Are ISIS muslims?

1. The Quran is perfect for what it is - one half of the rope of god. I have discussed this on this thread before.

2. "…He causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path)," (Quran 2:26)

The Quran does not say that God actually misguides people. This misunderstanding was a point of contention for me before I became muslim which was one of the reasons I was not muslim at the time. The word translated as 'mislead' in the quran is 'yudhillu' which means 'to leave astray', not 'to lead astray'. All the cases where this word is used in the quran make more linguistic sense when considered in this way.

3. Absolute mercy is not lack of justice.

The islamic hell is not permanent - according to the imams, once the value of your sins is cleansed from you by the 'fire' of hell, all human beings will receive heaven.

4. In fus'ha arabic, 'clay' is used in the metaphorical sense to mean several things. One meaning is 'ground', and another is 'stuff' or matter. The 12 imams confirmed the latter interpretation before there was a need for apologists to realign their interpretations with modern scientific information.

5. The quran says that the creation of new life is begun by a process involving a mixture of fluids from the male 'sulb' of loins to the female 'tara'ib' or lower abdomen.

The quran doesn't mention sperm cells or ova, but the fluids they are contained within. If the Quran was to go into detail about the cells, or even meiosis and etc, it would become a book of science and not a guide to be taken alongside the prophets and imams, which would defeat the point.

I don't consider any of the hadiths regarding muslim soldiers having sex with captured female prisoners of war to be accurate based on my studies of their reliability.

Hisham's hadiths from even before he travelled to iraq were often full of lies - he was one of the hadith writers of the faction of Abu Huraira, who was publicly exposed for lying outright several times. Sunni scholars have not accused, and do not accuse him of lying and instead try to excuse his more flagrant lies by calling him forgetful. The shia have no reason to try and excuse him.
And no, there are some positive hadiths that are false too, like those used to argue that homosexuality and 'natural eunuchs' were readily accepted and given the right to engage in what they wanted.

The Prophets and Imams are considered to be infallible By the shi'a.

Actually, the Quran states that fitnah (disbelief/opposition) is worse than killing. (2:191)

All depends on your definition of "murder". Essentially, it means killing someone unlawfully.

So killing those that Islam permits is OK.

So it is not forbidden if the victim is guilty of "fasad" (defind as opposition to Allah and his Messenger, amongst other things).

You also forgot to mention the following verse...
"Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth to cause corruption (fasad) is none but that they be killed" - 5:33
In his authoratative classical tafsir, Ibn Kathir explains 'wage war' to include "opposition, contradiction and disbelief", and that the verse is general in nature and applies to all those guily of such crimes.

yh k whatevs

Not sure what you mean.
Is it...
"Damn, you are right", or
"Damn, you have exposed my disingenuity", or
"Damn, I don't know the Quran as well as I thought", or
"Damn, those dawahganda websites have been feeding me rubbish".

that's ur opinion and ur allowed to think whatever u want and so am i, but i don't give 2 sh*ts tbh

There are no contradictions or faults. The time I explained a so called contradiction so far has depended upon linguistic analysis, not the use of secondary historical sources. You claim the quran has faults based on translations of certain words -from secondary sources- like Ibn Kathir. You cannot justify that the primary source is contradictory via a secondary source and then claim that doing the same to prove that the quran isn't contradictory via linguistic analysis rather than secondary historical sources (not linguistic ones) is invalid.

What you mean by this is "It is perfect for the purpose that I have arbitrarily decided it is able to satisfactorily fulfil".
However, this is not the purpose that the Quran claims for itself.

There are many verses where there is no such qualification. And what about 7:179 where Allah creates many men for hell, with hearts that cannot understand.

No, it means "lead astray" or "mislead". Are you claiming that dozens of native Arabic speaking Muslims, scholars, professional translators, online translators, etc, all got it wrong? Pah! The desparation with which apologists look for a way out of the problems of the Quran can be quite funny. Just like the 5:33 "and finally, leave them" nonsense!

Anyway, even assuming your blatant attemp at equivocation, if Allah guides some people, and does not guide others, then he is still interfering with our free will and you still have exactly the same problem! This is compounded by hi "setting a seal" etc. It's bad enough that he withholds his guidance from some, but to deliberately prevent them from seeing the light and changing their minds is clear predetermination and removal of free will.

The contradiction still stands - even accepting your defence.


Didn't say it was. I was just pointing out that the Quran in wrong when it says that Allah is most merciful, because he clearly isn't. If he had spared just one person from hell or told Muhammad not to kill just one of his victims, he would have been more merciful.

The contradiction still stands.

I don't see waht this has to do with my point (other than to prove that Allah could be more merciful than he is)...but nonsense! There is nothing in the Quran that states this. Do you mean to tell me that you use the opinion of an imam to contradict the Quran?! Sounds a bit shirky to me.

Another error that many apologists seem to make is the old "It's just a metaphor" catch-all. Thing is, a metaphor has to be appropriate - especially if you are claiming that it is perfect!
Using "molded from potter's clay" as a metaphor for the human evolutionary process is completely inappropriate (although it does make sense in the context of earlier and creation myths from the region. Coincidence? You decide!)

The problem with this bit of apologetics is that it does not use what is actually written in the Quran. Rather, it relies on Bucaille's explanation of what he thought the Quran meant, assuming that it was scientifically accurate.

Why would it defeat the point? The passage in question is already in the Quran, but wrong. What is so wrong in tweaking it slightly so that it is correct.
"He was created with seed from the testes, joined in the womb with an egg, like a grain of sand, from the woman".
There ya go. Just as short, unequivocal and biologically accurate. If I can do it, why couldn't Allah?
Proof that the Quran is not perfect and contains error.

Why am I not surprised?

Basically, any hadith that shows Islam or Muhammad in bad light will simply be rejected as inaccurate "based on your studies".

Ah, so it is a sectarian issue with you.

It appears that you are not equipped to discuss mainstream matters of the Quran and Islamic doctrine as you subscribe to your own version of Islam that bears little resemblance to what is practiced by the vast majority.

Nothing wrong with that per se, but it renders and further discussion pointless .

I have some questions.

- How does the Quran describe Jesus' end here on earth?

- is it true that Allah loves not the unbelievers? (2:98, 3:32).

- is it true that the Quran describes the trinity as Father, Son and Mary?

- is it true that Muslims simultaneously reject inherited sin but accept the immaculate conception of Jesus?

- In Koran 7:125, death by crucifixion is stated to exist at the time of Moses in 1500BC. Yet Encyclopedia Britannica, in harmony with all records of history, reports that crucifixion did not exist any earlier than 500 BC. My question is: to how do you explain this seeming historical error?

- For this reason was man created alone, to teach that whoever destroys a single life, it is as if he has destroyed an entire world; and whoever preserves a single life, it is as if he has saved an entire world. --Talmud, Sanhedrin 37a

Because of this, we decreed for the Children of Israel that anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes, it shall be as if he murdered all the people. And anyone who spares a life, it shall be as if he spared the lives of all the people. --Quran, Surah 5:32

I was told by a Jewish friend that this would be a mistake. If Allah had decreed this to the people of Israel you would expect to find it in the Torah. However, it is in a Jewish cometary on Abel - the Talmud. I have always wondered Muslim response?


Posted from TSR Mobile

You've made decent points, and I'm gonna have to think about them. I didn't not quote you on purpose. I must've forgotten to press the button.

7:179 says hell is made for the men and djinn who go astray

I think the clay metaphor is correct in terms of it representing the earth, since that's the source of our bodies' material.

I didn't present an opinion. I asked you a question.

If you can't answer, that's ok. It is a common problem for religionists.

2. It was understood by some scholars that the word 'kafir' comes from the root word 'kfr' meaning 'to cover'. The word kaafir doesn't mean unbeliever but someone who knows the truth in their hearts, yet doesn't submit because of their arrogance.

Religionists? Who said I had a religion?

Dude i answered ur question, dunno what ur problem is?

I just assumed that as you were using standard Muslim apologist interpretations and arguments, that you subscribed to them. It's rather unusual to find an atheist who quotes the same disingenuous apologetics as religionists.

My mistake!

You didn't answer anything. You just said "yh k whatevs". That's not really an answer now, is it?

A lot of people look at atrocities that ISIS com mit such as massacring anyone who won't bow down to them, enslaving countless people and raping children and think "that's extreme, it's not Islam."

That's a ridiculous point of view given that they are doing exactly what Muhammad did. If anything they're the true Muslims.

A lot of people look at atrocities that ISIS commit such as massacring anyone who won't bow down to them, enslaving countless people and raping children and think "that's extreme, it's not Islam."

That's a ridiculous point of view given that they are doing exactly what Muhammad did. If anything they're the true Muslims.