Islamic State Are They Muslims??

[Daneshmand]

I disagree completely with the red.
The Iranians are not at all fighting ISIS. They are fighting elements that do not represent their interest in Iraq and Syria for which monetary input even in the most desperate of times is needed.. They have their own militias who have committed similar brutalities as ISIS did. What makes them so different or noble I may ask?

The question that you posed further is the one I refer to in the first place. Please see where I said 80% of Muslims.. NOT Iranians, Jordanians or Zambians. What is it that goes in the mind of Muslims.. not Sunni, Shia or some other messed up sectarian ideal.. that causes them to doubt a mad idea or the opposition of that mad idea with another mad idea.. as long as the mad idea has Islam mentioned in it?

Whatever. Obviously, I can not make you see the reality. The reality that Isis is a Takfiri organization and Iran is the leading force battling the Takfiris. But then this is all too common. And one thing more, there is nothing wrong with a nation following through with its interests. It becomes only wrong if those interests become aligned with those of vile creatures. If you can not differentiate between Iran and Isis, then you are a hopeless case. There is more evidence of US and its allies including Saudi Arabia and Turkey helping Isis than you can provide for any vile act on part of Iran.

Actually you should put percentages for countries, that way the discussion would be clarified. For example what percentage of Saudis sympathize with Isis and what percentage of Iranians.

It would have been better for you to try to answer the questions I raised instead of trying to equate Iran with Isis (did I equate Paksitan with Taliban/Qaida which would be even much more apt?). This way you would have been enlightened instead of hair splitting a Hadith with some posters here. Beating around the bush, trying to "sectarianize" this and show that it is ok for Sunnis to be crazy since it it perceived that Shias are also crazy will not work. And no, this is not because of some inherent egalitarianism in order to be "fair". We all know what sect and what ideology is doing all this from Peshawar to Paris. No need to white wash it. You see it was not me who brought the sect into it. I am just replying to what you raised yourself.

The answer to your question is, because some 900 years ago the right of Muslims to think and to be rational beings was taken from them. The ideologies of Avecenna, Razi and Biruni were banned. Thereafter a perpetual form of kalami Islam was preached to Muslim masses based on literal interpretation of Islamic scripture. The origin of this literalism has to be searched in oral repetitive culture of Bedouins which was structured and formalized in the work of Ghazali. A true Kalami Muslim can never resist the temptation that Isis offers. Be that Kalami Muslim in Pakistan or in France. Since Isis, Taliban or Qaida are all adherents to Kalami Islam to the letter.

 

[Falcon29]

Did Prophet (SAW) kill any innocent people or stole their belongs or killed non-believer just for not believe in Allah ?
Why am I asking this ? because to clear with you, which one to follow ? not the case who will get the heaven, that is upto Allah to Decide.
again asking you,
Did Prophet (SAW) kill any innocent people or stole their belongs or killed non-believer just for not believe in Allah ?

Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[BDforever]

Stop embarrassing yourself.

don't change the subject, answer

So a negative response made him worthy of being killed? What do you think would have been fate of that killed monk in life here after?

And you have ignored my two other observations..........................

1. the story has been changed
2. he is not even answering my direct question because he knows that ISIS contrary to what Prophet (SAW) taught us

 

[I.R.A]

Yes, he killed the 100th because he replied in negative, ie that there's no forgiveness for him.

So a negative response made him worthy of being killed? What do you think would have been fate of that killed monk in life here after?

And you have ignored my two other observations..........................

 

[Daneshmand]

The Muslim countries who are fighting Isis are fighting for territorial or sectarian reasons..not for the fact that Isis is against Islam. . Boko works like Isis. Who's fighting them?.

The "Muslim countries"? Are you kidding me? What are you smoking?

The only Muslim country that is fighting the Takfiris without any compromise is Iran and its allies.

And Iran is not a super power that can project power across continents. Even the supa powa India can not do that.

At least Iran is doing what it can in its neighborhood and in its area of influence.

 

[Mav3rick]

I've been thinking I believe the consensus is internationally that Muslims who join IS aren't really Muslims.

So if this true then the worse possible punishment and deterrent for people to join IS is to deny them Jannah

and how do you do that??

the crimes IS has done in the name of Allah should warrant such an action


they think they're Muslims so this the best method to punish them

Allah is the best judge of all and only He can decide these things. However, the atrocities that these people commit and the inhumane methodology they have adopted goes entirely against the instructions of Islam and hence they may not be considered 'adherent'.

I don't know if they are cast out of Islam because of their terrorism as there are punishments in Islam for every crime, including execution but I don't believe that terrorism is a cause whereby one gets banished from Islam. And mind you, this is my own understanding and interpretation.

It is kinda like I am still accountable for all my actions and my deeds despite being a Muslim, what I mean is Islam does not distinguish people's crimes and deeds based on religion, even though Islam prescribes punishments under Shariat law which may be considered Islamic punishments.

I hope the post above makes sense.

 

[Falcon29]

Whatever. Obviously, I can not make you see the reality. The reality that Isis is a Takfiri organization and Iran is the leading force battling the Takfiris. But then this is all too common. And one thing more, there is nothing wrong with a nation following through with its interests. It becomes only wrong if those interests become aligned with those of vile creatures. If you can not differentiate between Iran and Isis, then you are a hopeless case. There is more evidence of US and its allies including Saudi Arabia and Turkey helping Isis than you can provide for any vile act on part of Iran.

Actually you should put percentages for countries, that way the discussion would be clarified. For example what percentage of Saudis sympathize with Isis and what percentage of Iranians.

It would have been better for you to try to answer the questions I raised instead of trying to equate Iran with Isis (did I equate Paksitan with Taliban/Qaida which would be even much more apt?). This way you would have been enlightened instead of hair splitting a Hadith with some posters here. Beating around the bush, trying to "sectarianize" this and show that it is ok for Sunnis to be crazy since it it perceived that Shias are also crazy will not work. And no, this is not because of some inherent egalitarianism in order to be "fair". We all know what sect and what ideology is doing all this from Peshawar to Paris. No need to white wash it. You see it was not me who brought the sect into it. I am just replying to what you raised yourself.

The answer to your question is, because some 900 years ago the right of Muslims to think and to be rational beings was taken from them. The ideologies of Avecenna, Razi and Biruni were banned. Thereafter a perpetual form of kalami Islam was preached to Muslim masses based on literal interpretation of Islamic scripture. The origin of this literalism has to be searched in oral repetitive culture of Bedouins which was structured and formalized in the work of Ghazali. A true Kalami Muslim can never resist the temptation that Isis offers. Be that Kalami Muslim in Pakistan or in France. Since Isis, Taliban or Qaida are all adherents to Kalami Islam to the letter.

@Oscar

Looking forward to your response to this. I was going to put input from my side but I will wait on yours. Part of me says it wouldn't be worth it.

So a negative response made him worthy of being killed? What do you think would have been fate of that killed monk in life here after?

And you have ignored my two other observations..........................

I'm not sure what the issue of reading comprehension is with some people. I didn't allude that he deserved to be killed. I gave you reason why he killed him. Now if I wanted so speculate, you could say the criminal had no hope of being forgiven and hence didn't change his habit. Remember Arabs at the time believed in a God before Islam so they had concept of judgement. I'm not sure what your other two observations were. But if it is something you believe requires scholarly input than don't take it up with me.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

I've been thinking I believe the consensus is internationally that Muslims who join IS aren't really Muslims.

So if this true then the worse possible punishment and deterrent for people to join IS is to deny them Jannah

and how do you do that??

the crimes IS has done in the name of Allah should warrant such an action


they think they're Muslims so this the best method to punish them

Yes, they are Muslims. Perhaps the most puritanical of all Muslims in the world. They follow the faith to the letter.

 

[Falcon29]

Allah is the best judge of all and only He can decide these things. However, the atrocities that these people commit and the inhumane methodology they have adopted goes entirely against the instructions of Islam and hence they may not be considered 'adherent'.

I don't know if they are cast out of Islam because of their terrorism as there are punishments in Islam for every crime, including execution but I don't believe that terrorism is a cause whereby one gets banished from Islam. And mind you, this is my own understanding and interpretation.

It is kinda like I am still accountable for all my actions and my deeds despite being a Muslim, what I mean is Islam does not distinguish people's crimes and deeds based on religion, even though Islam prescribes punishments under Shariat law which may be considered Islamic punishments.

I hope the post above makes sense.

This was what I also was trying to explain but people misunderstood me.

 

[Mav3rick]

Of course they are..Muslims are defined by following the five pillars of Islam. The difference is that they are the extremist kind.

They are not extremists, they are off the path, confused and manipulated. They are out of their minds and have no access to common sense as to how a religion such as Islam be so cruel when the meaning of Islam is blessing or prosperity. However, we are not in a position to judge who is and who isn't a Muslim.

 

[illusion8]

The "Muslim countries"? Are you kidding me? What are you smoking?

The only Muslim country that is fighting the Takfiris without any compromise is Iran and its allies.

And Iran is not a super power that can project power across continents. Even the supa powa India can not do that.

At least Iran is doing what it can in its neighborhood and in its area of influence.

Syrian, iraqi?

Lol..even the 34 nation Muslim alliance declaration seems more in protecting the shiekhs.

 

[BDforever]

Yes, they are Muslims. Perhaps the most puritanical of all Muslims in the world. They follow the faith to the letter.

funny dude

 

[illusion8]

They are not extremists, they are off the path, confused and manipulated. They are out of their minds and have no access to common sense as to how a religion such as Islam be so cruel when the meaning of Islam is blessing or prosperity. However, we are not in a position to judge who is and who isn't a Muslim.

There is a whole school of thought that drives their actions. .I would define it as an extremist faction or wing.

 

[I.R.A]

I'm not sure what the issue of reading comprehension is with some people. I didn't allude that he deserved to be killed. I gave you reason why he killed him. Now if I wanted so speculate, you could say the criminal had no hope of being forgiven and hence didn't change his habit. Remember Arabs at the time believed in a God before Islam so they had concept of judgement. I'm not sure what your other two observations were. But if it is something you believe requires scholarly input than don't take it up with me.

You bring in a hadees and then you question comprehension skills of people and want them to consult Scholars for their questions? You should not have based your point on something that you yourself don't understand properly.

 

[Falcon29]

You bring in a hadees and then you question comprehension skills of people and want them to consult Scholars for their questions? You should not have based your point on something that you yourself don't understand properly.

You asked me one question regarding the hadith and I answered it. In your previous post you said you made three observations and I don't see them. So, yes, you have reading comprehension issue.

Okay now I see your question. You misread the hadith, first of all he isn't Muslim. Secondly he already made repentance(in some form we don't know of ). However he wanted to know if it is even possible to be forgiven or if it is out of discussion. So the monk told him go to the land of the Muslims to know the answer. These are the facts of the Hadith. So what else do you want from me? Answer theological/philosophical questions with my own opinion? Why would I do that?