ISIS and Islamic militants - discussion

lemonade said:
What is this fundamental ideology then? and what drove them to it? Clearly it's not a random journey.
Click to expand...

a rather extreemist form of Islam in this case

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.
Click to expand...

Sure but if it hadn't been Iraq then it may have been Afghanistan or Libya or any other event in the future that they decided is wrong... perhaps even someone drawing a cartoon or someone writing a book. It isn't like fundamentalists only existed after the Iraq invasion - events like that have acted as a catalyst for them and we see a rise in the threat level. Salman Rushdie's life has been in danger since the 80s... If the 7/7 bombers were just seeking to fight on behalf of Iraq or just trying to seek revenge then they could have just as easily taken the rucksacks off and walked off the three tube trains & bus - in fact maybe they'd have picked some military or political targets....
They were seeking martyrdom and they wanted to kill themselves in the process of these attacks, that is the direct result of their fundamentalism - both the ability to reason that killing themselves is a good thing and the reasoning that killing infidels is a good thing - it is way more than just being angry over Iraq, plenty of Muslims and others are angry about Iraq and don't go killing random people & themselves as a result.
 
Last edited:
Captain Planet said:
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.
Click to expand...

If your not going to bother reading what someone has written before replying to that same person then don't bother replying at all, I suggest you evaluate your 'logic'.
 
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.
Click to expand...

No I think you fail to understand the point, the point I was making is the Saudi's being closest in interpretation to ISIS is irrelevant, because they are ultimately different in key issues.

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.
Click to expand...

I don't debate to "win" or get one over the other, if I am wrong I would happily admit it and amend my viewpoint. You didn't actually show me any statements of the saudi grand mufti declaring them apostates, declaring a person an apostate is very specific things, calling them satanic and anti-islamic isn't the same thing. By that standard your average mo on the street who is drinking is satanic and doing something anti-islamic.

You claim you know the difference between different salafist groups yet fail to understand the key differences in some important issues within that realms, funnily enough one being around apostasy, case in point the validity of the saudi rulers.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Good post. I don't want to get into a deep and long discussion on this so heres some quick thoughts.

- They do distribute the money they collect, although to what extent probably no one outside knows.

- The burning of the Jordanian pilot they can justify religiously to a certain extent, whether their interpretation and application is correct is another discussion.

- As for the saudi grand mufti being a sphere of influence and some authority here, he is not, they are considered as "palace scholars" who are basically puppets of the saudi ruling family who are themselves considered as puppets and illegitimate.

- As for who is an apostate, there are generally what is considered things that nullify a persons faith in Islam, so for example and I believe this is the biggest thing a muslim person can do is associate partners to god, this makes someone automatically an 'apostate'. There are certain conditions to someone becoming an apostate, and the example i used in my earlier posts is the issue of sin. The mainstream and general point of view is that a sin does not make someone an apostate, i think the group you mention the kharijites are the ones who viewed it opposite.
 
i think you have gone off point somewhat as the questions I posed seem to have been lost and you appear to not have understood some of the points I have made a you have used them as arguments which is strange.

Perhaps if you set out your argument clearly and concisely I'll have another go at answering it.

As far as whether you consider someone to be authoritative or not is something I mentioned as being conditional. If you do not recognise anyone's authority in the first instance then the question on apostasy is moot.

At its simplest however, they statement that no one has denounced ISIS as apostate is incorrect, whether you agree with them or recognise their authority isn't really relevant, if it were then that makes the question pointless.
 
i think you have gone off point somewhat as the questions I posed seem to have been lost and you appear to not have understood some of the points I have made a you have used them as arguments which is strange.

Perhaps if you set out your argument clearly and concisely I'll have another go at answering it.
Click to expand...

Such as? You made points as to why they can be considered as apostates, I made points countering those to show they are not accurate or strong enough to use as a basis for declaring them apostates. You seem to just dismiss everything as "you have not understood".

My original premise to what ak22 wrote was "if ISIS are not muslims become they do unislamic things, then the same can apply to your average ordinary muslim", thus my contention was towards declaring them non muslims because of this, which is a weak argument to make.


Castiel said:
As far as whether you consider someone to be authoritative or not is something I mentioned as being conditional. If you do not recognise anyone's authority in the first instance then the question on apostasy is moot.

At its simplest however, they statement that no one has denounced ISIS as apostate is incorrect, whether you agree with them or recognise their authority isn't really relevant, if it were then that makes the question pointless.
Click to expand...

Yes which is why I moved away from that as all the examples were ambiguous and contentious in certain areas, which is why I asked for an argument from a more creedal point of view, which also can be very contentious, but it allows for more direct points to be made to back an argument.
 
I was not referring to the arguments why I thought they were apostates. Rather that others, specifically Islamic scholars do and have made such statements, members or former members of The Ulema in Saudi Arabia being the most notable, Sa’d Al-Shathri and the aforementioned Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh both being considered as having the sufficent authority to make such judgements. It's why I asked the question about heresy that you have missed...as I do not know your own opinion as you haven't given it and have yet to answer the question I asked, it is becoming a one way conversation until you say whether you accept Ulema as having sufficent knowledge or not. (I accept the nature of Islam means that opinions will vary)

Also in response to any Muslim being apostate simply for not following general tenets such as alcohol etc, there is a tonne of jurisprudence on this and you cannot apply such a broad picture on it.

For example, Whereas one act may countenance apostasy, another may not. As I said it isn't really for any Muslim to say if we go by the Quran alone, which technically would make ISIS apostates by default but to say lapses in everyday practices is equal to burning other Muslims or the various other atrocities ISIS commit regularly with regard to whether an Ulema would consider them apostate is not a very realistic assumption or basis for counter.

However, back to the basic point, Islamic juris isn't straight forward this is clear, however basic arguments can be easily made based on historical precedents and more complex ones can be made using juris as to the heretical nature of ISIS, as I pointed out, opposing arguments can also be made. Dependent upon various considerations of the individual ideologues, sect, and politicisation would significantly impact acceptance of either. Such is the nature of Islam and its decentralised system that doesn't share an authoritative clerical system like we see in Catholicism for example.

As far as the arguments I made, they were intentionally vague for the reasons I gave, saying they are ambiguous is a little unfair. If you wish I can (perhaps tomorrow) offer a far longer, more specific account of how someone may justify ISIS being heretical...using Figh and historical precedent. I specifically didn't do this and said as much to forestall such a retort, but if you feel it's necessary because of ambiguity I can do so. (I could probably do the opposite as well)

But at the end of the day, you can reasonably justify both points of view...as in whether ISIS are, by action, Apostate as AK22 says or as you say they are Muslim regardless unless they say otherwise, but it's spurious to suggest seriously that a lapsing Muslim would have an equal exposure to apostasy as someone who burns other Muslims for example.
 
Last edited:
Castiel said:
I was not referring to the arguments why I thought they were apostates. Rather that others, specifically Islamic scholars do and have made such statements, members or former members of The Ulema in Saudi Arabia being the most notable, Sa’d Al-Shathri and the aforementioned Abdulaziz Al al-Sheikh both being considered as having the sufficent authority to make such judgements. It's why I asked the question about heresy that you have missed...as I do not know your own opinion as you haven't given it and have yet to answer the question I asked, it is becoming a one way conversation until you say whether you accept Ulema as having sufficent knowledge or not. (I accept the nature of Islam means that opinions will vary)

Also in response to any Muslim being apostate simply for not following general tenets such as alcohol etc, there is a tonne of jurisprudence on this and you cannot apply such a broad picture on it.

For example, Whereas one act may countenance apostasy, another may not. As I said it isn't really for any Muslim to say if we go by the Quran alone, which technically would make ISIS apostates by default but to say lapses in everyday practices is equal to burning other Muslims or the various other atrocities ISIS commit regularly with regard to whether an Ulema would consider them apostate is not a very realistic assumption or basis for counter.

However, back to the basic point, Islamic juris isn't straight forward this is clear, however basic arguments can be easily made based on historical precedents and more complex ones can be made using juris as to the heretical nature of ISIS, as I pointed out, opposing arguments can also be made. Dependent upon various considerations of the individual ideologues, sect, and politicisation would significantly impact acceptance of either. Such is the nature of Islam and its decentralised system that doesn't share an authoritative clerical system like we see in Catholicism for example.

As far as the arguments I made, they were intentionally vague for the reasons I gave, saying they are ambiguous is a little unfair. If you wish I can (perhaps tomorrow) offer a far longer, more specific account of how someone may justify ISIS being heretical...using Figh and historical precedent. I specifically didn't do this and said as much to forestall such a retort, but if you feel it's necessary because of ambiguity I can do so. (I could probably do the opposite as well)

But at the end of the day, you can reasonably justify both points of view...as in whether ISIS are, by action, Apostate as AK22 says or as you say they are Muslim regardless unless they say otherwise, but it's spurious to suggest seriously that a lapsing Muslim would have an equal exposure to apostasy as someone who burns other Muslims for example.
Click to expand...

Your heresy question was too general because that topic is quite broad in itself. For example salafis view asharis as heretical in their greed but to my knowledge they do not consider them as 'apostates' or non muslims. Likewise asharis also view some salafi views as heretical.

As for the alcohol statement, i dont think you understood my point, i was objecting to the reasons being used to say isis are not muslims, i.e their 'unislamic' actions, my point was in islam sins in general are not considered as making someone 'apostate' from the faith. My objection is to the rather flippant comments made of isis not being muslims, whereas in the case of 'apostasy' there is a due process to it, otherwise you are guilty of the same actions and intolerance of isis.

Anyway were kind of going round in circles, and I do understand the general point your making in the argument for declaring isis as being non muslims, though I disagree with them being declared as such, so I will end it with that on my part.
 
lemonade said:
Your heresy question was too general because that topic is quite broad in itself. For example salafis view asharis as heretical in their greed but to my knowledge they do not consider them as 'apostates' or non muslims. Likewise asharis also view some salafi views as heretical.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, as some have indeed issued fatwas stating that the al-Asha`riyya is indeed not Islam. In some point to Abdul-Qadir al-Jeelaanee to justify the epitaph kaafir.

Not all think this, but some do and express it. So the question wasn't general, it was to gauge your knowledge and specificity.

lemonade said:
As for the alcohol statement, i dont think you understood my point, i was objecting to the reasons being used to say isis are not muslims, i.e their 'unislamic' actions, my point was in islam sins in general are not considered as making someone 'apostate' from the faith. My objection is to the rather flippant comments made of isis not being muslims, whereas in the case of 'apostasy' there is a due process to it, otherwise you are guilty of the same actions and intolerance of isis.
Click to expand...

The point was made that some with the relevant authority (ulema) have actually stated they are indeed apostate. I gave you two examples of Islamic scholars with the relevant authority necessary to do this.

lemonade said:
Anyway were kind of going round in circles, and I do understand the general point your making in the argument for declaring isis as being non muslims, though I disagree with them being declared as such, so I will end it with that on my part.
Click to expand...

Whether you disagree is irrelevant, as at least two of the ulema have made binding statements at to ISIS being declared as such.
 
Lol love them kicking the burning flag with their.American branded trainers! Irony is probably lost on them though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom