth. It is almost like it isn't a single religion. It is also the most violent. Not all Muslims, but a significant minority of them. They do kill each other and blow up their Mosques if one or the other isn't the "right" Muslim. Compare how Saudi women are treated compared to Iranian women. And Pakistan has had woman political leaders. There are some places in Paris where non-Muslim women are not safe if they are not covered. As far as I know, it is not like that in the United States. In some countries besides the Iranian theocracy, Islam controls the civil law, on others Islam really is simply a religion. I could go on.

To suggest ISIS/ISIL is "not Islamic" is uninformed, presumptuous, arrogant, and meaningless.

 

[iuwclurker]

The way I read your post

You seem to have a view of Islam that you think is correct. Okay. But I don't think Islam is all that simple. It is probably the most diverse religion on earth. It is almost like it isn't a single religion. It is also the most violent. Not all Muslims, but a significant minority of them. They do kill each other and blow up their Mosques if one or the other isn't the "right" Muslim. Compare how Saudi women are treated compared to Iranian women. And Pakistan has had woman political leaders. There are some places in Paris where non-Muslim women are not safe if they are not covered. As far as I know, it is not like that in the United States. In some countries besides the Iranian theocracy, Islam controls the civil law, on others Islam really is simply a religion. I could go on.

To suggest ISIS/ISIL is "not Islamic" is uninformed, presumptuous, arrogant, and meaningless.

No, my view is that Islam does not advocate being "the most violent," endeavoring to "kill each other and blow up their Mosques." The other examples you gave are irrelevant because they're not on the same order as ISIS atrocities. In other words, I'm saying that James Jones was no Christian, though he duped a whole following into thinking he was. He was a psychopath and psychopaths are not Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or atheist, they're just crackpots operating according to the will of the "demons" in their heads.

To suggest ISIS is Islamic is backward-looking and ignorant of how people operate. Pragmatically speaking, there is only one conceivable way to end the proliferation of ISIS, which is now spreading all over the footprint our military has left ungoverned and beyond, and that is to disassociate them from Islam and any other possibly rational connection. ISIS leaders are dead insane, should be institutionalized, and should be advertised as such by all rational actors. The 2 billion followers of Islam will have an inherent, a priori attachment to all other followers of Islam, so the only solution is to tell them all plainly ISIS is not Islam in any way, shape or form.

I've explained this to you in several different ways. Clearly, you're not interested in scratching the soapy film enveloping your ideological still-shot of a life gone by. So be it.

 

[iuwclurker]

Here's an example of my very, very, very simple point:

"I don't see ISIS as Muslim. I see terrorists when I look at ISIS," Philistine Ayad, a Muslim feminist, told CNN. "To me, terror knows no religion. They are picking and choosing aspects of the religion and twisting and distorting them in order to justify their actions that are unjustifiable."


There is nothing "1) uninformed, 2) presumptuous, 3) arrogant, and 4) meaningless" about suggesting ISIS/ISIL is not Islamic. To the contrary. To the absolute, unadulterated contrary. Four new words, authored by Old. White. Male, to define Old. White. Male. Kettle, meet mirror.

Frankly, COH, I find you embarrassing.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Here's an example of my very, very, very simple point:

"I don't see ISIS as Muslim. I see terrorists when I look at ISIS," Philistine Ayad, a Muslim feminist, told CNN. "To me, terror knows no religion. They are picking and choosing aspects of the religion and twisting and distorting them in order to justify their actions that are unjustifiable."


There is nothing "1) uninformed, 2) presumptuous, 3) arrogant, and 4) meaningless" about suggesting ISIS/ISIL is not Islamic. To the contrary. To the absolute, unadulterated contrary. Four new words, authored by Old. White. Male, to define Old. White. Male. Kettle, meet mirror.

Frankly, COH, I find you embarrassing.

You are foolishly uninformed.

You are not alone. So are many people about this. As I said, Islam is very very diversified. Maybe you think you have it figured out but you would be fooling yourself.

Some reading for you. The Atlantic is not exactly a right wing rag, is it?

The money quote:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.​

 

[IU-Curmudgeon]

You are foolishly uninformed.

You are not alone. So are many people about this. As I said, Islam is very very diversified. Maybe you think you have it figured out but you would be fooling yourself.

Some reading for you. The Atlantic is not exactly a right wing rag, is it?

The money quote:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.​

Politically active religious fundamentalist are ruining religions and politics all over the place aren't they. Abroad and here at home as well given the evidence on the right currently.

 

[iuwclurker]

You are foolishly uninformed.

You are not alone. So are many people about this. As I said, Islam is very very diversified. Maybe you think you have it figured out but you would be fooling yourself.

Some reading for you. The Atlantic is not exactly a right wing rag, is it?

The money quote:

The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.​

For one who prides himself in judging the mis-informed

you ought to show the philosophical consistency to inform yourself about my position before judging it and then making the logical flaw of equating my stated position with me. I do exercise such consistency and I think I'm arriving at an understanding of your position.

I can now see that you and I are talking about two different things. Is that obvious to you? No? I didn't think so.

The Atlantic article focuses on ISIS' view of itself, in order to provide ISIS' "enemies" with an understanding of how to defeat it. That's fine. ISIS should be defeated. That's the short-term goal.

What the article and you are missing is the long-term goal, which is what I have been focusing on, though that hasn't precluded me from also looking at the short term, though I haven't focused on it in this discussion (this is what led you to ignorantly thinking that I'm uninformed).

The Altantic fear that calling ISIS un-Islamic--further attracting extremist-leaning potential recruits--is a short-term focus. My answer: stop taking away their passports, let them all go to ISIS. Good riddance. Herd them together and wipe them all out at once, when the time comes. Brutal, no?

The long-term view starts with what the Atlantic article wholly ignored--killing is wrong regardless of what the Koran or any other authoritative position says. Killing detrimentally affects the perpetrator long-term. Contrary to some interpretations of the Bible, the truth is that people are basically good. They become "evil" as a consequence of their own choices in life. The time-honored, but primitive solution called confession is a way of enabling the individual to stop committing wrong to prove himself right. The long-term view denounces any act of insanity as an act of insanity. The Atlantic article conclusion is based on fear, as is yours. It's the cowardly solution. The courageous solution is to speak the truth, denounce killing as psychotic and lead the world forward toward a more civilized place.

Meanwhile, yes, there is a short-term problem that needs to be addressed. The ISIS "state" has declared war on the world so of course, the world has every right, as despicable as war is, to take up arms against this aggressor and restore peace. The article appears to provide some useful pointers along those lines.

 

[mjvcaj]

Interesting graphic

 

[Buzz123a]

The word "jihad" is considered a worthy and honorable thing and a sacred duty to muslims. Jihadists are doing nothing worthy, honorable or sacred. They're nothing but fanatical killers. They're terrorists. Arabic for terrorism is the word "irhab." These terrorists are irhabists and that's what we should call them. Some other words to use and avoid are listed and explained here if you're interested.

I proposed this several years ago and and a few of us used the word for a while, but I know I've slipped now and then. I'm not going to give them the dignity of being called jihadists again.

I propose that what we call them doesn't really matter very much; what we do about them does.