Phil25
Active Member
Not really, many of them are Chechens, who look a lot like Whites
-
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.
- Thread starter Mycroft
- Start date
Not really, many of them are Chechens, who look a lot like Whites
MD
qualiaphile
There are very few white converts in ISIS. Most of the Europeans are a mix of 2nd generation Pakistanis and North Africans. The majority of them are from the UK, which goes to show how horrible that country is at integration. As Phil said however, there are a considerable number of chechens, between 1000-2000. Chechens are very good fighters, some of the best in the world.
The rest of ISIS consists of Saudis, Egyptians and Iraqis. I think ISIS is the face of the resistance, but the real power lies in the sunni tribes and ex baathists. That's where the numbers are in my opinion. ISIS is just there to draw recruits.
Back to the word "defense". There is evidence that the scripture discusses a battle that Muhammad won. After the battle he ordered and witnessed the beheading of 800 of his adversaries. Some Muslims have told me that there is a way in Islam's teachings, for this behavior to be labeled "defensive".
In other cultures and societies this behavior would not be called "defensive", so it IS important to understand exactly what people mean when they use words like this.
In other cultures and societies this behavior would not be called "defensive", so it IS important to understand exactly what people mean when they use words like this.
If you would kindly link me to it.
Please remember that warfare is not a play in the park. Some times bad decisions have to be made according to a context.
Please also know that I don't support ISIS and if they are who I think they are, the evil bunch, then I want them to burn and go to hell.
Last edited:
Thanks man. I'll have a look at it.
Edit:
I read the passage and I encourage others to read it. Has some controversies, but some missing facts as well; Muslims were in a so very small number and tight living when Quraidah tribe betrayed the pact and treaty by joining the enemy and also giving them weaponry, the enemy that happened to be so many folds more than the Muslims. not all males were executed, only the adults. Yes, the outcome was harsh, but tell me, at that delicate unsafe lawless time of history, what would you have done, how would you have felt for such betrayal, specially if it succeeded and had you and your people completely wiped out? Set them free and wait for them to hit harder than the first time? Remember also that they started it.
I repeat, warfare is not a child's play. I don't see this related to ISIS actually. I'm Muslim and I'm telling you again, if ISIS are what you say they are, they should be stopped as soon as possible. I don't stand with them.
Edit2:
I wouldn't say that Muhammad won that war, I'd say he survived it. That so called war was no way fair and unbalanced in which Muslims were in the defense. It was a miracle that they survived it.
Edit:
I read the passage and I encourage others to read it. Has some controversies, but some missing facts as well; Muslims were in a so very small number and tight living when Quraidah tribe betrayed the pact and treaty by joining the enemy and also giving them weaponry, the enemy that happened to be so many folds more than the Muslims. not all males were executed, only the adults. Yes, the outcome was harsh, but tell me, at that delicate unsafe lawless time of history, what would you have done, how would you have felt for such betrayal, specially if it succeeded and had you and your people completely wiped out? Set them free and wait for them to hit harder than the first time? Remember also that they started it.
I repeat, warfare is not a child's play. I don't see this related to ISIS actually. I'm Muslim and I'm telling you again, if ISIS are what you say they are, they should be stopped as soon as possible. I don't stand with them.
Edit2:
I wouldn't say that Muhammad won that war, I'd say he survived it. That so called war was no way fair and unbalanced in which Muslims were in the defense. It was a miracle that they survived it.
Last edited:
Hi Smart_Guy,
I think in this case we're looking at an old historical account. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that this account is correct. (And, BTW, I'd be happy to read a different account if you have one.)
According to this account, once the battle was over, ~800 executions occurred. I don't find it compelling that Muhammad relied on Jewish law - that seems contrary to the idea that Muhammad was claiming that Islam was the true law from Allah.
So it seems that in this case the word "defensive" is used very differently by Muslims then it is used by everyone else. Not necessarily a problem, but good to know for the sake of clear discussions, correct?
For example, using this definition of the word "defensive" we could argue that for the last few weeks Israel has been behaving defensively - correct?
I think in this case we're looking at an old historical account. But for the sake of discussion, let's say that this account is correct. (And, BTW, I'd be happy to read a different account if you have one.)
According to this account, once the battle was over, ~800 executions occurred. I don't find it compelling that Muhammad relied on Jewish law - that seems contrary to the idea that Muhammad was claiming that Islam was the true law from Allah.
So it seems that in this case the word "defensive" is used very differently by Muslims then it is used by everyone else. Not necessarily a problem, but good to know for the sake of clear discussions, correct?
For example, using this definition of the word "defensive" we could argue that for the last few weeks Israel has been behaving defensively - correct?
Hello there. I've been looking forward to your reply. I like the way you discuss things
Actually, I don't see what happened was defensive, I think it was a cause and effect. Muslims were betrayed more than once from the Jews back at the day and while they had pacts and treaties between them (and no, those Jews don't define the other Jews, namely the current ones). This time the betrayal was not something easy. It was way overboard and catastrophic if it was not taken care of with God will.
I really can't see it is defensing as it is a reaction/reflex to an external effect.
As for following laws from other religions, in Islam we believe that all three Abrahamic religions are from the same God and all of them supersede each other the later they come. Religions don't come in one go, they are revealed little by little, as prophets are humans and have their limits. When Muhammad had situations that Islam did not speak of yet, he took the laws of from the previous Abrahamic religions to compensate (one of the good reasons that Islam respects other religions). Islam was not complete until the death of the Prophet.
But either ways, having the above said, what Israel did lately is indeed a defensive action. I don't argue with in this. I'm not siding with Hamas as a military power (although saying "power" here is an over statement), but to have already done what was needed that had to be done, yet still keep hammering and intentionally targeting women and children is another subject. I mean, even in the west, there is a saying that says "enough is enough". Besides, If what Muhammad did was really defensive, and I was wrong above in my conclusion that it was not, he spared the women and children. Israel seems to be targeting the women and children, as I heard Natanyahu say in a press conference (could be an edit?!?!), and as some radical religious Zionists declared before, and a Jewish friend confirmed it to me.
I see the discussion have strayed so much off-topic. If you start a new thread specifically for it, and I don't mean to impose, I'll gladly participate in it answering every thing you want from me.
Hi Smart_Guy,
Okay, back to understanding the words "defense" and "defensive". After Muhammad died, the Islamic leaders that spread Islam east and west have often been accused of "spreading Islam by the sword". So a couple of questions related to that:
- Do you agree with that statement? (That Islam was spread by the sword.)
- If you agree, were those leaders following Islam faithfully or not?
Okay, back to understanding the words "defense" and "defensive". After Muhammad died, the Islamic leaders that spread Islam east and west have often been accused of "spreading Islam by the sword". So a couple of questions related to that:
- Do you agree with that statement? (That Islam was spread by the sword.)
- If you agree, were those leaders following Islam faithfully or not?
Mycroft
Ministry of Serendipity
Time to arm the Nukes. :drool:
I don't completely disagree with it, at least because of those ISIS terrorists. My knowledge of Islam says that the sword was used either to protect against raids or to answer back to a crime like the betrayal of Banu Qurayza that almost destroyed Islam and caused annihilation of all Muslims.
But what really matters to me is the teachings not the history. Nothing can live for 1400 years without having a clean reputation.
You can check the thread:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/163547-islam-spread-sword.html
if you'd like to discuss about spreading Islam by the sword.
It will probably have better answers than mine.
We can send Duke Nukem to them. He will know what to do
Hi Smart_Guy,
I agree, this isn't really about discussing history. It's about defining words like "defensive".
Here is one definition I've heard from a couple of different Muslims:
1 - A Muslim army enters a new territory and asks the people to convert to Islam.
2 - The people don't want to convert, they resist being converted.
3 - The Muslims can now attack the people because resistance is seen as an attack against Islam.
Would you see that example as fitting the definition for "defensive"?
Many Muslims believe that Islam MUST be spread over the entire world, do you?
I agree, this isn't really about discussing history. It's about defining words like "defensive".
Here is one definition I've heard from a couple of different Muslims:
1 - A Muslim army enters a new territory and asks the people to convert to Islam.
2 - The people don't want to convert, they resist being converted.
3 - The Muslims can now attack the people because resistance is seen as an attack against Islam.
Would you see that example as fitting the definition for "defensive"?
Many Muslims believe that Islam MUST be spread over the entire world, do you?
Ouch man, whoever told you about that definition has serious problems
Cut your ties with them now :run:
That definition is never defensive. It is completely and needlessly offensive. And no, I don't believe Islam must spread over the entire world.
Hi Smart_Guy,
I'm glad we agree in this point. Let me ask you to extend your patience again...
In many countries - in 2014 - in the ME and in Africa, Muslims are driving Christians out of Muslim majority countries, or they are telling the Christians they must pay taxes and become dhimmis.
What do you think of these behaviors? Do they fit into Islamic belief?
I'm glad we agree in this point. Let me ask you to extend your patience again...
In many countries - in 2014 - in the ME and in Africa, Muslims are driving Christians out of Muslim majority countries, or they are telling the Christians they must pay taxes and become dhimmis.
What do you think of these behaviors? Do they fit into Islamic belief?
Icehorse, I cannot help but have mixed feelings about what you said.
Having roots from Sub-Saharan Africa I know for a fact that even Muslim majority countries below the Sahara are often treated as 2nd rate citizens, mostly because government and high positions are given to the Christian elite. Some of this is due to the lack of western education that the Islamic populace has, and some due to the balance of power Christians have in these countries. It's sad to see people from the same country being unfair to the others, but that seems to be the case for most of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Now, I can only speak Sub-Sahara, but I'm not sure if the same is for North Africa and the ME.
Having roots from Sub-Saharan Africa I know for a fact that even Muslim majority countries below the Sahara are often treated as 2nd rate citizens, mostly because government and high positions are given to the Christian elite. Some of this is due to the lack of western education that the Islamic populace has, and some due to the balance of power Christians have in these countries. It's sad to see people from the same country being unfair to the others, but that seems to be the case for most of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Now, I can only speak Sub-Sahara, but I'm not sure if the same is for North Africa and the ME.
Pastek
Sunni muslim
Not in the maghreb, there's no differences concerning the different religions, but i've heard that in Egypt they write in the ID the religion of people.
I've never heard of problems concerning the religions, exept for Egypt and Lebanon.
Concerning the christians-jewish elite, it was only during the colonisation and just in Algeria, it was made to divise the population. That's the reason why they had to left with the french at the end of the colonisation.
I really don't like to talk about politics and religion, nor get involved in them, but I'll do so this time just for you man, to return some of the favor for your nice way in conversing.
The history of religion was always full of atrocities, specially the history of Jerusalem when it comes to Christians and Muslims. This alone makes a humble single video gamer like me in no position to give a credible, neutral and rational answer.
I however, just like anyone else, can give a thought about it even though I never really thought about it before.
Time changes, and I believe Islamic taxes from non-Muslims (AKA Jizya in Arabic) should not be imposed any more because living in countries these days already has its own residential rules and regulations that I believe cover for the purpose of paying the Islamic taxes of non Muslims. But honestly I'm not really sure of it. I think that if it is not imposed, it will be unfair to Muslims themselves because they pay alms and non Muslims don't. According to my understanding, the purpose of those taxes was to protect non Muslims just like protecting Muslims, and if Muslims failed to protect non Muslims properly, those non Muslims have full right to take back what they payed, and Islam protects that right.
Just for the records, Islamic taxes for non Muslims is only payed from those capable of paying it. If they financially can't, they don't, and it does not become a dept. Some Islamic trends say that the elderly and young children, along with other I believe, don't have to be payed for. Also, if those non Muslims are involved in the protection force; e.g. the army or the police, then automatically they don't have to pay.
As for those behaviors, they are wrong. No one should be driven out of their home land. I personally believe that imposing taxes should stop, unless a new Islamic country is born that only has Muslims, and new non Muslims come to the land to find one of the requirements to reside in it is paying those taxes. I mean, every country has its own rules. Even I can't visit USA for example just like that, or take the nationality without having to pay the taxes (and by the way, the Islamic taxes for non Muslims is way much less than any taxes in the whole world)
The above was what I have to say about the Islamic taxes payed by the non Muslims (AKA Jizha in Arabic) and the current issues related to it, and I hope it helps. If I made a mistake, then it was because of my incompetence, but if I was right, then it was because of God's guidance.
I didn't know you were Moroccan
Last edited:
Pastek
Sunni muslim
I didn't know you were Moroccan
By Maghreb i meant the region. I feel myself just a maghrebian, not from a particular country because of mixity
Sabour
Well-Known Member
I don't have lots of information about them. But there is a hadith saying: "There will be people in my Community whose mark is that they shave (their heads). They will recite Qur'an, but it will not go past their throats. They will pass through religion the way an arrow passes through its target. They are the worst of human beings and the worst of all creation."
I think that may be what we are talking about here.
They speak in the name of religion and in the name of Islam but they are far away from Islam. Not only far from Islam, but far away from anything has to be with being a human.
I think that may be what we are talking about here.
They speak in the name of religion and in the name of Islam but they are far away from Islam. Not only far from Islam, but far away from anything has to be with being a human.