ISIS in Islam

[Salafi Stannis]

I wanted to make this thread to clear up any misconceptions about ISIS and Islam. Firstly, let me talk about the term "moderate Muslim". People seem to think that if you don't take Islam seriously you're a moderate, and if you do you're an extremist, this is false.

Every major Islamic scholar has refuted the extremists in every form, whether they are the so called "Islamic State" or Al Qaeda, you name it. Abd Al Aziz bin Baz, Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani, Ibn Uthaymeen, all of them have warned against extremism. (The extremists try to counter this by calling them "palace scholars" bought and paid for by the Saudi government, but Al Albani, the greatest of them, was constantly at odds with the Saudi government)

Firstly, let me refute the actions of these people

Suicide bombings:

It was narrated from Thaabit ibn al-Dahhaak (may Allaah be pleased with him) that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Whoever kills himself with something in this world will be punished with it on the Day of Resurrection.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 5700; Muslim, 110.

The prophet also refused to perform funeral prayer on one who committed suicide

Beheadings:

The Prophet never accepted the presentation of a decapitated head and he did not accept acts of brutality that serve no purpose in Islam. Rather, a severed head was once presented to Abu Bakr and he condemned it.

Uqbah ibn Amir reported: He came to Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, with a severed head and Abu Bakr condemned it. Uqbah said, “O Caliph of the Messenger of Allah, they do that to us!” Abu Bakr said:

فَاسْتِنَانٌ بِفَارِسَ وَالرُّومِ لا تُحْمَلْ إِلَيَّ رَأْسٌ فَإِنَّمَا يَكْفِي الْكِتَابُ وَالْخَبَرُ

So you follow the way of the Persians and Romans? Rather, do not come to me with a severed head. It is sufficient for you to write and inform me.

Source: Sunan ibn Mansur 2490, Grade: Sahih

Our own prophet Muhammad (SAW) has warned against them. We call extremists the "Khawaarij", and before we get into how he described them, let's look at what he told us so we could identify them and see if this matches the people joining ISIS:

"They are young of age, foolish of mind"

"Their speech is beautiful, yet their actions are evil" (We see this is true, they come on tv calling to end the suffering of the Muslims, become a martyr and go to paradise).

He even said to his own companions (the best people of our Ummah) "Your prayer and fasting is nothing compared to theirs" (meaning they display outward displays of piety) but he still described them as "the dogs of the hellfire". (Bear in mind that he's speaking of the Khawaarij of the past, and that those today don't even come close to their predecessors in this regard.)

He also said that "They will not cease to emerge, being cut off each time, until the anti-Christ appears among their armies" meaning that they will keep coming back every time they are defeated.

ISIS ticks all of the boxes, they are almost all young, they speak about martyrdom and heaven, they display outward displays of piety, (though not as much as their predecessors, if those Khawaarij are the dogs of the hellfire, what would he call these current ones, who kill more people, and who are far less fastidious in their worship than the Khawaarij of old?) and they are the latest incarnation of a people who have been cut off and defeated time and time again, only to reappear in a different form.

Now that we have established that he is describing people like those joining extremist groups such as ISIS, let's see what he says of their characteristics:

"They are the most evil of creation"

"They call to the book of Allah yet they have nothing to do with it"

"They are the most evil of those killed beneath the canopy of the sky... If I were to reach them I would slaughter them"

"Wherever you meet them kill them, for there is a reward on the day of judgement for those who kill them"

He even implied that they are not even Muslims! He said: "They depart from the religion as an arrow passes through its game"

EDIT- This isn't just about ISIS, it's about all extremists, including ISIS, Al Qaeda etc.

ETA - I'm sure most of you are aware of the growing number of young people running off to join ISIS, now, here's a quote from a Muslim scholar who lived almost 1000 years ago, regarding the Khawaarij:

"Then they departed; slipping through individually so that no one should come to know of them and so prevent them from leaving. So they departed from amid their fathers and their mothers and their uncles and their aunts and parted from all of their relations – believing due to their ignorance and their lack of knowledge and intellect that this affair is pleasing to The Lord of the earth and the heavens. Yet they failed to know that it is from the greatest of major sins and the deadly misdeeds and from the grave calamities and errors. Along with it being from that which Iblees (i.e. the devil) has made alluring to them as did their own souls that inclined towards evil.

So a group of them (the people) managed to prevent some of their offspring and their relations and their brethren and thus brought them back and reprimanded them. So from them were those that then resumed upon steadfastness; and from them were those that escaped after that to join up with the Khawaarij – thus being at loss until the Day of Resurrection."

It's as if he's alive today!

Now, many of you may not believe in our prophet, but his comments do a good job of convincing true Muslims of the evil of the Khawaarij.

[Sir Thursday]

I'm curious - how and to what extent do major Islamic scholars get publicity in Islamic countries? Is it via the internet? Television? Sermons or equivalent at the Mosque? And how visible are they in comparison to ISIS?

A lot has been made of the social media blitz that ISIS have carried out, but one of the phenomenons of modern internet culture is that if such a thing is outside of your sphere of friends/followers then you are unlikely to hear much about it (which IMO is a key factor in the polarisation of political discourse in a lot of places around the world). As such, I haven't really witnessed much of it (and I would imagine it is much more pronounced in somewhere like Pakistan than it would be in the West anyway). So is the propaganda they spew strong enough to drown out the voices of the moderates within places that are predominantly Islamic? Or is it something that everyone condemns and doesn't have much of an impact when there is such a firm belief in the local variant of Islam anyway?

ST

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

KstM,

I don't think there is any question the Daesh are outside of the mainstream. What is frightening about the Daesh are the young Muslim men from Western countries who seem drawn to it. If any question needs to be asked it is what are we doing to drive young Muslim men into this cesspool of purported Islamic extremism?

[zelticgar]

The thing I've never understood about Muslims is the seeming lack of central power figures and their ability to influence. It seems like the shadowy leaders of the terrorists organizations and the war lords are able to exert power but you never hear about the other side. Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King/Ghandi/Mother Teresa? I have no doubt there are many great leaders calling for peace but they never seem to get any coverage (at least in the west).

Off topic a bit but I just read the front page of CNN. They are throwing gay men off buildings in Syria with 100's of onlookers standing by to watch the executions. What a mess.

[Salafi Stannis]

Ser Scot

Mostly young guys looking for adventure, looking for martyrdom. Daesh are very convincing, look at the beautiful speech quote. I mean, have you heard their song for example? Not gonna lie it sounds wonderful.

[Castel]

The thing I've never understood about Muslims is the seeming lack of central power figures and their ability to influence. It seems like the shadowy leaders of the terrorists organizations and the war lords are able to exert power but you never hear about the other side. Where is the Muslim Martin Luther King/Ghandi/Mother Teresa? I have no doubt there are many great leaders calling for peace but they never seem to get any coverage (at least in the west).

Off topic a bit but I just read the front page of CNN. They are throwing gay men off building in Syria with 100's of onlookers standing by to watch the executions. What a mess.

Well, my knowledge of Islamic history is dark and full of holes but it probably has to do with the power of the religious head, the Caliph, being tied to the government of the early Muslim state. Naturally, when splinters happen or shit goes wrong that office is no longer universal or dies with its government.

Besides, there are plenty of Muslim scholars and Imams handing out judgements on all sorts of issues, not just killing Salman Rushdie. I recall a recent ruling against killing yourself in space with shitty exploration projects.

I dunno, if my experience was any indication it's that every Imam basically does their own thing, and any influence that might exist on them comes from the scholars and their various ways of looking at things. Even so we had our own figures, in a way that some might call heretical. It's just that they weren't that prominent. And that's where the comparison might be a bit unfair.

MLK and Gandhi captured the imagination because of massive civil issues. There's really no similar need for an Islamic head against ISIS. Almost by definition the majority of people/Muslims in the West won't be ISIS members. Much less work and fame is needed to convince people that the things they do are wrong.

[Salafi Stannis]

Well, I believe that the true scholars are the Salafi scholars, and that Salafiyyah is the truest form of Islam. That's why the Salafi scholars, such as Al Albani, Ibn Uthaymeen and ibn Baz, etc (the true scholars) agree on basically every main issue. Sadly they have passed away, and have passed the torch on to the great scholars of today, such as Saleh Al Fawzan, Muhammad Bin Hadee, Rabee Al Madkhali, Hasan Al Banna (not the Muslim brotherhood Hasan Al Banna, a different one).

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

In the secular West, there's been a very influential line of thinking that basically says that if somebody identifies as a adherent of a religion we are not going to tell them that they aren't, no matter how much they may not appear to be following certain obvious rules. Obviously, ISIS does not follow this line of thinking since they seem quick to excommunicate anyone who seem slightly deviate from their interpretation of Islam. I wonder if secular liberal Westerners will extend them that courtesy nonetheless.

To me, whether or not ISIS actually follows Islam is not relevant so far as they certainly believe they do, and lots of disaffected young men (and women) agree with them. I also imagine your theological arguments won't gain any traction with them, like that time there was an actual ISIS supporter on the board.

On a side note, wasn't Al Qaeda based on an offshoot of Salafism? Forgive my ignorance if I 'm wrong.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

BearShin,

Only if Wahabism is a form of Salifist Islam.

[Salafi Stannis]

Salafism (though we prefer Salafiyyah) and Wahhabism are basically the same thing. Wahhabi is often used as a derogatory term for salafi, though some people call themselves Wahhabi, and the founder of Wahhabism is himself a salafi. And yes, a lot of people call themselves Salafi who aren't, like Al Qaeda.

[AncalagonTheBlack]

On a side note, wasn't Al Qaeda based on an offshoot of Salafism? Forgive my ignorance if I 'm wrong.

AQ are "al-Khawaarij" or Kharijites (Renegades). This faction is simply an extension of the very first sect to appear in Islaam that broke away from the main body of muslims.The extremism we see today has its ideological foundations in the writings of four "thinkers" - Sayyid Qutb, Abu A'laa Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna and Taqi al-Din al-Nabahani.

They were not Salafis.

The Origins of 20th Century Extremists and Terrorists: The extremism we see today has its ideological foundations in the writings of four "thinkers" - Sayyid Qutb, Abu A'laa Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna and Taqi al-Din al-Nabahani. All of these four men were affected by Marxist Communist Socialist methodologies, and in some cases (al-Nabahani, Qutb) they took wholesale from Lenin and clothed their ideas in Islamic garb (see here for details) - they only differed in minor practicalities, so for example, Qutb advocated a violent revolution engineered by an elite group and al-Nabahani advocated a generalized revolution brought about through the activities of a disciplined elite political party. Today we have scores of groups, parties and sects which are offshoots these groups and they have understandings of jihaad tainted by that Marxist Communist revolutionary ideology - they believe revolutions are the way to topple all current (apostate) states and governments and replace them with an Islamic governance, as they claim. This is not what any of the Messengers came with and this clashes with the revealed texts. The underlying assumption made by these people in their ideologies is that all nations today are apostate nations - some of them were explicit in stating this like Qutb and Nabahani - and others were indirect in portraying that. Upon this foundation, these Kharijites emerged during the early part of the second half of the twentieth century and slowly spread to different Muslim lands. The evils and atrocities of these people plagued Muslim lands before even reaching the lands of the non-Muslims.

A crucial thing to note here is that this evil ideology is old and ancient and it has not arisen due to the foreign policy of any non-Muslim nation - a false argument often used to justify or explain why these extremists do what they do. Rather, this ideology pre-dates by centuries upon centuries whatever geo-political strategies are being implemented in the Muslim lands today and whilst these geo-political strategies have allowed the argument to be made that the extremists are motivated by the foreign policy of non-Muslim nations, they cannot in any way, be used justify the actual existence of this extreme and vile ideology which provides the backbone for these extremist and terrorist activities. If the foreign policy of non-Muslim nations was the cause, then surely, all the Muslims would be involved in extremist and terrorist activities. But that is not the case. Rather, it is only those poisoned with that evil ideology found in the books of Sayyid Qutb and al-Nabahani and others from whom these types of evil actions arise.

For this reason, the orthodox Scholars of Sunni, Salafi Islaam have - throughout the centuries and ages - waged a war against these extremists, and if one was to survey the books of the Salafi scholars from ancient times to this day of ours, he would find them replete with warnings and refutations against this evil band of foolish-minded, ignorant, mischief-makers.

http://www.islamagainstextremism.com/articles/leuiyij-shaykh-saalih-al-suhaymee-it-is-obligatory-to-name-expose-and-refute-the-instigators-of-extremist-ideologies.cfm

BearShin,

Only if Wahabism is a form of Salifist Islam.

http://abdurrahman.org/jihad/thewahhabimyth.pdf

[maarsen]

In the secular West, there's been a very influential line of thinking that basically says that if somebody identifies as a adherent of a religion we are not going to tell them that they aren't, no matter how much they may not appear to be following certain obvious rules. Obviously, ISIS does not follow this line of thinking since they seem quick to excommunicate anyone who seem slightly deviate from their interpretation of Islam. I wonder if secular liberal Westerners will extend them that courtesy nonetheless.

To me, whether or not ISIS actually follows Islam is not relevant so far as they certainly believe they do, and lots of disaffected young men (and women) agree with them. I also imagine your theological arguments won't gain any traction with them, like that time there was an actual ISIS supporter on the board.

On a side note, wasn't Al Qaeda based on an offshoot of Salafism? Forgive my ignorance if I 'm wrong.

In all of this they are no different than any other religious cult or group from the darks mists of the past to now. Anybody remember Jim Jones, the Raelians, or how about that Japanese group that used poison gas in the Tokyo subway. Eventually all these groups self destruct over minor interpretations of their basic tenets. It is very hard to stop people from joining this type of group, and giving them any attention only amplifies the attraction. There are some people who cannot see themselves as having the opportunity to be relevant in this world of ours unless they destroy what is perceived as holding them back from their natural place at the top of the social pyramid. 'If the world cannot see my talent then I will destroy it ' is what motivates these types. Sometimes, as with Hitler, it takes a huge body count to eradicate the problem.

[Salafi Stannis]

http://abdurrahman.org/jihad/thewahhabimyth.pdf

I love that website.

[Salafi Stannis]

I just added this to the OP, it's a quite from an Islamic scholar who lived 800 years ago named ibn Kathiir, perfectly summing up the Khawaarij today

"Then they departed; slipping through individually so that no one should come to know of them and so prevent them from leaving. So they departed from amid their fathers and their mothers and their uncles and their aunts and parted from all of their relations – believing due to their ignorance and their lack of knowledge and intellect that this affair is pleasing to The Lord of the earth and the heavens. Yet they failed to know that it is from the greatest of major sins and the deadly misdeeds and from the grave calamities and errors. Along with it being from that which Iblees (i.e. the devil) has made alluring to them as did their own souls that inclined towards evil.

So a group of them (the people) managed to prevent some of their offspring and their relations and their brethren and thus brought them back and reprimanded them. So from them were those that then resumed upon steadfastness; and from them were those that escaped after that to join up with the Khawaarij – thus being at loss until the Day of Resurrection."

[Salafi Stannis]

.

[The Once and Future King]

It always bothers me that when Western Pundits say moderate Muslims they mean irreligious Muslims.

Their are plently of good hearted peace loving Muslims who follow every word of the Koran in dress deeds and speech.

There are also plenty of "extremist Muslims" (particularly in the leadership of many terrorist networks) who dont follow or believe a word of the Koran.

[Ramsay Gimp]

There are also plenty of extremist Muslims (particularly in the leadership of many terrorist networks) who dont follow or belive a word of the Koran.

Citation needed.

[Horza]

I think it's an overstatement, but I can think of at least one example, in the form of Ramzi Yousef. Despite being a nephew of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed he wasn't inducted into al-Qaeda, expressed his grievances in explicitly secular and political terms and seems to have been largely motivated by a personal megalomania and a desire to see things explode. I'm sure there are others like that in many Islamic terrorist groups, especially if they have useful skills or connections.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I think it's an overstatement, but I can think of at least one example, in the form of Ramzi Yousef. Despite being a nephew of Khaled Sheikh Mohammed he wasn't inducted into al-Qaeda, expressed his grievances in explicitly secular and political terms and seems to have been largely motivated by a personal megalomania and a desire to see things explode. I'm sure there are others like that in many Islamic terrorist groups, especially if they have useful skills or connections.

So he was a secular terrorist, no one would deny those exist. But Once and Future King claimed that many leaders in Jihadist organizations are total non-believers, which is a ridiculous statement to make.

[The Once and Future King]

So he was a secular terrorist, no one would deny those exist. But Once and Future King claimed that many leaders in Jihadist organizations are total non-believers, which is a ridiculous statement to make.

have you read the Koran?

Usama was found with porn and alcohol in his room.

Arafats homo-sexuality was a widely known secret.

Muhammed Yusef lived like a king and was scolded publicly by a Iman (who miraculously soon died) for eating during Ramadan.

Not to mention the terrorist actions they are engaged in is contrary to Islam