Turkey govenment is blamed not innocents whom died.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Istanbul airport explosions
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
uncung
Member
I said they rejected to pay the zakah. an apostate is no longer a muslim, we are not talking about it.
Rejecting paying the zakah doesn't make one turn to be non muslim immediately. There are many muslims around do not pay zakah, are they be considered as non muslims?
to non muslims they don't have to pay zakah, but jizyah.
Last edited:
uncung
Member
it is the fault of Turkey government!
indeed
uncung
Member
Because it always like that, people, not only him, always react immediately when muslims kill people. but they keep silent when non muslims kill muslims.
You obviously did not follow my other posts.
uncung
Member
no i don't, did i miss something, important guy?
Jumi
Well-Known Member
Only in your insane thoughts.
It depends. Is it important whether you are lying miserably?
Why do these cowardly maggots deliberately target innocent civilians that they know have nothing to do with whatever grievances they have? Seriously man. What is wrong with you?
Thank you Godobeyer. According to the verses of scripture you provide these people are not Muslim.
It seems to me that they are not too picky about who they kill as long as they get to kill.
People need to stop thinking that Islamic State (Daesh) is merely responding to political grievances. It's not. That was more Al-Qaeda's MO, and they are not Al-Qaeda. It's a very extreme Wahhabi-Jihadist end of the world cult. Their ideology is the most extreme form of puritanicalism. They have executed people for merely missing Friday prayers. They'll kill you for drinking alcohol, smoking, shaving your beard, voting, watching a soccer match, etc. They see it as their duty to purify Islam of what they view as "innovations". That's why they're mostly attacking and killing other Muslims, destroying tombs, shrines and historical sites. They see those Muslims as apostates (and apostates are to be executed) and the sites as idols. They're focusing on purifying Muslim lands first and then they'll go after countries like Israel and the West in a bigger way.
So it can't be fought if we continue to view it as merely an extremist political group. It's a hardline religious cult.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...-bunzel/the-ideology-of-the-islamic-state.pdf
However, although it is ostensibly a religious cult, extremism is fueled by social factors. Social context is certainly imperative. If we can find solutions to the social factors that cause extremist movements to come about, we can effectively combat it:
"Haykel also expressed doubt that the issue of ISIS could be fixed with guns alone. Haykel told ThinkProgress he was opposed to American military intervention in the region, particularly the use of ground troops, which he believes would likely backfire. Instead, he argued the world needs a broader, longer-term plan to address the multiplicity of issues that fuel extremism in the region, where bad religion is just one among dozens of daunting concerns facing millions of impoverished Muslims.
“I see ISIS as a symptom of a much deeper structural set of problems in the Sunni Arab world,” he said. “[It has] to do with politics. With education, and the lack thereof. With authoritarianism. With foreign intervention. With the curse of oil … I think that even if ISIS were to disappear, the underlying causes that produce ISIS would not disappear. And those would have to be addressed with decades of policy and reforms and changes — not just by the west, but also by Arab societies as well.”
Taken together, Haykel’s comments appeared to argue that effectively combating ISIS will require more than discerning what “ISIS wants,” theologically speaking. Instead, it also requires a deep, abiding dedication to providing what most Muslims in the region want, and what Wood only briefly addresses in his article: stability, jobs, education, and, most of all, peace."
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/
To my knowledge, rigid political and religious extremism is really a way to try to establish a sense of stability, albeit in a very warped and maladaptive fashion, in chaotic circumstances.
So it can't be fought if we continue to view it as merely an extremist political group. It's a hardline religious cult.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/re...-bunzel/the-ideology-of-the-islamic-state.pdf
However, although it is ostensibly a religious cult, extremism is fueled by social factors. Social context is certainly imperative. If we can find solutions to the social factors that cause extremist movements to come about, we can effectively combat it:
"Haykel also expressed doubt that the issue of ISIS could be fixed with guns alone. Haykel told ThinkProgress he was opposed to American military intervention in the region, particularly the use of ground troops, which he believes would likely backfire. Instead, he argued the world needs a broader, longer-term plan to address the multiplicity of issues that fuel extremism in the region, where bad religion is just one among dozens of daunting concerns facing millions of impoverished Muslims.
“I see ISIS as a symptom of a much deeper structural set of problems in the Sunni Arab world,” he said. “[It has] to do with politics. With education, and the lack thereof. With authoritarianism. With foreign intervention. With the curse of oil … I think that even if ISIS were to disappear, the underlying causes that produce ISIS would not disappear. And those would have to be addressed with decades of policy and reforms and changes — not just by the west, but also by Arab societies as well.”
Taken together, Haykel’s comments appeared to argue that effectively combating ISIS will require more than discerning what “ISIS wants,” theologically speaking. Instead, it also requires a deep, abiding dedication to providing what most Muslims in the region want, and what Wood only briefly addresses in his article: stability, jobs, education, and, most of all, peace."
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/02/20/3625446/atlantic-left-isis-conversation-bernard-haykel/
To my knowledge, rigid political and religious extremism is really a way to try to establish a sense of stability, albeit in a very warped and maladaptive fashion, in chaotic circumstances.
Last edited:
Tomorrows_Child
Active Member
To still believe these people are so called "Islamic" extremists, that their sole mission is to destroy the west, is idiotic. The evidence is mounting. They are about as Islamic as the Pope on Christmas.
Aquitaine
Well-Known Member
Most definitely agree: there's some foul (Jewish) play at hand here!
Why is the Religion of Peace churning out so many warped minds?
Legimitately surpised you're disagreeing with him here, after all isn't this the same "Khalifah" you want back?
In Islam who kill an innocent will be in hell forever.
There is Hadith about woman killed cat,God punish her by hell.how about humans!
Again,you are newbie here !
Please,don't prejudge the people that you just meet
Great. Now you go convince them.
Godobeyer is being much nicer to you about this than I was going to be.
LuisDantas is many things, but ignoring violence and idolizing the USA aren't among them.
Tom
Gharib
I want Khilafah back
Brother, you haven't read about the Apostasy Wars of Abu Bakr radiallahu anhu so why are you trying to twist facts and history.
When it came to the beduins who refused to pay their zakah, all the sahabah, radiallahu anhu, thought it wasn't anything important so no need to do anything about it. Abu Bakr, radiallahu anhu, was the only person to say otherwise.
Abdullah bin Mas'ud said the following on this matter;
"After the Messenger of Allah, salallahu alayhi wa salam, died, we adopted an attitude that could almost have led to our doom, were it not for Abu Bakr. We had agreed that we would not fight for camels (that were due as zakah), but Allah guided Abu Bakr to fight for them, and by Allah, he did not accept for them anything but full submission (to the rules of Islam) or all-out war.
Do you want more info?
EDIT: More info
Zakah expenditures are only for the poor and for the needy and for those employed to collect [zakah] and for bringing hearts together [for Islam] and for freeing captives [or slaves] and for those in debt and for the cause of Allah and for the [stranded] traveler - an obligation [imposed] by Allah . And Allah is Knowing and Wise.
Cahpter 9 verse 60
Zakah is an obligation. Do you read it?
Last edited: