Wheeee posted:

It's not Islamophobia if they're really out to get you.

Mr Hootington posted:

It is their right to say this horrible poo poo, but it is also everyone's right and duty to call them out on the racist, hate speech. Nobody does that second part except on the internet or to their cat.

Morroque posted:

I suppose this is the best place as ever to ask what might be a deceptively stupid question: why exactly is it that ISIS is so hated in the first place? Like, the actual reason as far as political motivations go? So much of what I am hearing about how terrible ISIS is supposed to be is coming from people with no actual link to the region and don't have much to go off of aside from Islamophobia. It's just taken for granted that ISIS is so bad and so terrible, but I feel like I must've missed the reason why, especially when ISIS is compared to other groups like Boko Haram or even Assad.

I can't shake it... Is the reason that the only real reason the West got publicly involved with ISIS, in the sense that everyone in the media continues to talk about ISIS, is because they released those propaganda videos featuring the executions that one time. The ones gorn ones reportedly posted to people's Facebook walls or something. That creeping feeling that this might be the first action of geopolitical consequence that happened all because of some Internet trolling. ... am I wrong?

Morroque posted:

In some ways I was hoping I was wrong, but in another way I'm still not entirely convinced. It feels like there is this odd disconnect between what a real group on the ground in Syria and Iraq are doing, versus how figures in the western media are all talking about and promoting involvement in the war. I must have heard seen/heard the word "ISIS" more times than I would've liked in the last few months, but this is the first I've ever heard about the Yazidi.

I worry that I'm just imagining this, but of so much regarding what I hear about ISIS, I can't tell what is actual information versus what might just be veiled islamophobia or propaganda serving another purpose entirely.

ISIS posted:

The right hand’s possession (mulk al-yamīn) are
the female captives who were separated from
their husbands by enslavement. They became
lawful for the one who ends up possessing them
even without pronouncement of divorce by their
harbī husbands.

...

Indeed, from the slave-girls are those that after
saby turned into hard-working, diligent seekers
of knowledge after she found in Islam what
she couldn’t find in kufr, despite the slogans of
“freedom” and “equality.” Indeed it is our pure
Islam, which upraises every lowly-one and puts an
end to every deficiency.

...

Are slave-girls whom we took by Allah’s command
better, or prostitutes – an evil you do not denounce
– who are grabbed by quasi men in the lands of kufr
where you live? A prostitute in your lands comes
and goes, openly committing sin. She lives by
selling her honor, within the sight and hearing of
the deviant scholars from whom we don’t hear even
a faint sound. As for the slave-girl that was taken by
the swords of men following the cheerful warrior (Muhammad – sallallāhu ‘alayhi
wa sallam), then her enslavement
is in opposition to human rights
and copulation with her is rape?!
What is wrong with you? How do
you make such a judgment? What
is your religion? What is your law?

Helsing posted:

shrike82 posted:

Wait, we're taking Daesh as a spokesperson for what islam constitutes? I think some people would take issue with that.

shrike82 posted:

That doesn't make any sense. Daesh practices sexual slavery which is endemic in many parts of the muslim world.
By your reasoning, this means that it's a "mainstream" islamic view?

Main Paineframe posted:

which rejects the idea of the Trinity and (depending on the particular Unitarian sect) sometimes the divinity of Jesus.

Ddraig posted:

He shits in the stockings of every Unitarian at Christmas.

Ddraig posted:

Santa was real.

He also punched Arius at the Council of Nicea because he was poo poo-talking the Trinity.

SedanChair posted:

I think NPR goes with "the group calling itself the Islamic State" sometimes, so you can be sure that's the pentagon backchannel-approved formulation.

e: also, cute backhanded refusals to call a group by its name have more punch when you actually stand a chance of defeating them.