Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Are ISIS muslims? watch

  • View Poll Results: Are ISIS militants MUSLIMS?
    Yes.
    124
    42.91%
    No.
    77
    26.64%
    They are muslims. But not "true" muslims
    71
    24.57%
    Idk
    17
    5.88%

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHBKhan)
    said before, the books word is more powerful than the man's word.
    Exactly!
    And when the Quran says that it is permitted to take slaves from defeated people, use those slaves for sex, fight to establish a universal caliphate, kill those who oppose the spread of Allah's message, and deal harshly with prisoners as a warning to others - we should, as you rightly say, take what the book says, not what you say.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    1) ISIS have killed Muslims (under no circumstance is this permitted in Islam)
    You do realise that means all the soldiers fighting against them are in the same boat?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHBKhan)
    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
    Wow!

    The discussion is about whether ISIS are Muslims and their actions are sanctioned by accepted interpretation of the Quran and sunnah.

    In light of this, how are verses that seem to permit the forcable spread of Islam and killing of opponents, as well as permitting slavery, rape and the mistreatment of prisoners, not relevant to the discussion?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHBKhan)
    If there is evidence the person is Non-Muslim then you can. That is also mentioned in the Qu'ran.
    Could you quote the verse because I cannot find it. Thanks.

    (Original post by Hibzish)
    U obviously have no knowledge of what islam is about. This verse can be explained with a simple google search.
    Indeed. My search led me to Ibn Kathir's tafsir, where it is explained that after the four month period of grace, all treaties with the kuffar are null and void and they can be hunted down, ambushed and besieged (didn't you claim that the Quran only allows fighting in self defence?:confused: ). However, those whose "blood and property are yours" must be spared if they submit to Islam (didn't you say that spreading Islam by force was forbidden?:confused: ).

    I suppose your search led you to a website that claimed that verses like that only applied to a specific historical event. However, this proves that the Quran is not universal and timeless, as it claims. Also, Ibn Kathir explains that 5:33 in particular (those who oppose Islam may be killed) is general in application and applies to all those who commit fasad or fitnah.


    (Original post by SHBKhan)
    Probably the 69th time now. Search 'ISIS are Khwarij/ ISIS Khwarij' it will give you an idea.
    I am familiar with the hadith in question, but that:
    1. Does not address the question of falsely calling takfir, and
    2. Is not in the Quran, as you claim. Have you actually read it with an authoratative tafsir, or merely visited some apologist websites?

    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)

    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.
    ISIS is not the only form of Islam that 'accepts the entire quran and sunnah'. I'm not sure if you're aware that the muslim hadiths are not like the bible. We don't accept them as gospel - every hadith is ranked according to its reliability, and every scholar ranks each hadith differently. I have studied hadiths for four years. Telling me that 'authentic islam involves accepting the whole sunnah' is obvious to me, but if you're telling me that I need to accept every single hadith that's out there, you end up with a nonsensical and inconsistent historical narrative. Was asha 6, 7 or 19 when she married muhammad? Were banu qurayza totally enslaved or totally massacred, or were only the rebellious faction punished? With questions like these it's impossible for all of the answers to be correct at once.

    Tafsir is based upon hadiths the writer considers authentic. When the majority of those sources are inauthentic, the tafsir becomes worthless, as is the case with most parts of all tafsir.

    Different muslims hold different historical opinions, and so believe in different seerahs, and therefore different sunnahs. Different sunnahs produces different tafsirs, an so alternate understandings of the quran.

    You're speaking to a shia when you're talking to me - what is held within tafsir al kathir based upon the various hadiths forged during the ummayid dynasty doesn't mean much to me apart from explaining what sunnis believe, i.e. what I have to attempt to coexist with.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)

    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.
    I would totally agree that the Muhammad of the sunni historical narrative would identify and recognise the Islam of ISIS more than any other. The Muhammad I have seen through my own studies would not recognise westernised, uneducated islam or the Bakrist trash that ISIS follow.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlwaysWatching)
    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
    But I know all that, we both seem to agree that he wasn't a Christian and I still don't know where is it that you wished to correct me, in your words.

    However, i don't want to look touchy about it so let's just move on.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes everything what is wrong with Islam. I think it could be a false flag op though
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    They not muslims. They use the name Allah (meaning god) before they do something. Using the name god in arbic doesn't mean you're a muslim. For example a man could be walking around in the name of Jesus and commiting sin(God forbid) ISIS are giving muslims bad names. The religion Islam teaches to care for one another but unfortunatley the whole idea of caring for each other has been destroyed in the world of these ISIS men.Islam is a religion of peace. In every religion there are men and women that are giving the religion a bad name. Its the world we live in today. All i would like to say is no matter what religion you are from do the best you possibly could on a daily basis. Even if its puting a smile on anothers face. Just think that gods looking down at you and has given you an extra blessing.Putting a smile on anothers face could possibly change their day, how would you know what a stranger at the buss stop has gone through today? How do you know that someone has lost an important person today? see where im coming from? Respect people from all religions and backgrounds. We are all good people there are some that have been influenced towards the negative side of things.Just a little reminder, just to let you know if somebody hasnt told you today. You are beautiful!
    Take care and I hope you had a great day.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Dhalimuun means 'the oppressors', not 'the polytheists'. In this specific case, the polytheist leadership was indeed the oppressive party, but not in all cases.
    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 means 'social unrest' and has nothing to do with religious beliefs or practice.
    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

    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.'
    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".

    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.'
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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 learn about the quran from shia 'accepted tafsirs' and hadiths that are considerd reliable by way f convincing argument, not hadiths considered reliable just because theyre in one of the sahih sunni books.

    I don't learn from apologist websites, they irritate me. My opinions come from the actual source material.
    Ibn Qayyim's reference towards 'the scholars' means 'sunni scholars' which means little to me.


    Here you can find a list of the uses of the word dhaalimuun, where it's made clear that it doesn't refer to polytheism or disbelief.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHBKhan)
    I don't even know what's happening anymore. No one wants to learn whether ISIS is Islamic or not
    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)

    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Muhammad never made slaves from free people,
    He enslaved all the women and children of the Banu Qurayza and later traded them for weapons, rather than freeing them.

    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).
    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!

    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.
    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.

    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.
    What sources do you use?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I just looked up "Cognitive Dissonance" in the dictionary, and that is exactly what it said!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    A hadith from a compilation is not necessarily 'from' that compilation. Each hadith existed individually before the books were compiled. There are some hadiths in bukhari and muslim that I accept due to their isnaad and the circumstances surrounding the hadith as well as comparison to other hadiths of different reliabilities with similar information.
    This is a big difference between modern sunni and shia hadith use. Sunnis accept everything in their 6 books, whereas the majority (over 90%) of the hadiths contained within the shia compilations (such as al kafi, al istibsar etc) are actually openly considered false by most shia scholars. Instead, beside every hadith is a historical analysis, giving the chain of narration and points of interest about its reliability.

    According to our narratives, Banu Qurayza's rebellious faction (the actual fighters) were executed unless they professed regret for what they had done and formally apologised, so long as they hadn't killed anyone. The wives and children of these men were put under the custody of Ka'b ibn Ubaydullah rather than being enslaved, and were never traded for weapons. We attribute the hadiths which clam this to be part of Abu Bakr's recommoditisation of slaves as well as part of his false justification for the enslavement of free people.

    The shia general consensus about the reason for this rebellion was a reaction to certain verses of the quran about the jewish religion and certain theological ideas which they deemed heretical. They didn't want their city ruled by a heretical jewish cult.

    The quran is not perfect -alone-. It is only perfect as a half of the rope of god, with the other half being Muhammad's ahlulbayt, as per the farewell sermon and the hadiths of thaqalayn and ghadir. It is the fault of human beings for launching a coup detat after muhammad's death and then allying themselves to false, despotic rulers for centuries rather than following the appointed successors.

    My explanation of Aisha's age being at least 19 at the time of her marriage to muhammad is simple.

    According to Abda-Rahman ibn Abi Zanna:Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha(Siyar A’lama-nubala, Al-Zahabi, Muassasatu-risalah)

    Asma was elder to her Ayesha by 10 years.(Al-Bidayah wa-nihayah, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah).

    'Asma saw the killing of her son during that year 73 AH.
    At the time of her death, Asma was 100 years old.'
    (Al-Bidayah wa-nihayah, Dar al-fikr al-`arabi, Al-jizah); Ibn Asakir; Al sunnan Al kubra Al behaqqi.

    According to Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani:
    Asma lived a hundred years and died in 73 A.H.(Taqribu-tehzib, Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani, Bab fi-nisa, al-harfu-alif).

    According to almost all the historians; Asma, the elder sister of Ayesha, was 10 years older than Ayesha.

    Calculation and analysis:
    Asma was 10 years older than Ayesha.
    Asma died in 73 A.H at age 100 years.

    Days since the hijra (migration to medina) at Asma's death:73 x 355 (Islamic calendar) = 25915 days.

    25915/365 = 71 years (conversion to Gregorian calendar).

    Age at death in gregorian years=
    (100x355)+100 (Hijri years) =
    35600 days.
    35600/365 ≈ 98 (gregorian years)

    Year of death of Asma (AD):71

    gregorian years after migration to Medina at age 100 in hijri years (age 98 in gregorian years)

    The migration to Medina was in 622 AD.

    Therefore, 622+71= 693 AD

    Birth of Asma:693 - 98= 595 AD
    Birth of Ayesha, who is 10 years younger than Asma:
    595+10= 605 AD

    The marriage occurred after the Battle of Badr in Shawal 2AH (A’ini, vol. 8, pg. 96 - this is accepted by all historians)

    Finally, her age in gregorian years at the time of her marriage according to all infomation above:
    622+2= 624AD
    624-605= 19 years.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The term translated to prostitution here was 'al bighaa', which refers to sexual interaction mandated by ownership or contract. This encompasses rape of slaves.
    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?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I just looked up "Cognitive Dissonance" in the dictionary, and that is exactly what it said!
    Nothing is left unclear -after- the explanation of those 'vested in knowledge' referred to in 3:7 of the quran.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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?
    The Quran does not allow muslimslave owners to have non consensual sex with their slaves. that was what we were talking about in the discussion from which you actually quoted me. And yes, the example you mentioned was indeed rape, not consensual - also, the hadiths in the sunni books which refer to those false situations wherein muslim soldiers were allowed to take prisoners of war for sex slavery are fabricated.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by queen-bee)
    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.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    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.
    This is the job you hold on TSR. Why don't you try like you always do?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Islam does not call for the execution of apostates.
    There are sahih hadith that clearly contradict this. There are scholars, past and present, who support it. So on what grounds do you claim this?

    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.
    Obviously not familiar with the maxim "Do as I say, not do as I do"?

    Are you claiming that it is impossible for those dispensing law (especially in totalitarian regimes) to spare people on a whim, despite what the law states?

    It doesn't call for the execution of adulterers either.
    Not in the Quran, but it clearly does in the sunnah.
    Are you a Quranist?

    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.
    Oh, that's fine and dandy then.
    And hudd punishments can be prescribed on the strength of a "confession". I'm sure you are familiar with how reliable these are under totalitarian regimes.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.