• 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!

Why ISIS are wrong.

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Point taken, and I agree with you. It's really sad :(

There is already a prophecy that the longer time goes for Islam after the death of the Prophet, the more mislead people become.

I personally stopped taking scholars' advises lately and I depend on myself in the first place. Only if I find extreme difficulty understanding something might I ask about it and only accept it with a proof from the Quraan that seem to be completely related.

I suspect you already had a good set of values and morals and ethics before you studied the Quran and now you search the Quran to find those verses to support what you already knew to be "good". Is that possible?

If not, can you give examples of morals or ethics you didn't know and learned from the Quran?
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
I suspect you already had a good set of values and morals and ethics before you studied the Quran and now you search the Quran to find those verses to support what you already knew to be "good". Is that possible?

If not, can you give examples of morals or ethics you didn't know and learned from the Quran?

Basically almost all good set of values, morals and ethics I indirectly learned from the Quraan and the life of the Prophet Muhammad.

Both were studied to memorize here in Saudi Arabia starting kindergarten and meanings starting elementary school, and my family were well educated and brought in the light of Islam in Makkah where they lived their childhood.

I say "almost all", because some teachings were not practiced well because of the bad influence of people around me and the harsh nature of so many of them. Saudi Arabia is a third world country after all and has so many bad customs, including religious.

Plus those I learned by myself directly re-reading what I knew of the Quraan and the life of the Prophet, practicing what I couldn't before because of the reasons above, and going through things that were not covered before, as the Quraan is not that small.

On a side note, I've been told more than once here on RF that I'm a good person because of my nature not because of the Islamic teachings. The thing is, I noticed that when Muslims do bad things, Islam is blamed for it, while if Muslims show goodness, and I'm an example according to some RF members here, credit goes to because they are good in nature, not because of the Islamic teachings. This seems to me unfair and unjust towards Islam :(
 
  • Like
Reactions: MD

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
No worries bro, I gladly accept any arguments specially if they are put nicely like yours :)

God gave us free will to do such a thing and He does not prevent us by force. All He does is giving us the teachings and we are the ones to decide to follow it or not. Otherwise the verses that say that there is no compulsion in religion and that to each their own religion to follow at well, would not have existed.

I believe that good Muslims do have much of a choice but only if it is not about blasphemy, as then they would not be Muslims really, or about hurting others. I don't believe a choice should be given in hurting others, only then strict teachings come in to prevent that.

Then again, if I was right, then it would be because of the blessing of God, but if I was wrong, and I might be, then it would be because of my incompetence. That means I could be wrong btw :)

Fair enough. But don't you think that it is worrisome to see how many people claim to be Quranic in their extreme, violent behavior?

Surely there is no good reason to be passive about that, even if one is certain that God will judge them eventually. For one thing, many of them seem awfully sincere, if misguided.
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Fair enough. But don't you think that it is worrisome to see how many people claim to be Quranic in their extreme, violent behavior?

Surely there is no good reason to be passive about that, even if one is certain that God will judge them eventually. For one thing, many of them seem awfully sincere, if misguided.

Believe me, it hurts me badly that people indeed do that :(

I don't know what they are thinking or their true intentions when they do that, but I fear it is for ulterior motives.

Those seem sincere could either be hypocrites with ulterior motives and great acting skills, or mislead and misunderstanding the Quraan the way it should.

I just hope all those conflicts stop peacefully as soon as possible. It does not matter to me which side wins.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Smart_Guy... On a side note, I've been told more than once here on RF that I'm a good person because of my nature not because of the Islamic teachings. The thing is, I noticed that when Muslims do bad things, Islam is blamed for it, while if Muslims show goodness, and I'm an example according to some RF members here, credit goes to because they are good in nature, not because of the Islamic teachings. This seems to me unfair and unjust towards Islam

If a man lives a good life and one day robs a bank, he is now a criminal. Muslims tell us that the Quran is perfect. Therefore if there are some violent passages, it is violent.

One crime makes a man a criminal,
some violent passages make the Quran violent.

This would be different except that Muslims promote that the book is perfect.
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
Hi Quatermass,

I think you successfully cherry-picked the Quran to find some verses that suited your goal. Nothing wrong with that, people have been doing that to scripture for thousands of years.

On the other hand, if ISIS members were discussing the Quran with you on this thread, they could easily find verses to support their actions.

Either the Quran is the word of allah and is, therefore, correct in its entirety. Or it is entirely wrong. You are either all in or all out. The verses may be cherry-picked, but are they wrong?

You can't say 'Well those bits suit your goal, and some other bits suit my goal'. That's how groups like ISIS get started in the first place.
 

MD

qualiaphile
ISIS has a lot more to do with politics and power than religious doctrine. It has been bankrolled by wealthy sunnis who wished to create a balance to the Iranian backed Maliki in Eastern Iraq. This is evident in the fact that less zealous Sunni militias and sufi ex Baathists have joined ISIS. Most of the ISIS European foreign fighters are useless cannon fodder or propaganda tools for more recruitment. Their core strength lies in their Chechen rebels, syrian rebels and saddam loyalist commanders. It is however concerning to see thosuands of Europeans enlisting with ISIS, but that is another topic.

Some of Isis' financial supporters might also want a caliphate or a muslim confederacy. This is what a lot of muslims want and I think even though ISIS is extremely and needlessly violent, they are laying the foundation for an Islamic (mind you Sunni) confederacy equivalent to the EU and this is why I see it as being significant. Most of the muslim world has been ruled by theocratic despots and dictators.
 

Sha'irullah

رسول الآلهة
All that I have been hearing in regards to ISIS from Muslims is that ISIS is a wholly good organization and the Taliban are the true heroes of Islam. This is how the typical Muslim behavior is in regards to this stuff.
I have simply stopped paying matters like this any attention. ISIS stands in ground with Islamic teachings as does any other Muslim group. Ahadith are where it is at and clergy decided the legitimacy of actions not laymen
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Either the Quran is the word of allah and is, therefore, correct in its entirety. Or it is entirely wrong. You are either all in or all out. The verses may be cherry-picked, but are they wrong?

You can't say 'Well those bits suit your goal, and some other bits suit my goal'. That's how groups like ISIS get started in the first place.

I beg to differ. Be it God-given or else, the Quran may simply be insuitable for such blind following.

What reason does anyone have to believe that God wants us all to make no attempt to think critically even if he has made his Word manifest?
 

TG123456

Active Member
If a man lives a good life and one day robs a bank, he is now a criminal. Muslims tell us that the Quran is perfect. Therefore if there are some violent passages, it is violent.

One crime makes a man a criminal,
some violent passages make the Quran violent.

This would be different except that Muslims promote that the book is perfect.
Yes and no. It is true that some of the passages in the Quran are violent. But if you read the Quran in its entirety, you will see that violence is allowed only against armed enemies who are already attacking Muslims. It is not permitted against people who are not being aggressors, or against civilians.

As a Christian, I believe that violence is never allowed- in self-defence or in offence. The Old Testament does contain violence, but Jesus taught Christians to never use it and we go by what He revealed.

I disagree with the Quran that violence is sometimes allowed, but I do not accuse it of promoting violence against innocent people. I think the only way one can non-hypocritically condemn violence in the Quran is if one is a pacifist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MD

TG123456

Active Member
All that I have been hearing in regards to ISIS from Muslims is that ISIS is a wholly good organization and the Taliban are the true heroes of Islam. This is how the typical Muslim behavior is in regards to this stuff.
I have simply stopped paying matters like this any attention. ISIS stands in ground with Islamic teachings as does any other Muslim group. Ahadith are where it is at and clergy decided the legitimacy of actions not laymen
That's funny, I have yet to meet a Muslim who promotes them or defends their crimes.

Neither do these Muslims.

Muslims across Midlands united against ISIS | Central - ITV News

Hundreds of Calgary Muslims protest ISIS violence in Iraq - Calgary - CBC News

isis-protest.jpg

Hundreds of Sunni and Shiite Muslims stood together outside Calgary City Hall Saturday afternoon to protest against the sectarian violence and terrorism ripping apart Iraq. (Meghann Dionne/Radio-Canada)



http://rt.com/news/168688-india-muslims-volunteer-iraq/


From Canada to USA to India... Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya... united against ISIS' cruelty and terrorism.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Yes and no. It is true that some of the passages in the Quran are violent. But if you read the Quran in its entirety, you will see that violence is allowed only against armed enemies who are already attacking Muslims. It is not permitted against people who are not being aggressors, or against civilians.

As a Christian, I believe that violence is never allowed- in self-defence or in offence. The Old Testament does contain violence, but Jesus taught Christians to never use it and we go by what He revealed.

I disagree with the Quran that violence is sometimes allowed, but I do not accuse it of promoting violence against innocent people. I think the only way one can non-hypocritically condemn violence in the Quran is if one is a pacifist.

I have discussed this point with several Muslims. Unfortunately there is a different interpretation of this "defensive" stance you mention (and this second interpretation has been used repeatedly through the centuries). In this interpretation, invading Muslims can consider non-Muslims who resist Islam to be "attacking Islam". And remember, in the context of sectarian violence, it is often the case that one sect views the other sect as apostates.
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
If a man lives a good life and one day robs a bank, he is now a criminal. Muslims tell us that the Quran is perfect. Therefore if there are some violent passages, it is violent.

One crime makes a man a criminal,
some violent passages make the Quran violent.

This would be different except that Muslims promote that the book is perfect.

Apologies to the thread owner for our off-topic posts.

The Quraan is just a collections of words, and the people are the doers. Having Muslims do things, does not necessarily reflect what the Quraan stands for.

And IMHO, I think you are confusing violence with some unavoidable and/or necessary risks. If someone comes to me threatening the life of my family and mine and I had absolutely no choice but to grab something to protect them, I would do it. I would never allow anyone to kill, torture, rape, kill... etc. my family or me and watch it like I'm watching a movie (what would you do in such a scenario?). That would be millions of miles a self defense rather than violence, even if it had violence in it. If I managed to find a way to prevent it peacefully however, then by all means, I would jump to it first hand.

I'm saying the above generally speaking, and it is not related to ISIS at all. ISIS can just go to **** if they deserved it :)
 

Mycroft

Ministry of Serendipity
I beg to differ. Be it God-given or else, the Quran may simply be insuitable for such blind following.

And while this may be very true (and I believe it is, due to hadith intervention over the writing of the Quran over many centuries), Muslims still claim it to be a perfect thing that is the word of allah. Therefore, by their own sentiment, must adopt an all-in or all-out attitude toward it.

What reason does anyone have to believe that God wants us all to make no attempt to think critically even if he has made his Word manifest?
Faith itself denies critical thinking, does it not? Any god that wishes one to place faith in it is asking you to, effectively, stop questioning it.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
I never saw that as a legitimate religious stance, Quartermass. It is just too pointless, too self-contradictory.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hi Smart_Guy (and everyone),

So often in these discussions we get tripped up because we have different definitions for the same word. So, for the sake of getting our definitions understood, what words would you use to describe Muhammad's military conquests in the last 5 or 10 years of his life? Were they "defensive"? By some Islamic definitions I've heard that they were "defensive".

This is important for our conversations, because to a non-Muslim, most of Muhammad's military conquests would not be considered "defensive".

_____________
defend net neutrality - "without love in the game, insanity's king"
 

DawudTalut

Peace be upon you.
.............................................................. Muhammad's military conquests in the last 5 or 10 years of his life? Were they "defensive"? By some Islamic definitions I've heard that they were "defensive".

This is important for our conversations, because to a non-Muslim, most of Muhammad's military conquests would not be considered "defensive".

_____________

Peace be on you.

1= ""...........Ghazwah of Dummatul-Jandal and a New Addition to the
Islāmic Wars - Rabī‘ul-Awwal 5 A.H.


Until now, the military operations which had been undertaken were either directly or indirectly for the purpose of defense. Those campaigns which were undertaken for the purpose of settling treaties of peace and security with various Arabian tribes also fell under the same category.


Moreover, all of the journeys which had been undertaken until that time were confined to the regions of central Ḥijāz and Najd, but now, this sphere began to widen. Therefore, Dummatul-Jandal, the Ghazwah of which we now mention, was situated near the Syrian border, and it was at a distance of no less than fifteen or sixteen days travel from Madīnah.1


The reason for this Ghazwah was that the Holy Prophet sa received news that many people from Dummatul-Jandal had gathered and were occupied in robbing and looting others. They would attack travellers and caravans passing by and would disturb them by robbing and looting them. Along with this, it was apprehended that they may turn their sights towards Madīnah as well, and thus become a source of distress for the Muslims.2


A prime objective of the military operations of the Holy Prophet sa was also the establishment of peace. Therefore, although the Muslims of Madīnah were not directly in severe danger by the pillaging and plunder of these people, the Holy Prophet sa urged the Companions that the robbery and injustice being perpetrated there should be put to an end.

Hence, upon the encouragement of the Holy Prophet sa, 1,000 Companions set out with him to undertake this far-off and arduous journey.3

In the fifth year of Hijrah, during the month of Rabī‘ul-Awwal, the Holy Prophetsa went forth from Madīnah.4


After completing a long and tiresome journey of fifteen to sixteen days, the Holy Prophet sa reached Dummatul-Jandal. However, upon reaching there it was ascertained that these people had scattered
here and there upon receiving news of the imminent arrival of the Muslims.


Although the Holy Prophet sa remained there for a few days, and also dispatched small companies in search of them so that intelligence could be gathered with respect to these trouble-makers, they disappeared in such a manner that they were nowhere to be found. However, a shepherd from among them who was
taken captive by the Muslims accepted Islām upon the preaching of the Holy Prophet sa. After a stay of a few days, the Holy Prophet sa returned to Madīnah.5

* Aṭ-Ṭabaqātul-Kubrā, By Muḥammad bin Sa‘d, Volume 2, p. 280, Ghazwatu Rasūlillāhisa Dūmatal Jandal, Dāru Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut, Lebanon, First Edition (1996)
* Mu‘jamul-Buldān, By Shihābuddīn Abū ‘Abdillāh Yāqūt bin ‘Abdillāh Al-Ḥamwiyyu Ar-Rūmiyyu,
Volume 2, p. 325, Ghazwatu Rasūlillāhisa Dūmatal-Jandal, Dāru Iḥyā’it-Turāthil-‘Arabī, Beirut,
Lebanon, First Edition (1996)
............................................................""
[and more references given there]

Source: Pages 401 + https://www.alislam.org/holyprophet/Seal-of-Prophets-Vol-2.pdf


2= MORE RELATED ASPECTS CAN BE READ AT:
"" II - Commencement of Jihād by the Sword and Fundamental Discussion on
Jihād
Does Islām Permit Compulsion in the Matter of Religion? ... 40
State of Muslims at the Commencement of Jihād Refutes the Notion of Compulsion ...44
No Individual Has Ever Been Coerced to Become Muslim .... 44
Lives of the Companions Reject the Notion of Compulsion .....48
Desire of the Holy Prophetsa to Reconcile Rejects the Notion of Compulsion ....49
Muslims Achieved Exceptional Progress During a Time of Peace ......51
Hundreds of Disbelievers Remained Averse to Islām at the Victory of Makkah ......52

Causes of War .........53
First Qur’ānic Verse Regarding Jihād ......61
Holy Qur’ān as the Most Authentic Historical Evidence ......63
Some Additional Qur’ānic Verses Relevant to Jihād .....65
Some Fundamental Narrations Relevant to Jihād by the Sword ......69
Manner of War in Arabia .......76
Categories of the Islāmic Wars .......77
Etiquette of Islāmic Jihād .......78
Commencement of Jihād & Precautionary Measures of the Holy Prophet sa ...... 89
..
Source Pages v + https://www.alislam.org/holyprophet/Seal-of-Prophets-Vol-2.pdf
 
Last edited:

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Hi Smart_Guy (and everyone),

So often in these discussions we get tripped up because we have different definitions for the same word. So, for the sake of getting our definitions understood, what words would you use to describe Muhammad's military conquests in the last 5 or 10 years of his life? Were they "defensive"? By some Islamic definitions I've heard that they were "defensive".

This is important for our conversations, because to a non-Muslim, most of Muhammad's military conquests would not be considered "defensive".

_____________
defend net neutrality - "without love in the game, insanity's king"

Hi there.

First, I'd like to thank you for keeping the discussion decent. Many others resorted to unacceptable contexts and word choice.

I'm not well educated with the military practice history of the Prophet, so unfortunately I cannot answer that, and I wouldn't come up with random excuses for it. Hopefully other members would answer it. I was talking about the Quraan in my last post which the original topic was about in the first place.

I also still would like to know you opinion in the case scenario in my explanation for the defense teaching in the Quraan that I asked of in my previous post, if possible, before the subject changes:
(what would you do in such a scenario?).
 
Last edited:

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
Hi Smart_Guy,

If I understand you, you're asking something like, "if someone was threatening your family with violence would it be okay to defend your family with force"?

If that's the essence of your question, then I would say yes to that. I think in this case everyone would agree with how the word "defensive" (defend), is being used.
 
Top