• 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!

The Islamic State has infiltrated airports, metro stations, etc.

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
This is what we do:

I quote a verse from the Qur'an that mandates war against the non-Muslims. Then you come up with an alleged context for that verse that seems to render the verse harmless. You also give a personal interpretation that differs from the most straightforward interpretation of the text. Then I read commentaries on the verse written by the most renowned Islamic scholars of all time to see if the context and interpretation that you provided match the mainstream interpretation of that verse. Time and time again, the most renowned scholars of Islam do NOT agree with you. If it weren't for your objections, I would just quote the Qur'an without resorting to the writings of those scholars.

It is not my fault that you don't the point of those scholars. All you do is reading a text and that's it. I'm a Muslim living in a serious Muslims country (Saudi Arabia), specifically in Makkah where Islam was revealed, and I've bee thru many teachings, interpretations and clarifications about those points. I'm also a native of Makkah and my family and ancestors whom I learned from lived thru the teachings of Islam, and before schools they learned it from the Grand Mosque in Makkah. Simply put, you do not know the details of those interpretation. All you know is a fixed text, and I wish it was at least the original.

Why are turning an IS IS thread to a discussion about Islam any ways? You and I both agree that IS IS is evil. Isn't that what the thread is all about?

I don't have any preconceptions about Islam. I simply read the Islamic sacred texts and I take them at face value. I have a better understanding of Islam than Smart Guy, since all of the most renowned Islamic scholars agree with me and disagree with Smart Guy.

Crypto, I don't claim to know Islam perfectly, but further to what I said above and what you said in red, it does not make sense that you understand Islam better than me. Also, I happened to be the only Saudi Arabian Muslim, native to Makkah the center of Islam who knows English that I know of to participate with international people. Language barrier alone is what holding millions of Muslim with the same understanding of Islam as mine.

Who's Ibn Kathir?

Even I don't remember the last time I heard his name before this thread. He seems to be one of the interpreters of the Quran.
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Of course that there are a lot of peaceful Muslims. The question is: are they peaceful because or in spite of Islam?
No. Violent Christians are not violent because of their interpretation of the Bible.

Why when it comes to Muslims you ask such questions but when it comes to Christians you affirm that violent Christians are violent not because of the Bible which means not because of Christianity?

I'm not implying anything against Christians here. I respect them as humans and as Christians, and I basically respect their beliefs in Christianity.
 

Crypto2015

Active Member
Daesh's theology is really that of an apocalyptic death cult. They're actually trying to bring on the end of the world. Christian Zionist pre-tribulation lunatics have much the same ideas and they were a big influence over the foreign policy of the Bush administration. So you have that and the complicated socio-political situation in that area (poverty, social collapse, war along with Western meddling and material support of jihadi extremists, etc.) and so the rise of movements like Daesh become much easier to understand. So to blame it just on Islam is pretty stupid.

Yes, the same ideas. I remember the state of the size of France that the Christian Zionist pre-tribulation guys created in 2005. I remember how many people they beheaded and how they uploaded the beheading videos to Youtube because they knew that thousands of Christians from all over the world would see how in line with the teachings of Christ the executions were. Those crafty Christian Zionist pre-tribulation guys knew that by showing videos of executions they would radicalise thousands of Christian. Things turned out just as they expected: thousands of Christians from the most developed nations in the world flock en masse to the newly created Christian Zionist pre-tribulation state, hoping to behead some non-Christian before the cameras. Oh, I remember how those Christians blew up the metro in London, the train station in Madrid, two huge buildings in Buenos Aires, and two tall towers in New York. It is a pity that no one linked their actions to Christianity and insisted on saying that they had hijacked Christianity. They even created the word Christianism to avoid linking the terrorism to Christianity.
 

Crypto2015

Active Member
Why when it comes to Muslims you ask such questions but when it comes to Christians you affirm that violent Christians are violent not because of the Bible which means not because of Christianity?

I'm not implying anything against Christians here. I respect them as humans and as Christians, and I basically respect their beliefs in Christianity.

Because of two reasons: (1) most terrorists are Muslim and (2) Islam has lots of sacred scriptures that say that killing in the name of Allah is the best you can do with your life.
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Because of two reasons: (1) most terrorists are Muslim and (2) Islam has lots of sacred scriptures that say that killing in the name of Allah is the best you can do with your life.

Most terrorists are Muslims does not prove anything. It could be true (just maybe) if you say most Muslims are terrorists. As for the sacred scriptures, I think many posts addressed this already. The Bible is not free of those. Statement (2) is tricky anyways. The reason why and who to kill is what matters.
 

Crypto2015

Active Member
Who's Ibn Kathir?

Ismail ibn Kathir (Arabic: ابن كثير‎, born c. 1300, died 1373) was a highly influential Sunni scholar of the Shafi'i school during the Mamluk rule of Syria, an expert on tafsir (Quranic exegesis) and faqīh (jurisprudence) as well as a historian.[8][9] Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani said about him, “Ibn Kathir worked on the subject of the Hadith in the texts (متون) and chains of narrators (رجال). He had a good memory, his books became popular during his lifetime, and people benefited from them after his death.”[10]

Ibn Kathir wrote a famous commentary on the Qur'an named Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿaẓīm which linked certain Hadith, or sayings of Muhammad, and sayings of the sahaba to verses of the Qur'an, in explanation. It is considered to be a summary of the earlier tafsir by al-Tabari, Tafsir al-Tabari. It is especially popular because it uses the hadith to explain each verse and chapter of the Qur'an.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Kathir
 

psychoslice

Veteran Member
Why when it comes to Muslims you ask such questions but when it comes to Christians you affirm that violent Christians are violent not because of the Bible which means not because of Christianity?

I'm not implying anything against Christians here. I respect them as humans and as Christians, and I basically respect their beliefs in Christianity.
Yes you may so call them respectable, but at the same time you see them as infidels, so which one is it ?.
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Yes you may so call them respectable, but at the same time you see them as infidels, so which one is it ?.

Yes, that's a good and an important question.

Infidel means not believing in the same religion you believe in. It's a neutral word. But I don't call others infidels anyways. If they are not Muslims, I just call them by their religion or simply non Muslims. They see us as infidels as well and I'm not bothered by that. In their beliefs I'm an infidel and I respect that. I was called an infidel before actually and I took it with good spirit. I don't think seeing one as an infidel is disrespectful. For some reason religious fanatics made this word derogatory because of how they use it that not in normal use it has become so. In other words, it's not negative religiously, but negative socially.
 

JacobEzra.

Dr. Greenthumb
I fear Islamic terrorism. But I also fear the fear induced reactionaries who have tendencies to accept xonophobia and racism.

Even nazi wannabes are getting bolder.
 

Crypto2015

Active Member
I fear Islamic terrorism. But I also fear the fear induced reactionaries who have tendencies to accept xonophobia and racism.

Even nazi wannabes are getting bolder.

So do I. That is why it would be better to examine the ideology behind these attacks once and for all. The more the politicians ignore the ideology behind ISIS, the more the fascist right will grow.
 

Crypto2015

Active Member
Wahhabism?

Sharia law at the very least.

Shafi’i school: A Shafi’i manual of Islamic law that was certified in 1991 by the clerics at Al-Azhar University, one of the leading authorities in the Islamic world, as a reliable guide to Sunni orthodoxy, stipulates about jihad that “the caliph makes war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians…until they become Muslim or pay the non-Muslim poll tax.” It adds a comment by Sheikh Nuh Ali Salman, a Jordanian expert on Islamic jurisprudence: the caliph wages this war only “provided that he has first invited [Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians] to enter Islam in faith and practice, and if they will not, then invited them to enter the social order of Islam by paying the non-Muslim poll tax (jizya)…while remaining in their ancestral religions.” (‘Umdat al-Salik, o9.8)

Hanafi school: A Hanafi manual of Islamic law repeats the same injunctions. It insists that people must be called to embrace Islam before being fought, “because the Prophet so instructed his commanders, directing them to call the infidels to the faith.” It emphasizes that jihad must not be waged for economic gain, but solely for religious reasons: from the call to Islam “the people will hence perceive that they are attacked for the sake of religion, and not for the sake of taking their property, or making slaves of their children, and on this consideration it is possible that they may be induced to agree to the call, in order to save themselves from the troubles of war.”

However, “if the infidels, upon receiving the call, neither consent to it nor agree to pay capitation tax [jizya], it is then incumbent on the Muslims to call upon God for assistance, and to make war upon them, because God is the assistant of those who serve Him, and the destroyer of His enemies, the infidels, and it is necessary to implore His aid upon every occasion; the Prophet, moreover, commands us so to do.” (Al-Hidayah, II.140)

Maliki school: Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), a pioneering historian and philosopher, was also a Maliki legal theorist. In his renowned Muqaddimah, the first work of historical theory, he notes that “in the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.” In Islam, the person in charge of religious affairs is concerned with “power politics,” because Islam is “under obligation to gain power over other nations.”

Hanbali school: The great medieval theorist of what is commonly known today as radical or fundamentalist Islam, Ibn Taymiyya (Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya, 1263-1328), was a Hanbali jurist. He directed that “since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God’s entirely and God’s word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought.”
 

Crypto2015

Active Member
Some of Reza Aslan's work may be pertinent, and of interest.

I don't know. Personally, I don't believe a word of what he says. He has been exposed as a liar several times. He lies, among other things, about his academic credentials.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I don't know. Personally, I don't believe a word of what he says. He has been exposed as a liar several times. He lies, among other things, about his academic credentials.

I've seen some allegations and some rebuttals, I don't know the truth. Regardless, his book 'No god but God' is rather fine.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
I haven't read it yet. Why do you like it?

Because it's quite comprehensive, and seems to me to be based upon a solidly realistic and pragmatic approach to the subject matter. By no means is it pandering to the orthodox Islamic view, or anything like that.
 

Smart_Guy

...
Premium Member
Wahhabism?
It's a strict Islamic movement originated from the previously known Kingdom of Najd, the currently Central Area of the country. It got adopted by the govt. and used all over the country when the rest of it was unified. It typically takes the strict choices of the four schools of the the currently know Sunnah sect, and from Islamic teachings in general. I can't talk much about it to not attract attention to myself.
 
Top