Istanbul airport explosions

[Gharib]

Legimitately surpised you're disagreeing with him here, after all isn't this the same "Khalifah" you want back?

Prejudiced much or is it just honest ignorance?

No it's not the same Khilafah.

 

[David1967]

Who told that he never react when US kill civilians ...etc ?
You are newbie,most of people here against US crimes.

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.

You are correct. And these senseless attacks are proof.

 

[LuisDantas]

Prejudiced much or is it just honest ignorance?

No it's not the same Khilafah.

That is an important point to emphasize. Just because two people long for the establishment of a caliphate it does not follow that they have any sort of agreement on who is entitled to the role of Caliph.

Unless I am mistaken, bitter disagreements on just that matter are very much a historical fact. To a degree it resembles the polarization regarding who should be the President of a country. Except that it is entirely possible for rival Caliphates to exist at the same time; that, too, has happened in the past.

One may have genuine worries and questions about the idea of a Caliphate, but simple desire to see one established says very little about the inclinations of any given Muslim in and of itself (beyond hinting that said Muslim is not too fond of secularism). It is necessary to ask who would that Caliph be and how he would be chosen.

 

[Gharib]

That is an important point to emphasize. Just because two people long for the establishment of a caliphate it does not follow that they have any sort of agreement on who is entitled to the role of Caliph.

Unless I am mistaken, bitter disagreements on just that matter are very much a historical fact. To a degree it resembles the polarization regarding who should be the President of a country. Except that it is entirely possible for rival Caliphates to exist at the same time; that, too, has happened in the past.

One may have genuine worries and questions about the idea of a Caliphate, but simple desire to see one established says very little about the inclinations of any given Muslim in and of itself (beyond hinting that said Muslim is not too fond of secularism). It is necessary to ask who would that Caliph be and how he would be chosen.

Yes there have been disputes in the past. However, there cannot be more than one Khilafah (Islamic State) and more than one Imam/Khalifah (leader). Once a leader is chosen, anyone who claims leadership thereafter must be killed along with those who show support to him.

The period of Ali, radiallahu anhu, which I assume you are taking as reference was a matter of trying to calm the situation instead of taking decisive action. And for this, the rightly guided leader (Ali) was met with deceit which is why turmoil erupted.

What I mean by 'wanting khilafah back' is the establishment of an Islamic State that will rule the Muslim lands as foretold by our Prophet by someone from his progeny that will come after a time of oppression once kingdoms have fallen. I would like to think that this is the worst type of oppression Muslims will face at the hands of a global tyranny directed towards Muslims and therefore wishing that this Khilafah appears now rather than latter, which would mean Muslims will face greater oppression in the mean time.

 

[LuisDantas]

Yes there have been disputes in the past. However, there cannot be more than one Khilafah (Islamic State) and more than one Imam/Khalifah (leader). Once a leader is chosen, anyone who claims leadership thereafter must be killed along with those who show support to him.

That sure sounds extreme. I take it that by your understanding, since ISIS (Daesh) claims to have established a Khilafah, it is essentially challenging other Muslims to either support that claim or fight it (presumably to the death)?

The period of Ali, radiallahu anhu, which I assume you are taking as reference was a matter of trying to calm the situation instead of taking decisive action. And for this, the rightly guided leader (Ali) was met with deceit which is why turmoil erupted.

This is one of the main and most bitter disagreements between Shia and Sunni, from what I understand.

Would that be correct?

It seems logical to assume that claims of rightful leadership of all Muslims tend to cause extreme reactions. One either supports them or denounces them as illegitimate. And if I understood you correctly, there is not a lot of room to claim regional Caliphates either (although that seems to have been a reality in the past).

What I mean by 'wanting khilafah back' is the establishment of an Islamic State that will rule the Muslim lands as foretold by our Prophet by someone from his progeny that will come after a time of oppression once kingdoms have fallen. I would like to think that this is the worst type of oppression Muslims will face at the hands of a global tyranny directed towards Muslims and therefore wishing that this Khilafah appears now rather than latter, which would mean Muslims will face greater oppression in the mean time.

I realize that you interpret those words in a very different way, but doesn't Daesh say much the same thing?

 

[Gharib]

That sure sounds extreme. I take it that by your understanding, since ISIS (Daesh) claims to have established a Khilafah, it is essentially challenging other Muslims to either support that claim or fight it (presumably to the death)?

ISIS are a bunch of clowns. You don't need much to become a clown do you?

They are illegitimate, contrary to Islamic teachings and a pest that must be eradicated. Just because they say they have established a Khilafah doesn't make it so. Like I said, anyone can be a clown.

A global scholarly consensus was derived that they are illegitimate. Visit this website; http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

Need I say more?

This is one of the main and most bitter disagreements between Shia and Sunni, from what I understand.

Would that be correct?

It seems logical to assume that claims of rightful leadership of all Muslims tend to cause extreme reactions. One either supports them or denounces them as illegitimate. And if I understood you correctly, there is not a lot of room to claim regional Caliphates either (although that seems to have been a reality in the past).

That is not the starting point of disagreement between Sunis and Shias. It was after the death of the Prophet. The Shias believed that Ali should have been the Khalifah instead of Abu Bakr just because he was his cousin and from his household (Muslims hold in great regard the household of the Prophet). While Sunis (the majority of Muslims at the time) relied on the actions of the Prophet in electing Abu Bakr as the leader.

I realize that you interpret those words in a very different way, but doesn't Daesh say much the same thing?

Not at all.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Gharib - Far from me to suggest that Daesh is legitimate or respectable, but they have attained considerable numbers and even recruited not too few people from other continents. And as you say, they do claim to have established a Caliphate.

Is it unreasonable to assume that those recruits acknowledge that Caliphate as legitimate, gravely mistaken as they may well be?

Or maybe I am assuming too much about ISIS's goals and recruitment?

 

[Gharib]

@Gharib - Far from me to suggest that Daesh is legitimate or respectable, but they have attained considerable numbers and even recruited not too few people from other continents. And as you say, they do claim to have established a Caliphate.

Is it unreasonable to assume that those recruits acknowledge that Caliphate as legitimate, gravely mistaken as they may well be?

Or maybe I am assuming too much about ISIS's goals and recruitment?

30,000 to maybe 100,000 (I am being very generous with those numbers) is a considerable amount of people to you compared to almost 2 billion?

There are more scholars alone in this world than there are ISIS members. Have you seen anyone with respected authority back them up or justify their crimes?

I didn't say that they have established a Khilafah, I said they have established a circus (ie, my saying they are clowns).

And yes it is unreasonable to assume that. Almost all those who have joined ISIS were non-practicing Muslims who had probably committed every prohibited action and as soon as they felt the need to change, it was easier to abandon everything and go to a place where all you do all day is hold an AK47 in your hands, rape women, kill defenseless people and claim to be doing the most beloved action in the sight of Allah.

 

[LuisDantas]

30,000 to maybe 100,000 (I am being very generous with those numbers) is a considerable amount of people to you compared to almost 2 billion?

Of course not. But regardless of the numbers, the fact remains that they control considerable territory and have been commiting their crimes for years now, despite an almost complete lack of external sympathy or allies.

If anything, that they are so few speaks for their organization and determination.

There are more scholars alone in this world than there are ISIS members. Have you seen anyone with respected authority back them up or justify their crimes?

No. Nor do I expect to.

I didn't say that they have established a Khilafah, I said they have established a circus (ie, my saying they are clowns).

I understand the sentiment. Still, they must be taken seriously, if for no other reason because they cause way too much harm.

And yes it is unreasonable to assume that.

In that case, why would they even bother to make the claim? Are their recruits supposed to be doubters of the very cause that they are killing and dying for?

That sure sounds unlikely to me.

Almost all those who have joined ISIS were non-practicing Muslims who had probably committed every prohibited action and as soon as they felt the need to change, it was easier to abandon everything and go to a place where all you do all day is hold an AK47 in your hands, rape women, kill defenseless people and claim to be doing the most beloved action in the sight of Allah.

That may well be. I'm certainly not aware of any evidence nor hint to the contrary, for what that is worth.

That does bring some interesting questions to mind.

 

[uncung]

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?

you do imply we may kill muslims who reject paying zakah.

 

[uncung]

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?

they, the victims are in the wrong place.

 

[David1967]

they, the victims are in the wrong place.

I will speak to you no more. You are not right.

 

[Jumi]

they, the victims are in the wrong place.

It's not the victims that were in the wrong place, it was the selfish murderers who enjoyed killing the mothers who were in the wrong place. And so is your selfish heart in the wrong place, praising the murderer.

 

[uncung]

It's not the victims that were in the wrong place, it was the selfish murderers who enjoyed killing the mothers who were in the wrong place. And so is your selfish heart in the wrong place, praising the murderer.

no, the victims supposed to be not in the places that represents government.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

...

The vast majority of people Daesh is killing are fellow Muslims, duh!

And the poster you were replying to is Christian. Even if he wasn't, there's no need to use "pagan" as an insult.

no, the victims supposed to be not in the places that represents government.

Why do you justify and support killing civilians? You think that's what God wants?

 

[Jumi]

no, the victims supposed to be not in the places that represents government.

They would have killed random people anywhere and you would believe they were right in murdering anyone for any made up reason. An airport was just for them to pick weak unarmed people to murder. They couldn't handle the Turkish soldiers or attack real government places.

 

[uncung]

They would have killed random people anywhere and you would believe they were right in murdering anyone for any made up reason. An airport was just for them to pick weak unarmed people to murder. They couldn't handle the Turkish soldiers or attack real government places.

no if they would kill random people then they simply go to the crowded traditional market. In airport there are securities also. I guess they did it because the securities always detain jihadist members. In this case that attack is a retaliation.

 

[Jumi]

killing the Muslims by Daesh is a punishment, while your troop killing parties are invasion upon other countries, in this case you are the Islamic invader specialists.

You still make lies about me having troops. Even my country doesn't have troops there and if they would have troops I wouldn't support them. You're a hypocrite, you support Daesh killing Muslims and make lies about the victims and everyone who disagrees with you.

no if they would kill random people then they simply go to the crowded traditional market. In airport there are securities also. I guess they did it because the securities always detain jihadist members. In this case that attack is a retaliation.

You just make hypocritical excuses for your self and them. You really know that they want to murder weak and innocent people because they like to murder many people and they wouldn't last against Turkish army so they kill someones mother. They don't attack guards but unarmed women, children whether Muslim or not and men who have nothing to do with it. And you support them murdering people who have nothing to do with any wars you think.

 

[uncung]

You still make lies about me having troops. Even my country doesn't have troops there and if they would have troops I wouldn't support them. You're a hypocrite, you support Daesh killing Muslims and make lies about the victims and everyone who disagrees with you.


You just make hypocritical excuses for your self and them. You really know that they want to murder weak and innocent people because they like to murder many people and they wouldn't last against Turkish army so they kill someones mother. They don't attack guards but unarmed women, children whether Muslim or not and men who have nothing to do with it. And you support them murdering people who have nothing to do with any wars you think.

so we suggest the Turkey government to stop detaining ISIS members. Turkey suppose to detain american people instead.

 

[Jumi]

so we suggest the Turkey government to stop detaining ISIS members. Turkey suppose to detain american people instead

You think someone whose mother or child you killed will understand your hypocritical logic? No. They and their kin will swear vengeance on you, and you happily accept to murder more Muslims because you don't care about Muslims. All you care is being hypocrite and murder.