Radical Islam is a cult, plain and simple

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

In addition, it seems to me that Mother Teresa was fanatical in her love of Christ and Christianity, yet what bad did the beloved woman's fanaticism lead to? Being passionate or consumed by an idea or faith does no damage if that faith is what the world and its people need, and we certainly need more of that force for good.

a reply to: OldSchoolContemporary
In the same way that Christians who invaded Iraq to shoot brown people arent Christians. Christ was against violence and in the end he chose to die rather than fight back against his killers.

Extremist muslims dont follow their own sacred texts. It explicitly prohibits killing "people of the book" meaning the bible, meaning muslims, christians, and jews. And who have been the primary victims of terrorism? Other muslims.

So they like to pick and choose scripture to justify whatever particular endeavour they happen to be on at the time, the same way dominionist christians pick and choose bible scripture to justify their killing of brown people, and the same way zionist jews use scripture from the torah and talmud to justify killing non-jews.

Violent people are violent no matter their faith or lack of faith. Religion NEVER causes violence, people do. Religion is an excuse. Like guns, guns dont choose to murder people. But people use them and they get blamed in the media.

Cult leaders are mentally ill persons who decided to have followers for a cause of some sort. Charles Manson was a cult leader along with the cool aid drinkers of death. All Cult leaders who lead the other mentally challenged people under stress. You talk to these people face to face like charles manson interviews in jail. That guy says things and does another. He just makes it sound all nice to fit whatever plan he wants accomplished, to get his way. He don't do the deed because you cain't blame him if you send someone else to do the job for him. These other Cult leaders are the same way. Now the question is, what makes a Cult a BAD Cult ? Obviously ISIS kills people, so is ISIS a bad Cult trying to help other people and unite for a cause with good intensions , or is IT out for only the good of only Few members. I would say that ISIS is just like all the other cults and only a few inner members are privy to. SO, like all other Cults are we to go in guns a blazin and get em all , just RAIN down bullets on the leaders ? Well, that don't work either because a new leader takes over after that one. SO, YEAH. GO IN GUNS A BLAZIN AND RAIN DOWN BULLETS ON THEM ALL. They have screwy thinking and teach their children predujices and to kill others. You don't unite peoples for a good cause and hide in schools and hospitals to do your battles. That is the opposite of helping people in that area. ISIS is another THUG group or groups. If the people cain't police their own peoples so that they don't become a terror group. Then it is another peoples right to go in and KICK THE TAR OUT OF THEM when provoked. Several countries have been provoked so YEAH. Gun a blazin. Rain down the bullets on ISIS and tell the gov't there to police it's citizens. AND if it cain't, then another provoked attack is in the future. Thus, this costs the U.S.A to provide arms and peoples to police it's citizens again. Next time we go in to provide any arms so that the country can police itself, we need to charge the peoples by taking control and ownership of some land as payment. Then MAYBE, they will think twice about attacking if they keep losing land to U.S.A. AND thats how it should be.

a reply to: Ridhya

Having gone to painstaking lengths to outline why radical Muslims are obeying their prophet and holy book by committing acts of terror I'm honestly surprised, quoting terminology like people of the book appears to prove you're acquainted with Islamic literature, yet you quote no surah nor an ayat, you're obviously passionate and believe what you're writing, nevertheless your message is nothing bar someone's strong assertion, that and nothing more. Where is the coherent interpretation of Islam that makes it a non-violent, non-cultish movement?

Furthermore when you write: 'It (the Qur'an) explicitly prohibits killing "people of the book"' that's just not the case, simply reading surah 9:29 disproves what you've written. Read with me: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled."

Fight those who were given the Scripture, fight until they pay the non-believer tax and feel themselves humbled. However you may be dissatisfied by my interpretation of the Islamic writings, for which we have Muslim writers who're thoroughly pleased to interpret the passages for you and I. Here's Tafsir Ibn Kathir, one of the greatest Muslim commentaries ever to be written, which goes into explaining surah 9 of the Qur'an: (I have been commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer and pay the Zakah.) This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term.'' Al-`Awfi said that Ibn `Abbas commented: "No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah was revealed. The four months, in addition to, all peace treaties conducted before Bara'ah was revealed and announced had ended by the tenth of the month of Rabi` Al-Akhir.''

Every agreement of peace abrogated, no idolater has promise of safety, the above you'll find is the Islamic state, it's al qaeda, it's boko haram, it's everything we're told Islam isn't. Returning again to Tafsir Ibn Kathir (on Qur’an 9:30)—Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated because they are idolaters and disbelievers. Allah the Exalted encourages the believers to fight the polytheists, disbelieving Jews and Christians, who uttered this terrible statement and utter lies against Allah, the Exalted. As for the Jews, they claimed that Uzayr was the son of God, Allah is free of what they attribute to Him. As for the misguidance of Christians over Isa, it is obvious.

Fighting the Jews and Christians is legislated. It is obvious, Ridhya. I hope you're open to changing your mind on the subject. Although you're totally right when you write religion is no excuse, yet it is justification to Muslim fighters everywhere, though such men shouldn't be called radicals, as they're doing exactly what the Qur'an teaches, they ought to be called complete Muslims, whereas Muslims who won't slay are incomplete (or hypocrite) Muslims. That leads into your point about Muslims murdering others supposedly professing the same faith, it's the complete believer in Islam who's killing who they'd call hypocrites and apostates of the faith. Moreover, as for the sake of clarity this deserves saying, you standing up to Islamic doctrine isn't an attack upon Muslims, you're yet rational and clear of head when challenging what appears to be an evil ideology. In football it's called playing the ball and not the man.

"Christ was against violence and in the end he chose to die rather than fight back against his killers." Which Christ The King most certainly could have done according to the biography of Matthew: "Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels." Yet he did no such thing, instead the Messiah went to the cross and an ignominious death so that you and I may be arrayed in righteousness. That my good friend is what Christianity looks like, not whatever military skirmish America may or may not be involved in. Together we've outlined both Islam and Christianity therefore, with one being centered around love, self-sacrifice and an awesome King who so loved his ungrateful subjects that he died for them. Then there's Islam, the paedophilic throwback that demands the death of ex-Muslims (Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:83:17), allows Muslim men to marry prepubescent girls (Qur'an 33:49), taxes non-Muslims (surah 9:29), and refuses you the right to play certain musical instruments (Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/451), draw pictures (Sahih al-Bukhari, no: 5609), and even wear yellow clothes! (Sahih Muslim 5173.) This is how cults operate, it's about control.

Red herrings suchlike America's war history and Christian beliefs are the excuse that just won't save Islam any more, moreover whatever apologists say regarding Islam (if they're attempting to say it's peaceful) routinely goes against the message of the Qur'an, Mohammed and every Muslim commentator that's there to be read. So who's speaking for Islam, a frothy mocha latte drinking student at Starbucks who's most in depth knowledge of Islam is gained from conversations with their equally vacuous friends, or Mohammed (the self-confessed terrorist) who said: "....I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy)...."? (Bukhari: 4 Volume 52 Hadith 220.)

a reply to: Ridhya

Not that I'm calling you a frothy mocha latte drinking student!

After reading everything that's been written you've neither challenged nor corrected anything I've posted, which can only lead me to believe it's accurate, fair?

Think further how Muslims are expected to slay and be slain, they're expected to fight and behave suchlike killers. (Qur'an 9:111.) Having also left Mohammed's deathbed command untouched I'm curious to ask, how do you assume Muslims have historically waxed in number and driven the hated Jews away? Surely not through heated debate. It was by the sword, and in total obedience to Mohammed's hateful words.

i recall watching a video on Sharia in America and in the video they sent undercover muslims into 100 mosques to review literature, listen to the Imam's message, guest speakers etc. out of 100 over 80 of them where determined to pro Hamas, pro sharia, and other beliefs that where more consistent with radical islam then moderate islam.

I personally feel everyone should be able to believe in their own religion but when another's religion starts to affect me and mine that's when I have a problem.

Is there really such a thing as moderate islam? Media and politicians keep looking for this thing as some kind of modern Godwin:

''but most of islam is moderate!''

Think about it. If most of islam were radical, it wouldn't actually be radical in comparison....? Maybe I'm wrong here but this 'moderate islam' only seems to exist when we're watching.

Perhaps we shouldn't have made this distinction in the first place.

Islam in general is a cult imo. It affects everything you do in daily life, it ostracises non-believers to the point where killing them is actually a good and holy deed, apostates must be slain, the indoctrination is VERY strong from an early age, it has this semi-worship of a leader figure and this extreme denial of anything undesirable in this person and this very strong tendency to ascribe all desirable character and even physical traits to him. Even christians don't say half a sentence every time they mention Jesus' name! (referring to the 'pbuh')

Criticising islam or Muhammad is a sin and for members of this religion even lethal. It has very rigid beliefs that aren't actually enlightening or liberating but are simply all about submission and following the strict set of rules, beliefs and rituals. Believers are scared into (sometimes almost hysterical) devotion with all these endtime and hell prophecies.

Islam is ridden with psychological and sociological methods to keep people in line. These mechanisms are, as I believe, very unhealthy and hold back the emotional, intellectual and perhaps spiritual progression of its followers. The more I know about islam and islamic cultures and countries, the more I'm starting to see that it's in fact a very well-thought of control mechanism. It has exactly these mindf#s that keeps people from critical thinking or even apostasy.

a reply to: tonycodes

But Sir.... Isn't every single religion on this marble we call Earth a cult?
Why not get rid of all religions and instead invest all the money confiscated from every religious organization. Into scientific research? Can you just picture how quickly we'll be able to get cures and progress with all that financial funding

In case any of us are still in doubt as to what sort of morality the Qur'an teaches, here's how the greatest figure of Islam treated the people of the book. As read in the earliest Muslim biography of Mohammed, written by Ibn Ishaq. Here's how authentic Muslims deal with people who've surrendered apparently.

Then [the Banu Qurayza tribe] surrendered, and the apostle [Muhammad] confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them.

Every group of any kind cant just be called a cult... these people are spreading a rhetoric that the majority of the arab community considers a perversian of the real muslim religion..and they are admitted pedophiles..(not just a few of them, ISIS as a group admitted to being pedophiles) so thats why they are a cult and thats what makes them different from other types of groups... a reply to: OneManMasquerade

a reply to: tonycodes

THE CULT STRIKES AGAIN Once you put Ideology above the law, your a cult.... A soldier or a terrorist puts the law or the state above ideology. These people are using Ideology, not LAND to grow their cult.

a reply to: tonycodes

Sorry Howard Dean, We Are WAAYYY ahead of ya here on ATS. But we are happy to see the TPTB are coming around to the mislabeling here that helps empower these power hungry groups.

nation.foxnews.com...

So I have some more specifics on my thread here. Basically I still feel there needs to be more of a description here, we can't just call them a cult, it should be a specific type of cult. So here's what I got.

Muslims essentially were ruling the world in the 1700's until the west started conquering their land. After some time of losing their control and power some Muslims started to believe that if they were even more strict about their religion and rejected the west, they can create a movement to get their power back. This movement is called islamism (Islam itself is not the same thing) By 1920 the Muslim brotherhood was created and this idea took root. Now fast forward to today here's what we got... this Islamist movement has grown and become valid and popular. So we essentially have a group of people who are following a movement of wanting their power and land back and the strict version of Islam has turned out to be a great galvanizing tool for new recruits.

See how fast this all has really nothing to do with religion and not much to do with Islam. The whole thing started just to try and get their old territories back and their old governing rule back.

So I present you with I think the most accurate name for these groups:

Political Cults

If they were a state or country they would be an army.. But they have only one central group.. Al Qaeda.. They don't have any formal govt or territory.