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

Are ISIS muslims? watch

Announcements
  • 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 BaconandSauce)
    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?
    Not True Muslims™, I guess.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Not True Muslims™, I guess.
    I'm still working out what a True Muslim™ actually is

    One day perhaps but it seems the more 'Islamic' a country becomes the less 'Muslim' it becomes
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Muslims that think killing apostates is within the sharia are at a loss to explain why Muhammad didn't kill apostates during his own rule, one of whom would include his cousin Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh, who converted to christianity for instance.
    So, "totalitarian leader does not enforce punishment on wayward relative" is evidence that the law in question does not exist?

    They think that it is within sharia because there are several sahih hadith where Muhammad states that it is so.

    Your argument is like saying that, 1400 years from now, because there are records of Tory politicians indulging in tax evasion, it is proof that there were no laws against tax evasion.

    Or claiming that Stalin's official biography contains details of every person executed for crimes against the state.

    Come on!
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The Quran is perfect as what it is - Half of the rope of god, not the entire rope. Muslims do not universally claim that the Quran is enough by itself. Only Quranists claim so.
    Is there anything in the Quran that clearly states that the Quran is not sufficient to understand Allah's message, and that further texts are required? (Remember that the verse about "clear and unclear" verse states that only Allah knows the meaning of the unclear ones)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A Muslim is a person who submits their will to Allah.
    Islam is that simple.
    People can easily enter.
    People can easily leave.

    Murder is the greatest sin in Islam after shirk.
    Isis openly commit murder like it's a ritual.

    Therefore they cannot be Muslim.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ruby17)
    I and countless other Muslims, have been taught from our earliest years that our religion demanded respect and caring for others.
    This is most commendable, but it is not borne out by the Quran. There are many passages that clearly state that those who reject Islam will be dehumanised, punished and opressed, not to mention tortured for all eternity.

    The Prophet Mohammad, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “None of you has faith until you love for your neighbour what you love for yourself.”
    The thing is, when one looks at such passages (this is from the hadith, not the Quran BTW) they usually seem to be in reference to believers, not the Mushrikun.

    Among the very names of God, we hear: the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.
    If Allah is All Compassionate and All Merciful, then why does he subject the vast majority of his creation to unbearable, eternal torture for the "crime" of being born into a different religion (by his will), or for declining to accept outrageous claims without any evidence (remember that he has "set a seal on our hearts" so we cannot believe?
    This makes no sense.

    More than a thousand years before the Geneva Conventions, Muslim soldiers were ordered not to kill a child, a woman or an old person, not to destroy a tree, not to harm a priest, not to destroy a church.
    Indeed, these prohibitions are in the hadith. Yet most of these conditions are broken by Muhammad in other hadith. Islam is nothing if not contradictary. It is all about cherry-picking the passages that suit your agenda.

    These are the same values of Islam we were taught in school as children: not to destroy or desecrate a place where God is worshipped,
    Yet when Muhammad conquered Mecca, he destroyed the idols of the polytheists in the Kaaba. Hardly respecting other religions.

    ISIS is a disgusting group who promote a political agenda wrapped in a flag of extremist ideology.
    Yet that ideology is Islam, in its purest, unrevides and interpreted form. You (and I) may find it abhorrent, but there is no doubt that what they follow is a strict literalist interpretation of the Quran and sunnah, cherry-picked to support their agenda, just as you cherry-pick them to support yours.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by taeffa)
    A Muslim is a person who submits their will to Allah.
    Islam is that simple.
    People can easily enter.
    People can easily leave.

    Murder is the greatest sin in Islam after shirk.
    Isis openly commit murder like it's a ritual.

    Therefore they cannot be Muslim.
    They would argue it's not murder, that it is justified killing in the name of the Caliphate. After all, Mohammed himself massacred the Banu Qurayza. I don't see what's so different about Mohammed ordering 15 year old boys and 60 year old men of the Banu Qurayza to be executed for alleged "crimes" (while also taking their women and children into slavery), and ISIS doing the same thing to Yezidi tribes and Shi'a.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    What is the definition of 'a muslim' to you, as a non muslim? Someone who just calls themselves a muslim, or are there a few basic theological criteria?
    Someone who recites the shahadah and follows the 5 pillars and 6 principles.

    What is your definition?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    I would say 'Permitted by interpretations of the Quran and Seerah resultant from certain historical opinions.' Many of the narrations that they draw the mandate for their policies from are not considered reliable by all muslims. I've studied hadiths for 4 years and I've found dozens of hadiths which are considered reliable because some 13th century historian said that they 'found them pleasing' or similar silly reasons that would be considered laughable by any modern historian - indeed, some historians of the time felt the same.
    As I said, there is no single, definitive "Islam". To say that some Muslims are not Muslims because they do not subscribe to a particular interpretation demonstrates a lack of understanding of what constitutes "Islam".
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    A lot of things can be said to be found in the Quran which in fact are not to be, except by the treating of the Quran as if it's written in modern arabic and not fus'ha. One example would be in the whole 'wife beating verse', where the word is often wrongly translated to mean 'beating' is only used elsewhere in the Quran as a verb meaning 'to separate from'.
    On what grounds do you base this assertion? And why do you think the vast majority of native, Arabic speaking Muslim scholars translated it as "strike" rather than "separate"?

    And why do you think all the subsequent hadith explain that the "beating" should not be too severe and should avoid the face? This makes absolutely no sense if it means "to separate".
    "And finally separate from your wife, but do nor make the separation too violent and do not separate her face". Or even "separate her with a miswak"! Yeah, right!
    Remember that Muhammad and his companions were not using translations, and the hadith were written in Arabic, not English.

    The word used for "beat" or more accurately "strike" (wahadribu) is used in the same form in one other passage in the Quran, 8:12, where it is used to describe the striking of enemies in battle. The context is clear.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mercuryman)
    more people need to see this.
    I've seen it, and it is demonstrably disingenuous propaganda.

    Although I understand why they have done it, they obviously don't expect people to analyse it too closely.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Ibn Kathir was the student of Ibn Taymiyyah, who is even reviled as a 'scholar' by many sunnis, not only the shia who he despised to the point of outright lying about us.
    He is not by any means an 'authoritative' exegesis writer for muslims in general.
    You may reject Ibn Kathir as an exegete, but his tafsir is the most widely used and it is undeniable that he is amongst the most widely revered of the classical scholars. That is why I ended up using him. Because the fewest Muslims reject him.

    If your defence is "I reject the consensus", then there is little point in using it in the context of practical Islamic ideology!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not all muslims are ISIS
    but all ISIS are muslims
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ikhan94)
    They think their following the values of islam by killing and beheading innocent people but theyre pathetically wrong and thus not true muslims
    But according to accepted interpretation (like Ibn Kathir) as well as literalist interpretations of the Quran, those who oppose the unadulterated message of Allah are not "innocent".

    Muhammad himself authorised the beheading of hundreds of defenceless prisoners because they belonged to a tribe whose leaders had defied him.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alishba-rosex)
    why are you slightly prejudiced towards me?..
    I have no idea who you are! I was only responding to the content of your post.

    Could you, perhaps, respond to the points I raised rather than crying "Islamophobe!"?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    If your defence is "I reject the consensus"
    As a Shia, I suppose he must.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Faisalshamallakh)
    True, to some extent. However when we also take into consideration of other actions:

    1) ISIS have killed Muslims (under no circumstance is this permitted in Islam)
    But this ignores the concepts of takfir, apostasy, kufr and shirk. ISIS believe that anyone who opposes their literalist interpretation are not Muslims.
    I am not saying that I agree with their conclusions, merely that they are reasonable given the ambiguous and contradictary nature of scripture.

    2) ISIS have attacked places of worship such as churches and even mosques. This is forbiddon regardless of whether you're Muslim, Christian or Jewish
    Yet Muhammad himself desecrated a place of worship and destroyed the idols of other religions, sdaying that "truth had come and falsehood vanquished". ISIS merely see that as permission to destroy those religious sites that venerate gods other than Allah.

    3) ISIS have tortured and killed with the use of fire. In Islam, the use of fire in such practices are absolutely forbidden since only the lord of fire (god) is allowed to punish with fire. A specific example of this is when ISIS burned the Jordanian Sunni Muslim pilot which went viral on the internet.
    Yet Muhammad authorised the use of fire to torture Kinana al Rabi to extract the location of treasure.
    Now, I will concede that this particular example is the one least well supported by scripture, but it is still supported.
    Also, Muhammad ordered the use of fire to blind the camel thieves and murderer that he tortured to death.

    5) When 'occupying' an area during war, Muslims are not permitted to steal from and disrupt the local economy. ISIS do this by selling oil in the black markets which is actually one of their sources for money.
    But surely, onece an occupying army has annexed a territory, that land is therefore theirs, so it is not stealing to use any natural resources found therein. Otherwise, every Muslim administration outside of Medina would be guilty of stealing from the local economy, from Syria to India and Spain. Doesn't work, does it?

    and therefore cannot be remotely representitve of Islam in general.
    They are certainly representative of their interpretation of Islam.
    BTW, what is "Islam in general"? Whose interpretation fits that description. And is any Muslim who disagrees with that interpretatin a "bad Muslim"?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    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.
    Cool. So you have your own version of Islam that is somewhere between what is practiced by you avarage "Muslim in the street" in Europe or the US, and what is practiced by KSA or ISIS.

    Good for you. But how does that make any of the others "wrong" other than in your own opinion?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    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.
    Where do all these ages and dates come from? Are they from sources more reliable and authentic than Bukhari, Muslim and Dawud?

    Essentially, your argument is...
    "These several sahih hadith that give an actual age (some on the narration of Aisha herself) are wrong because if we trawl through other hadith (of lesser authenticity) we find occasional references to dates and periods of time. If we use this data, we can construct a formula which seems to show that Aisha'a age must be "x".

    That's a bit like finding a photo of someone wearing an "I am 9" badge at a birthday party and claiming that they weren't nine because a friend who knew their sister said that they met the sister when they were 12 and someone else said that they thought that their parents moved into their new house when the sister was 20, and they remember them saying that they had been there 8 years since that party, or something.
    It isn't really that convincing to someone who doesn't already have the preconception that the child was 12.

    Plus you have the Quran saying that there is an idda period for those women too young to have started menstruation, thus giving permission for sex with pre-pubescent girls.

    It really isn't that convincing to the objective observer, is it?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    The Quran does not allow muslimslave owners to have non consensual sex with their slaves.
    The Quran makes no mention of consent.
    In the historical context of 7th century female slaves, do you seriously think that the slave owners said "Do you mind? You don't have to".
    Get real!
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.