Are ISIS muslims?

1) ISIS have killed Muslims (under no circumstance is this permitted in Islam)

I don't want to convince you about that verse or the context or even advise you about it because you can think what you want. It isn't in my interest to counter that. This was about ISIS. And now eveyeones stopped talking about ISIS because I made it clear they weren't following Islam. And like every time the person I'm arguing with starts talking about other shiit
Posted from TSR Mobile

If there is evidence the person is Non-Muslim then you can. That is also mentioned in the Qu'ran.

U obviously have no knowledge of what islam is about. This verse can be explained with a simple google search.

Probably the 69th time now. Search 'ISIS are Khwarij/ ISIS Khwarij' it will give you an idea.

Being a muslim and following Islam are two different things. Someone who believes in Tawhid (monotheism) and the Prophethood of Muhammad is a muslim, but Islam encompasses more than prophethood and monotheism. If a person believes in these two things but not in the original ideology of Islam taught by the Prophets, then they are muslim, but deviant.
And that is what ISIS are.

From reading the Quran, relevant tafsir and some histories, it seems that Muhammad would recognise the Islam of ISIS more than the Islam of those living among the kuffar, adopting their ways and rejecting parts of the Quran and sunnah.

From reading the Quran, relevant tafsir and some histories, it seems that Muhammad would recognise the Islam of ISIS more than the Islam of those living among the kuffar, adopting their ways and rejecting parts of the Quran and sunnah.

In short, no, Christ was not a Christian.

Christianity formed around and after the time of Christ - Jesus himself was a Jew, even though he was baptised by John the Baptist, and not a Christian. If you disagree, try pretty much any academic text on the subject. Wikipedia is a good place to start before you get into any scholarly research. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Dhalimuun means 'the oppressors', not 'the polytheists'. In this specific case, the polytheist leadership was indeed the oppressive party, but not in all cases.

Fitnah means 'social unrest' and has nothing to do with religious beliefs or practice.

In this light, the verse is clearly saying, 'Fight those who oppressed and continue to oppress you, but those who stop fighting - stop fighting them.'

Important to note that the preceding verse (2:190) says,
'Fight in the way of god those who fight against you, but do not initiate hositilies: Indeed, god does not love the aggressors.'

The particular word used in 2:193 (l-ẓālimīna) is used many times in the Quran, and in every context, is is used to describe disbelievers and those who reject the word of Allah, not leaders of oppressive regimes.

Fitnah, in the Quranic context, has clear implications of disbelief.
"most of the scholars have explained the word Fitnah here as meaning Shirk" - Ibn Qayyim

However, another, equally legitimante interpretation based on authentic Islamic sources is "Fight those who disbelieve and reject Islam, but if they submit then stop fighting, except against the the wrongdoers".

But that verse does not say "do not initiate hostilities", it says "do not transgress the limits".

According to Ibn Kathir, this means
"Transgression (indicated by the Ayah), includes mutilating the dead, theft (from the captured goods), killing women, children and old people who do not participate in warfare, killing priests and residents of houses of worship, burning down trees and killing animals without real benefit.'' This is also the opinion of Ibn `Abbas, `Umar bin `Abdul-`Aziz, Muqatil bin Hayyan and others. Muslim recorded in his Sahih that Buraydah narrated that Allah's Messenger said
(Fight for the sake of Allah and fight those who disbelieve in Allah. Fight, but do not steal (from the captured goods), commit treachery, mutilate (the dead), or kill a child, or those who reside in houses of worship.)"

So that verse is clearly instructing Muslim soldiers to keep to the rules, not that they must wait to be attacked. The passage istelf is relating an incident where Muhammad sent out a raiding party to attack a Quraysh caravan.


I'll give you the benefit and assume that you genuinely believed what you had read on some apologist website - but if you want to understand the Quran I would suggest sticking to The Quran itself, along with accepted tafsir and associated sahih hadith.

I don't even know what's happening anymore. No one wants to learn whether ISIS is Islamic or not

Muhammad never made slaves from free people,

marrying Aisha when she was 19 contrary to the fabrications found in Bukhari and Muslim (according to evidence I can give and explain should I be asked to).

He was not a genocidal warlord, only executing those members of Banu Qurayza who were members of the faction who turned on the muslims in a military manner.

Of course, anti-islamists and salafi extremists of the wahaabi, taymmiyist, qutbist and deobandi ideologies will disagree to me based upon traditional sunni historical books and hadiths.

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.

I think most people are quite clear about it. ISIS are Islamic, but their version of Islam is a rather old-fashioned and literalist interpretation, one which is now rejected by most modern, moderate Muslims. Doesn't mean that it's not Islamic though.

You are just refusing to accept what is in the Quran and sunnah.
The thing is, as you said, it's all about the interpretation. You don't agree with their interpretation, but it is nevertheless a valid and supported one. Essentially, all you are saying is "My interpretation is the right one and anyone who disagrees in wrong and not a Muslim", which ironically, is just what ISIS are saying!

Does it never bother you how such a "perfect" text from an omniscient, omnipotent (which means that he would have forseen the problems and had the power to fix them) god, could lead to so much confusion and bloodshed?
(Don't say "the Quran is perfect but people are not" because if the Quran really was perfect, even imperfect humans would not be able to misinterpret it)

He enslaved all the women and children of the Banu Qurayza and later traded them for weapons, rather than freeing them.

Oh dear! Please give the evidence and explain. I would be interested to see if it is something new of just the same old attempts at revisionist apologetics that have been thoroughly debunked. Perhaps a new thread would be best. See you there!

What? Every male past the age of puberty? Also there is no historical consensus over what the BQ actually did to deserve being entirely wiped out or enslaved and all their property stolen. At worst, it was switching sides (which seems unlikely, given the prevailing military and political situation), but they did not actually attack the Muslim forces, that is quite clear.

What sources do you use?

The term translated to prostitution here was 'al bighaa', which refers to sexual interaction mandated by ownership or contract. This encompasses rape of slaves.

I just looked up "Cognitive Dissonance" in the dictionary, and that is exactly what it said!

Yet the Quran specifically allows Muslim captors to have sex with their slaves. Sahih hadith further explain the specific occasions that gave rise to this.

Do you disagree with the UNCHR that clearly states that a slave cannot give consent to sex? Remeber that rape doesn't have to involve phisical restraint and forced intercourse. If a man said to a woman have sex with me or I will kill your children (who are asleep in the next room), and she allows him to violate her - was that rape or consensual?

M so glad all the Muslims I know and the majority of all Muslims are not like these hayawan

I think it's safe to say that the majority of people who are aware of them, do not like them (although I can think of stronger terms than that!). However, hat does not mean that they are not Muslims. It merely means that most people disagree with them. The important thing is that most of what they are doing can be justified using the Quran and sunnah.
Try it if you like. List some things that they do that all civilised people condemn, and we'll see if there is something in scripture that can reasonably justify it.

Islam does not call for the execution of apostates.

According to several reliable sources, Muhammad didn't kill any of the three people to publicly declare apostasy during his lifetime (Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh, Ayyaash, or Hishaam) and so any hadiths saying that he said, 'Kill anyone who changes their islamic religion' are null in terms of historical reliability.

It doesn't call for the execution of adulterers either.

The punishment's meant to be flogging with a cloth whip - and besides, it's kinda hard to get convicted of adultery in islamic law unless you're doing the do in the middle of the street or something.

Then why do so many muslim majority countries kill people or leaving Islam or have some for of punishment for doing just this?

Why is it in the UK families have been know to try and kill their children for leaving Islam?