Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,244
- Location
- Surrey
IS bombing mosques, thats like me pooing through my own letterbox.
ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion
- Thread starter robfosters
- Start date
Wrong sort of muslims...
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 May 2007
- Posts
- 9,244
- Location
- Surrey
I know. Still stupid.
Yes, they're killing each other and making the Muslim world weaker then it already it is.
There grand dreams of caliphate will never be realized unless the extremists learn to unite instead of fight each other. Even then they need to learn to not poke there noses in other countries affairs...
The militants want to do it by force, a popular uprising like Syria was the best way but they even managed to screw that up. There best bet is to get popular support of the downtrodden masses on there side.
That's not going to happen when you burn fellow Muslims alive for the whole world to see.
Al nusra is trying the hearts and minds approach in Syria for example trying to get Alan Henning released and condemning isis whilst giving out aid to the locals.
But for the long term they have no hope to offer just endless warfare. Which people just don't want.
You live in a cave then. There motivation was the Iraq invasion, they even quite categorically and emotionally said it in their recorded videos.
You don't need to be an Iraqi or live in Iraq to sympathise with the suffering f others, same goes with any other people or country. Muslims have their own identity and a bond with fellow Muslims, they saw how Britain invaded another Muslim land and carried out horrific crimes so they felt the need to retaliate or whatever, the fact that if Iraq had never been invaded by Britain this would never had happened says it all, you can gloss it over with some so called fundamentalist belief being the core problem, that thinking will not fix the problem, which is why 10 years we still have the same problem and the same grievances being the reasons for many of these attacks, i.e. foreign policy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Sounds just like ISIS calling the Yeman victims "Crusaders and apostates".
That is where you are wrong and you are missing the point I am making, their core beliefs are all shared by every single Muslim, whether they are Sunni, Shia or whatever. They believe in the declaration of faith, they follow the fundamental 5 pillars, and this is where my point was, they are far more practicing than your average Muslim, you will find they will all rigorously pray there 5 times a day prayers, something a lot of Muslims don't.
Where they will differ is certain creedal (is a word?) and jurisprudence issues, one key matter is the rules of warfare, and this is where there is contention, however and this is where my point was, to say they are not muslim because they are not following certain teachings or violating those teachings does not make them essentially apostates, otherwise you would need to apply that to many regular muslims, your average joe, anyone who knows a little about Islamic creedal matters will know this is nonsense, a mere sinful act does not make a muslim become non muslim.
Some of the most harshest critics of ISIS are infact some very well known and respected 'jihadist' scholars and none of them to my knowledge have come out directly and said they are apostates, but they have said they should be destroyed which is not the same thing.
Anyone who has studied Islamic rules of warfare will know that ISIS have violated most of it, if you are ashamed of them wrongly representing your religion than argue it from that point of view, to merely say that they are not Muslims because you dont want them to be wrongly represent yourself and your religion is nonsense and a dishonest argument.
Calling them satanic can refer to their actions and not simply a call of apostasy to them, to view them as non muslims they need to say this clearly, which they haven't so far, so I am not going to speculate on something that is ambiguous. None of the statements you mention is a direct call of apostasy on them.
As for that saudi scholar, it is hard to take the words of a government scholar so seriously who have hard political interest, i would not be surprised if he did call them apostates, anyone who is a threat to the authority of the Saudi dynasty is basically a non muslim.
If someone can actually give an argument from the basis of islams creedal, theological and jurisprudence basis on why isis is not muslim than i might consider that point of view, so far i have seen none and i think i could even come with an argument lol, otherwise the whole argument of "oh there not muslims so there" is just nonsense, you might aswell just disown every muslim who does something you dont like that goes against the teaching of you religion, its a cop out.
I don't think anyone said exactly that they were not Muslim. I think they all just disagreed with your statement that they were "more Muslim" than your average Mo. I think the reason for this is that you are in fact offensive to all regular real Muslims.
However, no matter how we are to label these people, one thing is sure. They are murdering inhuman scum and should be dealt with accordingly.
However, no matter how we are to label these people, one thing is sure. They are murdering inhuman scum and should be dealt with accordingly.
Given that the highest Islamic authority in Saudi Arabia (arguably the closest in interpretation to ISIS) DID call them apostates, lemonades entire premise falls flat on its face anyway, but Captain Planet is right, people are saying they are unIslamic and there actions are not in accordance with correct practice. Whether they pray 5 times a day is irrelevant as is whether they follow the 5 Pillars, simply because it is how they are interpreting those pillars and their actions thereof which makes them unIslamic.
And this is increasingly the view of Islamic Authorities. Semantics aside, when they are vilified as they are, they become apostate by default if not denounciation.
And this is increasingly the view of Islamic Authorities. Semantics aside, when they are vilified as they are, they become apostate by default if not denounciation.
Last edited:
try to stick to the debate/facts instead of throwing in silly comments like that
Of course they said that, I'm not disputing that... the fundamentalist beliefs are still key. They are at the core of the problem, the Iraq invasion is merely a catalyst for these sorts of things, foreign intervention can cause an increase in the risk of attacks - people holding those fundamentalists beliefs can be driven by any number of actions whether it be the invasion of Iraq, action in Syria or even the drawing of a cartoon... those are merely the triggers for these attacks - the fundamentalist ideology is the real problem. As you can see yourself the link to Iraq in the first place for these three Yorkshiremen and a Jamaican is a shared belief in Islam.
While some Muslims might feel angry that Muslim lands were invaded by non-Muslims they're generally not going even contemplate killing innocent people as a result, plenty of people both Muslim and non-Muslim might feel angry in general at any form of military action where civilians are harmed/killed. To actually go and set off bombs, killing yourself and innocents in the way they did requires a fundamentalist mindset, you've pointed out that they've cited the Iraq invasion you've seemingly missed that they also believe themselves to be martyrs, they believed they'll go straight to 'heaven' for carrying out the attack - there was no requirement for them to kill themselves in the process of setting off the bombs they chose to do so as a result of their beliefs.
Did "we" drive them to it?
Unless I am badly mistaken post #4896 by ak22 wrote:
I suggest you go and read all of my posts after the one by ak22 before assuming what I have meant in my posts about being "more muslim" as you clearly have not followed the discourse properly, I won't be constantly repeating myself.
You seem to think Salafi's are a monolithic group, they aren't, there are varying degrees within themselves, the Saudi salafi institutes are hated by salafi jihadi's, you haven't actually given any single argument to counter what I am saying as I suspect you don't know the finer details of the religions creed. Doing something "unislamic" is very different to being non muslim.
If anyone can actually bring a theological argument as to why ISIS are not muslims then perhaps I may consider your position as a valid one, at the moment its just individuals declaring things at whim as a form of cop out.
What is this fundamental ideology then? and what drove them to it? Clearly it's not a random journey.
I agree with the last bit, there has been a *******ization of their religion which has played some part as obviously they have seeked some sort of religious justification to carry out the attacks, but this doesn't deter from the fact that foreign policy took them to that route and it gave them a religious reasoning which otherwise wouldn't be there, had Iraq not been invaded, they would probably be playing cricket with their kids right now.
What are you on about now? I think you've lost track somewhere.
Well in all truthfulness, I couldn't give one hoot about what you've said, haven't said or are about to say. So repeat yourself, don't repeat yourself, it doesn't really matter when someone doesn't understand what they're talking about.
Well, this statement simply illustrates you haven't actually read and understood what I said at the outset...as I clearly stated that there are various "versions" and that ISIS was made up of members of a range of Salafist and Wahhabi movements..and that is what they are, movements. So, no again you have been shown to be wrong in your assumptions, which seems to be habit forming.
Again, this doesn't actually mean anything, other than you attempting to avoid the fact that you were wrong. As before, it isn't black and white, particularly with regard to Saudi support or opposition to ISIS and its related and unrelated Jihadist groups...The point was that you stated that no-one with any authority had denounced ISIS as being apostate...when actually a very authoritative Grand Mufti has, and not only is he authoritative, he is also Saudi, who are, if anything the closest in interpretations to what ISIS (and its related ideologues) would be..they are Wahhabi in the main, as are the Saudi Institutes.
Whether they are right or not isn't the issue...you said no-one had called then apostate, and I illustrated that someone (with the authority to do so) had. (you will see why later in this post, others wouldn't and the Wahhabi Mufti did)
The simplest one I can offer (without going into great depth and breadth with regard Islam and justifications therein as that would take reams of text and I have no idea what level you are at with regard to Islam itself) is that they do not follow zakat as it is prescribed...they take from the Muslim communities which they occupy and rarely if ever distribute within those same communities. A basic tenet of one of the Five Pillars. You could argue their institution of Jihad against Muslim communities is also against the basic tenets of the practices of Islam, not to mention that they often have stated that Jihad is one of the Pillars (therefore ascribing to a minority Sunni interpretation not commonly followed). Jihad isn't a struggle against itself in any case, which is effectively what ISIS is currently doing...the murder of the Jordanian Pilot and the nature of it is actually prohibited under Sharia, so again you can use this as an example..in fact as a majority of Islamic Scholars have.
If you feel that htere are just individuals declaring things on a whim, then you'll never accept anything else as some of these people are, as the example of Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh's opinion is concerned authoritative within their sphere of influence, if you think that is just a whim, then nothing will alter that view, least of all any of us. A quick question, would you say that if a group are named as heretical, then that is the same as being apostate?
The largest problem is always the Quran however, apostasy is not very well defined, it has no specific punishments and in fact if we are to go by the Quran alone (Gods word rather than man's interpretation of that word) then the judgement of the Apostate is for God alone...so unless ISIS actually declare themselves non-muslim then it is rare that anyone else will...technically the Quran says that you should leave that to God.
Which, ironically, the Jihadists break all the time, as one of their common acts to accuse Muslims of apostasy as an act of warfare, again something that was pretty much the interpretation of the salafist Sayyid Qutb.
So are Salafists Muslim you may ask? it is the same question posed centuries ago with regard The Kharijites, a sect generally thought to be a deviant form of Islam.
Well are they indeed?...if you are a Muslim, then really that is only for God to decide, which rather answers the question doesn't it.
Last edited: