ISIS in Islam

[Chaircat Meow]

First of all, you were not talking about that, you clearly mentioned the verse of sword, which is in my post in full, no mention of Jews and Christians.

Secondly, here's an explanation

Well I was, but you're right, that's not actually the verse of the sword, I meant the whole sura.

[Salafi Stannis]

Well I was, but you're right, that's not actually the verse of the sword, I meant the whole sura.

Have you read the explanation of the verse of the sword? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[Chaircat Meow]

Have you read the explanation of the verse of the sword? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I'm not going to comment for the most part. But yes, it seems obvious Jews and Christians are not to be comprehended under the directions relating to al-mushrikun, we are just to be conquered and subdued anyway. I'll just say the view of ISIS wrt this sura seems to me highly plausible and westerners need to know this.

You say ISIS have no scholars. Here is one of the greatest of all Islamic commentators Ibn Kathir on the sura in question. Why shouldn't ISIS believe Ibn Kathir?

http://qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=category&sectionid=13&id=118&Itemid=64

However, I have never claimed Muslims are wrong from an exegetical point of view to dissent from this interpretation.

[Wise Fool]

Its just the most obvious one, as it fits with Islamic history and with Muhammad's actions. This was the standard view of Jihad during the early centuries of Islam. You won't find early Islamic scholars disagreeing with it. The Saudi scholars he quotes don't disagree with it either, exactly, but they'll have beef with ISIS for not having the authority to declare the Caliphate and for doing Jihad at the wrong time. Plenty of Saudi traditionalists believe Jihad is a duty in the right circumstances (although there are salafis who have a more quietist and have a non-political view).

The most obvious one, because it's simplistic, stupid, and non-spiritual. So, stupid, simple, and non-spiritual people can all find something to like about it.

[Ramsay Gimp]

The most obvious one, because it's simplistic, stupid, and non-spiritual. So, stupid, simple, and non-spiritual people can all find something to like about it.

Is non-spiritual an insult now?

Please give me your "spiritual" interpretation of the Quran's verses ordering the killing of non-Muslims or apostates

[Salafi Stannis]

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, which 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:

"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."

[lacuna]

“Whoever kills himself with something in this world will be punished with it on the Day of Resurrection.”

So you're saying that if I eat so much candy that I literally die from it, I'll be punished with more candy on the Day of Resurrection? Good to know! :thumbsup:

ETA: Or sex, for that matter. Or candy-fuelled sex!

The Prophet never accepted the presentation of a decapitated head and he did not accept acts of brutality that serve no purpose in Islam.

[...]

"It is sufficient for you to write and inform me."

So as long as the recipient thinks it serves a purpose, all is well? As far as condemnation of acts of brutality goes, this leaves a lot do be desired.

[Salafi Stannis]

So you're saying that if I eat so much candy that I literally die from it, I'll be punished with more candy on the Day of Resurrection? Good to know! :thumbsup:

ETA: Or sex, for that matter. Or candy-fuelled sex!

So as long as the recipient thinks it serves a purpose, all is well? As far as condemnation of acts of brutality goes, this leaves a lot do be desired.

No, I meant that he did not accept acts of brutality, and also these acts serve no purpose in Islam. No need to be a grammar Nazi. You're taking an innocent grammatical error and are trying to make me seem like an extremist sympathiser, so long as the extremism "serves Islam". Plus I copied it from the internet.

[Crixus]

He's trying to be amusing.

I admire your patience.

[Salafi Stannis]

Crix

Thank you

[lacuna]

He's trying to be amusing.

I admire your patience.

The first one was intended to be amusing. Not the second one.

For someone who doesn't see ancient history through the rose tinted glasses of religion, this moral relativism thing looks ridiculous. Shit was bad in olden times. Some things are better now, in some places of the world, some of the time. We should strive for progress, and I don't think we'll get that through recidivism. If you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you.

No, I meant that he did not accept acts of brutality, and also these acts serve no purpose in Islam. No need to be a grammar Nazi. You're taking an innocent grammatical error and are trying to make me seem like an extremist sympathiser, so long as the extremism "serves Islam". Plus I copied it from the internet.

I posted while you edited, it seems. Still, I don't see why even your edited interpretation must needs be the correct one - and clearly other people translate and interpret it differently. That's the problem with religious texts and the modern world. The devil is in the details.

"Rather, do not come to me with a severed head. It is sufficient for you to write and inform me."

Like this one, for example. "If you decapitate someone for whatever reason, I don't personally need to see the decapitated head - it is enough that you write to inform me that it has been done." Interpreted this way, this is not a condemnation of an act of brutality. Based on the statement at hand, this interpretation is just as valid as any interpretation you might care to give. I am a translator by trade, so believe me, I know full well that context is everything. But only to intellectually honest people, not to people who want to promote some cause.

And I wasn't trying to frame you as an extremist sympathiser, it seems clear to me that you don't like extremism, and don't support violent acts done in the name of your religion.

[Crixus]

The first one was intended to be amusing. Not the second one.

For someone who doesn't see ancient history through the rose tinted glasses of religion, this moral relativism thing looks ridiculous. Shit was bad in olden times. Some things are better now, in some places of the world, some of the time. We should strive for progress, and I don't think we'll get that through recidivism. If you disagree with that, I don't know what to tell you.

I'm an atheist. You'll find no rose tinted glasses here.

I just find it disingenuous when people respond flippantly to someone who is clearly trying to engage in sincere debate. If I misinterpreted your post above, apologies.

[lacuna]

I'm an atheist. You'll find no rose tinted glasses here.

I just find it disingenuous when people respond flippantly to someone who is clearly trying to engage in sincere debate. If I misinterpreted your post above, apologies.

I'd say there's room in the world for both - unless you (I, in this instance) fail to make a clear distinction between the jokes and the points. Sorry.

[Wise Fool]

Is non-spiritual an insult now?

Please give me your "spiritual" interpretation of the Quran's verses ordering the killing of non-Muslims or apostates

Non-spiritual is not an insult, just a descriptor.

But no, I'm not going to indulge you. People hostile to religion demanding spiritual lessons tend not to be looking for honesty, just more fuel for the rage-fire. But hey, now you can use my refusal to answer as fuel instead!

[DireWolfSpirit]

http://youtu.be/f_tc2H6SbJY

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

My Grandfather, who was a Lutheran, used to play golf with a Baptist minister. He told me once that the Baptist minister claimed that without full context he could use passages from the Bible to justify almost any horror you care to name: incest, genocide, murder... etc.

I suspect the same is true for the Koran and the Hadith. Various passages taken in isolation without the fuller context of the broader passages can be used to justify much that is terrible. That doesn't mean someone is a "bad Muslim" if they refuse to accept those passages in isolation and want the fuller, richer, and more nuanced view of more well thought Muslim scholars and legal traditions.

This attempt to frame the Daesh as "real Islam" is like claiming Christians who reject the Westboro Baptist Church are false Christians. No faith or philosophy should be defined or bounded by the most extreme people who expound upon a particular faith or philosophy.

[Crixus]

Very well put, SSE.

[Chaircat Meow]

My Grandfather, who was a Lutheran, used to play golf with a Baptist minister. He told me once that the Baptist minister claimed that without full context he could use passages from the Bible to justify almost any horror you care to name: incest, genocide, murder... etc.

I suspect the same is true for the Koran and the Hadith. Various passages taken in isolation without the fuller context of the broader passages can be used to justify much that is terrible. That doesn't mean someone is a "bad Muslim" if they refuse to accept those passages in isolation and want the fuller, richer, and more nuanced view of more well thought Muslim scholars and legal traditions.

This attempt to frame the Daesh as "real Islam" is like claiming Christians who reject the Westboro Baptist Church are false Christians. No faith or philosophy should be defined or bounded by the most extreme people who expound upon a particular faith or philosophy.

You suspect, but you give no grounds for this suspicion. As a matter of fact its often the moderate Muslim taking the passage in isolation, or inventing historical context to provide a more acceptable gloss on troubling doctrines.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

HMM,

You are ignoring the various traditions, centuries old, in Islam that are not Wahabisim. You are claiming that only the most extreme and violent versions of Islam are "real Islam". How is that differnet from claiming Westboro Baptist Church is the only valid version of Christianity?

[Chaircat Meow]

HMM,

You are ignoring the various traditions, centuries old, in Islam that are not Wahabisim. You are claiming that only the most extreme and violent versions of Islam are "real Islam". How is that differnet from claiming Westboro Baptist Church is the only valid version of Christianity?

I've made no claims as to what the 'real Islam' is actually. I just said ISIS are eminently Islamic and have beliefs well grounded in their scriptures and traditions.

I said this here.

However, I have never claimed Muslims are wrong from an exegetical point of view to dissent from this interpretation.