Friday, October 23, 2015

Of Course This Has Nothing To Do With Islam

ISIS threaten to kill Jews across the world in disturbing new video

The clip - posted on YouTube - shows a masked militant making threats following recent attacks against Jewish people in Jerusalem
There's no Islam in "Islamic State", right?

10 comments:

John Rhue said...

There about as much Islam in Daesh as there is Christianity in The Lord's Resistance Army.

None.

Dragon fang said...

Based on scholarly consensus +1400 years ago, Kharijites ideology is not Islamic. Isis is also evidently delusional and ignorant as they don't even know the definition of a Caliphate.

Phoenix said...

ISIS is as much inspired by Islam as FARC is inspired by Materialism.

Or

Islam is a prerequisite for Isis just as Atheism is a prerequisite for FARC

John Rhue said...

Islamic teaching specifically forbids honor killing, forbids any worldly punishment for apostasy or blasphemy, and forbids terrorism. Islam allows legitimate self defense, it prohibits the killing of non-combatants, even in times of war or conflict. Aggression is never permitted.

“And fight in the cause of God those who fight against you, and do not commit aggression. Indeed God does not love those who are aggressors,” (The Quran, 2:190).

Daesh are criminals. They have no knowledge of the religion they pretend to believe in. They are like the atheist who posts out of context Bible quotes. Like the internet atheist they are pretend scholars with no understanding.

Stan said...

"Daesh are criminals."

And yet they emulate the Prophet.

Phoenix said...

@John

In that case Muhammad was a terrible muslim because he ordered the killing of apostates

Bukhari 4:52:260 Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.'"

Of course, this is in accordance with the quranic mandate:

Quran 4:89 They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

In any case, the evidence from the hadith shows that the peaceful prophet always fought offensive battles and engaged in dozens of raids as opposed to defensive wars against the pagan Quraish and jewish tribes.
Your so-called peaceful ayat is abrogated by surah at-taubah,the last medinan surah and ultimate precedent of universal Islamic terror.

Feel free to disprove me at any point.

John Rhue said...

I'm sorry I had to laugh. I get this same things from other internet atheists on the street. (Yes, I call them internet atheists in person too. They look up verses on their phones and have no understanding of context, or even what a hadith is)

You want me to disprove you? I feel you can do it yourself. All it takes is an honest reading and a little understanding.

The Quran says, there is no compulsion in religion and if you differ from your brother God will judge between the two who was right. Which text do you think takes precedence in Islam? A hadith or the Quran?

Secondly, when an internet atheist quotes Quran 4:89 you can be sure they have not read the next verse and they have no idea of context. Reading it will help you with the context (not provide the entire context but will help).

Now after reading it can you see more clearly? Self-defense. In the next verse you see that God will not let you fight them if they leave and stop attacking you. Read the two verses together and you see that if any people offered peace, they were not to be fought against.

I hope this brings you more understand.
~John

Dragon fang said...

@Stan
Can you quote Ulama (licensed scholars) in support of your statement?


@Pheonix
Can you list your objections to apostasy?

Islam, unlike Christianity, has no compulsion, and killing an apostate isn't because he is a disbeliever, but because he declares hostility to Muslims when being a citizen demands accepting and following the laws and constitution, thus he would be a traitor to the legal order the majority of the population accepts, and high treason demands the highest punishment; if someone leaving his whole religion can be officially acknowledge, someone who partially leaves his religion and says "I am a Muslim and I don't care about what the Quran and Hadith says; alcohol and adultery are acceptable" must be officially acknowledged as well. An apostate who doesn't declare his apostasy or demand changing the social order doesn't get killed. If you bother reading from scholars you'd learn that apostasy is a social issue rather than a religious one, in which it can be refereed to the leader of the state and the state's benefits.


Can you be clear on what "they" refer to in verse 4:89, and tell us what the following verse says?

The Battle of Trench was a siege and thus evidently defensive. Many (most if I remember correctly) of the raids were a counter to a group who made their intention to attack Muslims clear.
The last Medinan Sura was An-Nasr. Most scholars happen to disagree with your claim of abrogation. I am confused by what you mean by "universal Islamic terror", can you elaborate?
Your so-called peaceful ayat is abrogated by surah at-taubah,the last medinan surah and ultimate precedent of universal Islamic terror.

Phoenix said...

John,

Why don't you share the actual context of those ayats? It's your responsibility to correct my errors. I have read the context in the hadith; some muslims abandoned the battle of the trench to go home to their families. For this,they were ordered to be killed. Also bare in mind at the battle of the trench no muslim lives were lost.

As far as the "no complulsion in religion" verse is concerned, it was a) abrogated by sura at-tawbah and b) regardless of the "peaceful" verse, it is universally accepted amongst lay muslims and muslim scholars that apostates must be put to death. There are countless examples for me to paste here

See how this sheik confirms that: Death to Apostates

Phoenix said...

DF

Battle of the trench was an attack in response to the ethnic cleansing of the jewish tribe of Banu nadir,which Muhammad had instigated.

Can you be clear on what "they" refer to in verse 4:89, and tell us what the following verse says?

See my response to John above.

The last Medinan Sura was An-Nasr. Most scholars happen to disagree with your claim of abrogation.

You're correct, An Nasr is the last surah revealed but its easy to overlook it because it only contains 3 verses. Surah at-tawbah is the second last surah revealed.
Those revisionist scholars who disagree over the abrogation concept must explain the apparent contradiction in Muhammad's actions and words. And why most islamic countries murder apostates? Do they all take these ayats and hadith out of context? Clearly there's a major misunderstanding in reading the Quran which would mean it is not a clear guidance as it claims to be.