ISIS in Islam

[Horza]

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.

It's more complicated than that. Yousef recieved his training at jihadist camps in Afghanistan, worked with radical Islamist groups in New York to pull off the first WTC attack, benefited from his family connections with jihadist networks and claimed inspiration from Islamist leaders. Despite this his sole stated goal was to stop Israel killing Palestinians. Does that being a secular political goal cancel out the other stuff? Do you have to be a fully commited apocalyptic salafi to be a jihadist? If you have some of the same objectives and can talk the talk to get by in these groups, what's the difference if you're still crashing planes into buildings and beheading people?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Does that being a secular political goal cancel out the other stuff? Do you have to be a fully commited apocalyptic salafi to be a jihadist? If you have some of the same objectives and can talk the talk to get by in these groups, what's the difference if you're still crashing planes into buildings and beheading people?

The difference is that you guys seem to be denying that religion plays a real role in motivating these killers. That no one could seriously and sincerely believe they are doing God's work when they are committing atrocities.

Sure, bring up the example of a guy who only spoke in secular language. Must I bring up the multitudes who quoted the Quran before blowing themselves up, chopping off heads, etc?

[The Once and Future King]

The difference is that you guys seem to be denying that religion plays a real role in motivating these killers. That no one could seriously and sincerely believe they are doing God's work when they are committing atrocities.

Sure, bring up the example of a guy who only spoke in secular language. Must I bring up the multitudes who quoted the Quran before blowing themselves up, chopping off heads, etc?

I am saying that if the men I mentioned were methodist or atheist they still would have found excuses to murder people

[Ramsay Gimp]

I am saying that if the men I mentioned were methodist or atheist they still would have found excuses to murder people

If that were the case, religious violence would be equally spread across religions (proportionately). That doesn't jive with reality

[The Once and Future King]

If that were the case, religious violence would be equally spread across religions (proportionately). That doesn't jive with reality

I did not say the "average" terrorist who are all desperately devoted to a religion whose history is steeped in blood but many of their leaders are liara who betray the men they lead

[Horza]

The difference is that you guys seem to be denying that religion plays a real role in motivating these killers. That no one could seriously and sincerely believe they are doing God's work when they are committing atrocities.

I haven't claimed any such thing. If other people have, have that argument with them.

Sure, bring up the example of a guy who only spoke in secular language. Must I bring up the multitudes who quoted the Quran before blowing themselves up, chopping off heads, etc?

I bring it up because motivations are more complex than that, as are the membership dynamics of various organisations. There's a pronounced tendency to try and reduce the motivation for jihadist atrocities to a monocausal framework that suits one's preferences, either entirely religious or entirely political, and as well to think of these groups as being monolithic, hive-structures of true believers. In practice, neither is true.

[Wise Fool]

I bring it up because motivations are more complex than that, as are the membership dynamics of various organisations. There's a pronounced tendency to try and reduce the motivation for jihadist atrocities to a monocausal framework that suits one's preferences, either entirely religious or entirely political, and as well to think of these groups as being monolithic, hive-structures of true believers. In practice, neither is true.

But what if I prefer an alternative belief structure in which what I believe to be true is truer than true?

[Horza]

But what if I prefer an alternative belief structure in which what I believe to be true is truer than true?

That's the problem right there: I've looked into all the possibilities and there's no alternative belief structure that works better than my beliefs about everything.

[Salafi Stannis]

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.

There is a difference of opinion on this. All true scholars agree that these terrorists are Khawaarij, but there is a difference of opinion on whether or not they are disbelievers. Some, like Sheikh ibn Baz say they are, citing the prophets quote that they "depart from the religion like an arrow passes through its game", and he was one of the greatest scholars.

[Salafi Stannis]

The difference is that you guys seem to be denying that religion plays a real role in motivating these killers. That no one could seriously and sincerely believe they are doing God's work when they are committing atrocities.

Sure, bring up the example of a guy who only spoke in secular language. Must I bring up the multitudes who quoted the Quran before blowing themselves up, chopping off heads, etc?

Read the OP, the prophet said that they would "call to the book of Allah, yet have nothing to do with it"

Even if you don't believe in the prophet, his quotes do a good job of convincing true Muslims of the evil of the Khawaarij.

And besides, suicide and murder are both major sins.

[The Once and Future King]

Read the OP, the prophet said that they would "call to the book of Allah, yet have nothing to do with it"

Even if you don't believe in the prophet, his quotes do a good job of convincing true Muslims of the evil of the Khawaarij.

And besides, suicide and murder are both major sins.

Yet despite this there is a significant minority the endorses their actions and a significant majority that refuses to denounce them

[Salafi Stannis]

Yet despite this there is a significant minority the endorses their actions and a significant majority that refuses to denounce them

I have denounced them, the scholars have denounced them, my mosque has denounced them, another mosque I go to produces leaflets denouncing them, most of the Muslims I know have denounced them, most Muslim governments around the world have denounced them.

[The Once and Future King]

I have denounced them, the scholars have denounced them, my mosque has denounced them, most Muslim governments around the world have denounced them.

Who is them? Isis? Maybe. Boko Haram? Perhaps. Hetzballah? Rarely. Hamas? Scarce.

I am not questioning your own denouncing or your mosques as I have no knowledge of postion. But scholars and goverments??

[Salafi Stannis]

Who is them? Isis? Maybe. Boko Haram? Perhaps. Hetzballah? Rarely. Hamas? Scarce.

I am not questioning your own denouncing or your mosques as I have no knowledge of postion. But scholars and goverments??

By "them" I mean extremists in general. And yes, as I have repeated many times throughout the thread, the true scholars of Islam, such as Abdul Aziz bin Baz, who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and Abdul Aziz Al Ash Sheikh, the current Grand Mufti have denounced them, as have Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani, Ibn Uthaymeen, Saleh Al Fawzan have denounced the extremists at every turn. And I'm pretty sure Muslim governments denounce extremists, aren't a lot of them fighting ISIS? Plus, in any case, they can't support them, seeing how extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS declare most Muslim governments to be apostates worthy of death, especially the kings of Saudi Arabia. That's why the Khawaarij are also called "Takfiris", because they make takfir on most Muslims. (Declaring them to be apostates)

[Gears of the Beast]

By "them" I mean extremists in general. And yes, as I have repeated many times throughout the thread, the true scholars of Islam, such as Abdul Aziz bin Baz, who was the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, and Abdul Aziz Al Ash Sheikh, the current Grand Mufti have denounced them, as have Muhammad Nasiruddin Al Albani, Ibn Uthaymeen, Saleh Al Fawzan have denounced the extremists at every turn. And I'm pretty sure Muslim governments denounce extremists, aren't a lot of them fighting ISIS? Plus, in any case, they can't support them, seeing how extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS declare most Muslim governments to be apostates worthy of death, especially the kings of Saudi Arabia. That's why the Khawaarij are also called "Takfiris", because they make takfir on most Muslims. (Declaring them to be apostates)

And how do you define 'extremists'?

[Salafi Stannis]

And how do you define 'extremists'?

People who play extreme sports :rolleyes:

[Lian]

King Stannis the Mannis, what did you think about Graeme Wood's article What Isis Really Wants?

Plus, in any case, they can't support them, seeing how extremist groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS declare most Muslim governments to be apostates worthy of death, especially the kings of Saudi Arabia.

Here's a problem. ISIS (and others) have no problem calling other muslims apostates, and thus having a religious justification to fight and kill them. On the other hand, it seems that some in the muslim world, such as scholars in Al-Azhar, see flinging around accusations of apostasy as so harmful, they called ISIS terrorists but refused to call them apostates. Recently in the anti-terror confrence in Saudi-Arabia Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb called what ISIS is doing a "bad interpretation" of Islam and also called to stop flinging around accusations of apostasy.

I understand that in light of groups like ISIS use the accusation of apostasy as a powerful tactic, certain groups in mainstream Islam would want to stop this practice, but on the other hand, not calling them apostates leaves them "in the fold", however marginally.

[Salafi Stannis]

Lian,

When calling someone an apostate, there has to be evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, Shaykh bin Baz said that the Khawaarij (extremists, terrorists, Al Qaeda, ISIS) are apostates, because of the prophet's quote that they would "depart from the religion like an arrow passes through it's game", so there are scholars who say this. Another scholar recently said that he was beginning to lean towards this opinion aswell.

[The Once and Future King]

Lian,

When calling someone an apostate, there has to be evidence from the Quran and Sunnah, Shaykh bin Baz said that the Khawaarij (extremists, terrorists, Al Qaeda, ISIS) are apostates, because of the prophet's quote that they would "depart from the religion like an arrow passes through it's game", so there are scholars who say this. Another scholar recently said that he was beginning to lean towards this opinion aswell.

Again you have proven the goverments are against the one terror organization they dont fund. What about the rest of them?

[Salafi Stannis]

Again you have proven the goverments are against the one terror organization they dont fund. What about the rest of them?

Could you list all the Muslim countries who fund terrorists? I mean, I know of a few Muslim countries who do fund terrorists, including Iran and Syria, who I don't consider Muslims anyway, and I know Saudi Arabia definitely don't. Also, the true scholars, like those I have mentioned, are against all terrorists period.