Are ISIS muslims?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by i<3milkshake
Why is it that certain groups on here always resort to petty name calling without any evidence to support their claim whatsoever?
Honestly, read through here and some people post arguments and points of view that are justified. They don't need to engage in personal attacks since they have a point and are confident in that. Any jibes are alongside such evidence in any case.
Other people just seem to trot out insult after insult but never get to a point. The only conclusion to come to is that they are simply wrong but can't take it so get enraged.
The people lacking mental capacity are the ones spouting the pathetic insults that ironically apply more to them than anyone else. Other examples from a thread just yesterday;
The full thread is here from just yesterday-
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3714907&x=16&y=9
this is far from the only person and there are plenty more examples in there alone. It follows the same pattern;
1) Have no point whatsoever to make
2) Get angry that other people do
3) Get even more angry when you realise that they are right and you can't counter it
4) Proceed to have an epic meltdown and start insulting people left right and center. At no point will an actual response to the points actually emerge, let alone a semi-credible or articulate one.
Honestly, read through here and some people post arguments and points of view that are justified. They don't need to engage in personal attacks since they have a point and are confident in that. Any jibes are alongside such evidence in any case.
Other people just seem to trot out insult after insult but never get to a point. The only conclusion to come to is that they are simply wrong but can't take it so get enraged.
The people lacking mental capacity are the ones spouting the pathetic insults that ironically apply more to them than anyone else. Other examples from a thread just yesterday;
The full thread is here from just yesterday-
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3714907&x=16&y=9
this is far from the only person and there are plenty more examples in there alone. It follows the same pattern;
1) Have no point whatsoever to make
2) Get angry that other people do
3) Get even more angry when you realise that they are right and you can't counter it
4) Proceed to have an epic meltdown and start insulting people left right and center. At no point will an actual response to the points actually emerge, let alone a semi-credible or articulate one.
What, you mean like you've done numerous times? Here's just one example...
Original post by i<3milkshake
I mean you are a near thirty year old man on a student forum and after over 40,000 posts here you are, still bringing in the lols
No coherent argument formed? If you could rub two brain cells together maybe you could see it right on the first page.
Thirty years old on here;http://www.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7c8862c37e7a2ad892de465cda5c8d1c3f81117090d20b9d4ec905adcdb41897.jpg.
No coherent argument formed? If you could rub two brain cells together maybe you could see it right on the first page.
Thirty years old on here;http://www.quickmeme.com/img/7c/7c8862c37e7a2ad892de465cda5c8d1c3f81117090d20b9d4ec905adcdb41897.jpg.
What a complete mug you are
Original post by Hasan_Ahmed
No, it doesn't.
(3:7)It is He who has sent down to you, the book - in it are verses clear - they are the foundation of the Book- and others unspecific.
(3:7)It is He who has sent down to you, the book - in it are verses clear - they are the foundation of the Book- and others unspecific.
and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything (16:89).
So, does the Koran clearly explain everything, or are some things left deliberately unclear? Hands up those who say the Koran contains no contradictions.
Original post by SHBKhan
I just said I am not making these rules. God brought the Qu'ran to Muhammad as a revelation. So is the Qu'ran not the word of God and therefore the Qu'ran is what God knows and if it takes them out of Islam?
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
The concept of God was abandoned long ago. To the normal minded people we all know you are Muslims whether in ISIS or not because the words of some man in the 6th century do not constitute to anything seeing as he is dead. If you preach Islam, practice Islam, read the Quran, Go to Mosque, have it put on your passports/certificates, quote Islam, give yourself an Islamic name and declare yourself fighters of Islam, you are a Muslim. All ISIS affiliates fit this description.
Original post by Onde
It doesn't matter if the slaves weren't free when Muhammad encounter them, he still endorsed slavery. In the case of Banu Qurayza, he attacked a peaceful tribe, and had the women and children enslave. The qur'an also encourages the rape of slaves .
He condoned rape, and he was sexually stimulated by the body of a nine (or even a six) year old girl. He raped someone who was too young to give informed consent. It was only many centuries later that some Muslims felt queasy about the rape of Aisha, and started challenging the relevant verses.
The book he had written ordered that Muslims go out of their way to slaughter everybody who was not Muslim, until there are only Muslims left. It is difficult to get more genocidal than that. However, the qur'an manages to do this, by saying that unbelievers are to be given eternal torment in this life and the next.
Muslims for many centuries acquiesced with those verses (as they did with the appalling verses of the qur'an itself). Indeed, even today, there are tens of millions of Muslims who refuse to speak out against the atrocities of Muhammad and his followers, and of the qur'an.
He condoned rape, and he was sexually stimulated by the body of a nine (or even a six) year old girl. He raped someone who was too young to give informed consent. It was only many centuries later that some Muslims felt queasy about the rape of Aisha, and started challenging the relevant verses.
The book he had written ordered that Muslims go out of their way to slaughter everybody who was not Muslim, until there are only Muslims left. It is difficult to get more genocidal than that. However, the qur'an manages to do this, by saying that unbelievers are to be given eternal torment in this life and the next.
Muslims for many centuries acquiesced with those verses (as they did with the appalling verses of the qur'an itself). Indeed, even today, there are tens of millions of Muslims who refuse to speak out against the atrocities of Muhammad and his followers, and of the qur'an.
Muhammad did not 'attack a peaceful tribe'. Banu Qurayza were a medinan tribe that had already agreed to accept Muhammad as their leader and mediator. However, there came a point where a faction of them decided that they no longer wished to be ruled by a leader they considered to be heretical, and so they rose up in rebellion. The wives and children of the dead rebels were placed into the care of Ubaydullah ibn Ka'b, an ex rabbi, not enslaved.
The Quran does not encourage the rape of slaves. You may be referring to the verse 'Lawful to you are married women except those who your right hands possess.' This must be understood in the context of the following verse:
Qur'an 24:33
Let those who find not the means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you.
But do not force your slaves to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),'
It was only allowed to have sex with female slaves when they consented, as is clear from the above verse.
Towards your statements about Aisha: There are no 'relevant verses' to the taking of sexual stimulation from a child, much less was it specifically mentioned in regards to Muhammad and Aisha. You may be thinking of a sunni hadith or two. It is impossible for Aisha to have been 6 or 7 at the time of her marriage for historical reasons.
Original post by SHBKhan
The main reason ISIS are not Islamic is because they are considered Khwarij. Research that word. It will tell you a lot about them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
How pathetic, so Muslims invent a term from a false God, that means nothing to the normal people. ISIS is Muslim and you can be sure we all will make sure people know it. Your lies have little grasp on the world
Original post by Good bloke
and We have revealed the Book to you explaining clearly everything (16:89).
So, does the Koran clearly explain everything, or are some things left deliberately unclear? Hands up those who say the Koran contains no contradictions.
So, does the Koran clearly explain everything, or are some things left deliberately unclear? Hands up those who say the Koran contains no contradictions.
Nothing is left unclear - but there are verses that are initially vague before explanation is given. We were given the Prophets and Imams that they might inform us of the correct meanings of these verses.
Original post by Hasan_Ahmed
Muhammad did not 'attack a peaceful tribe'. Banu Qurayza were a medinan tribe that had already agreed to accept Muhammad as their leader and mediator. However, there came a point where a faction of them decided that they no longer wished to be ruled by a leader they considered to be heretical, and so they rose up in rebellion. The wives and children of the dead rebels were placed into the care of Ubaydullah ibn Ka'b, an ex rabbi, not enslaved.
The Quran does not encourage the rape of slaves. You may be referring to the verse 'Lawful to you are married women except those who your right hands possess.' This must be understood in the context of the following verse:
Qur'an 24:33
Let those who find not the means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you.
But do not force your slaves to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),'
It was only allowed to have sex with female slaves when they consented, as is clear from the above verse.
The Quran does not encourage the rape of slaves. You may be referring to the verse 'Lawful to you are married women except those who your right hands possess.' This must be understood in the context of the following verse:
Qur'an 24:33
Let those who find not the means for marriage keep themselves chaste, until Allah gives them means out of His grace. And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if ye know any good in them: yea, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you.
But do not force your slaves to prostitution when they desire chastity, in order that ye may make a gain in the goods of this life. But if anyone compels them, yet, after such compulsion, is Allah, Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful (to them),'
It was only allowed to have sex with female slaves when they consented, as is clear from the above verse.
You do understand the difference between forced prostitution and rape, don't you? That verse forbids only the former, not the latter.
Original post by Hasan_Ahmed
Nothing is left unclear - but there are verses that are initially vague before explanation is given. We were given the Prophets and Imams that they might inform us of the correct meanings of these verses.
Ah! So the Koran is perfectly clear, needing no interpretation. The Koran specifically says elsewhere that Mohammed's only role is to be the messenger, and that he may not add to the message.
Original post by Gears265
How pathetic, so Muslims invent a term from a false God, that means nothing to the normal people. ISIS is Muslim and you can be sure we all will make sure people know it. Your lies have little grasp on the world
ISIS are not khawarij. The defining belief of the khawarij was that they didn't believe in caliphate. The modern descendants of the historical khawarij are a sect called the Ibadis, found in modern Oman. Besides, the khawarij were not non muslims, and neither are the ibadis.
Anyone who believes in the shahadah is a muslim, and anyone who says that they believe in it cannot be told by a muslim that they are not a muslim.
Original post by Good bloke
Ah! So the Koran is perfectly clear, needing no interpretation. The Koran specifically says elsewhere that Mohammed's only role is to be the messenger, and that he may not add to the message.
'Adding' and 'explaining' are two different things. Muhammad was not allowed to 'add' to the quran, and would instead explain outside of it. Adding to the quran would be making verses longer to add his own explanations. When the quran says Muhammad's role is a messenger, it does so in the context of forced conversion vs willing conversion.
The quran does need interpretation, but only from the valid sources. Of course, what those are is debated, especially between sunnis and shias.
Original post by Good bloke
You do understand the difference between forced prostitution and rape, don't you? That verse forbids only the former, not the latter.
The term translated to prostitution here was 'al bighaa', which refers to sexual interaction mandated by ownership or contract. This encompasses rape of slaves.
! This country would be better without these muzzas coming over here burning our hobnobs.Original post by SHBKhan
The main reason ISIS are not Islamic is because they are considered Khwarij. Research that word. It will tell you a lot about them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Who considers them khawarij? A few sunni scholars?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khawarij
http://www.al-islam.org/polarization-around-character-ali-ibn-abi-talib-ayatullah-murtadha-mutahhari/how-khawarij-came
Can you give us a definition of the word kharijite/khawarij?
Original post by Hasan_Ahmed
When the quran says Muhammad's role is a messenger, it does so in the context of forced conversion vs willing conversion.
.
.
The context is that God's word must be obeyed, even though it is given via a messenger and not directly by God, to avoid giving the people the excuse they are already obeying God's words). The point is that it clearly states that Mohammed only passes on the message and is not responsible for it; God is. It is not for Mohammed to interpose himself between God and the people other than to pass on the message verbatim (because the Koran's words are clear and perfect already).
Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? (6:114)
Original post by Hasan_Ahmed
This encompasses rape of slaves.
Clearly it doesn't, as rape does not arise from any contract or ownership. Rape is rape - forced intercourse, regardless of the woman's desires or duties.
Original post by SHBKhan
The main reason ISIS are not Islamic is because they are considered Khwarij. Research that word. It will tell you a lot about them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Those who follow Islam are Muslims. You may not agree with them, but they are Muslim.
If not, why are they trying to establish an Islamic State? A Caliphate with a Muslim head?
It is a rhetorical question-they are Muslim. They may not have the same beliefs or interpretations as other Muslims but they definitely are Muslim. The clue is kind of in their name (Islamic State), where they say they get their beliefs from (a literal interpretation of the Koran) and what they wish to establish (Islam throughout the world, with the head of this Islamic State a Muslim who follows the Koran to the letter).
Original post by Good bloke
The context is that God's word must be obeyed, even though it is given via a messenger and not directly by God, to avoid giving the people the excuse they are already obeying God's words). The point is that it clearly states that Mohammed only passes on the message and is not responsible for it; God is. It is not for Mohammed to interpose himself between God and the people other than to pass on the message verbatim (because the Koran's words are clear and perfect already).
Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? (6:114)
Shall I seek other than God as a source of law, when He has revealed to you this book fully detailed? (6:114)
6:114
' "Then is it other than Allah I should seek as judge while it is He who has revealed to you the Book explained in detail?" And those to whom We previously gave the Scripture know that it is sent down from your Lord in truth, so never be among the doubters.'
This verse doesn't tell people who don't believe in Islam or the quran to follow islamic law.
Original post by alishba-rosex
I'm a Muslim teen girl, I'm not highly religious but the first of many things mentioned in the Quran is never to kill or hurt anyone - Isis go against this, I don't even know what 'religion' they claim 2 be following - they're non Muslims (kafirs) immediately because they've gone against God& peace and in any religion, it's always mentioned that you should never kill.
Totally agree
Original post by Good bloke
Clearly it doesn't, as rape does not arise from any contract or ownership. Rape is rape - forced intercourse, regardless of the woman's desires or duties.
Yes, it does. Sexual intercourse within a marriage or slavery becomes rape if the woman doesn't consent to it, just as it would if neither were in place.
Original post by FluffyCherry
Totally agree
You may agree that the Koran says not to murder people. However, I said earlier on this thread;
Original post by i<3milkshake
I never got this about the Koran. I mean yeah, sure, it says don't murder, but then it talks about beheading the non believers, stoning other people, etc etc.
The only logic I came come to is that either the Koran is altered by man (no god would contradict themselves so blatantly) or completely false. Or of course the non-believers are seen as less than animals, as "kuffars".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-34574330
I mean the bible contradicts itself which is why no one takes it completely seriously. Critical thinking and intelligence has taught them that if something is contradictory it is not sensible or even possible to follow.
The only logic I came come to is that either the Koran is altered by man (no god would contradict themselves so blatantly) or completely false. Or of course the non-believers are seen as less than animals, as "kuffars".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-34574330
I mean the bible contradicts itself which is why no one takes it completely seriously. Critical thinking and intelligence has taught them that if something is contradictory it is not sensible or even possible to follow.
Genuinely, please explain to me how the Koran can say not to murder people yet also talk about stoning adulterers and beheading non-believers?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- I am a shia muslim . AMA
- Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Is it Haram to do this?
- Is sandhu a muslim name?
- Queer Muslim female
- Muslim Girl and non Muslim guy.
- Hull Uni Medicine
- URGENT: single sex accom near Queen Mary
- KS plot
- Muslim Girls @ Uni of Leeds 2023
- Muslims advice
- i took off my hijab, family is crazy
- Muslim Prayer Room at Cambridge University
- .
- birmingham city uni undergraduate 2023
- Muslim lesbian here
- Muslim Girl but I want to be a (animal) Vet
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
