Support NeoGAF

[Amensalism]

I am a bigot for explaining what IS asked from the Christians regarding the Jizya.

I need to stay out of these threads.

you sure do, because you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Can Kuwait rely on America for protection? Cause, I'd be kinda shitting my pants if I were them right now.

In the event ISIS manage to launch a concerted siege on Baghdad, the West will probably intervene, if only because the fall of Baghdad would basically guarantee the fall of Basra and the disruption of much of the oil supplied from the Middle East. It's the reason the Obama administration has been very subtly attempting to improve relations with Iran - they both hate ISIS more than they do each other.

 

[TrojanBlade]

What a bunch of assholes. If they had a pinch of real Islam they would be going to fight the Israeli army instead of blowing up innocents and wiping out history.

 

[Siegcram]

What a bunch of assholes. If they had a pinch of real Islam they would be going to fight the Israeli army instead of blowing up innocents and wiping out history.

So ... they'd be blowing up innocents and wiping out history?

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I am a bigot for explaining what IS asked from the Christians regarding the Jizya.

I need to stay out of these threads.

I take it you don't live in Iraq? Tell me, how would you like a group of armed thugs asking you to convert, pay a puntive tax, or leave? How would you like if these thugs could rob and murder you with impunity, and destroy places you deem to be sacred, which have stood for hundreds of years?

These people are a bigots and scum of the worst kind.

 

[Saintguine]

Its sad to see the Christians leave mosul to be honest as they were welcome to stay, churches are protected and so are homes and businesses.

The nativity is so palpable that I can cut it with a knife. It's actually really sad that there are some people in this world that fall victim to such obvious lies.

If the ISIL aren't above blowing up mosques and holy sites of Islam, why are they so reserved and gentle when dealing with filthy kafirs who deny Allah?

 

[Nodnol]

What a waste.

I'm not one for condoning campaigns and ventures into the Middle East, but someone needs to take care of this. At the rate ISIS are going, there'll be opposition a lot closer to them than anyone in NATO.

 

[Amir0x]

Most terrorists aren't fuelled by religion though. They just use it as a justification or promotional tool. Eg the way Americans used Manifest Destiny as a religious tool to steal land from the native Americans. The expansion of land being the main purpose and goal.

By in large these terrorists operate on politically motivated and charged reasoning. Eg they dislike x, y or z countries foreign policy, unjust wars in the middle East, reject occupations or opposing sects or factions taking power etc. I mean, most give these very reasons in their little videos they release before carrying out acts of terror or violence. If religion was taken out of the context, I doubt the situation would change much. Only the method of promotion would. Eg, they'd claim the enemy posed a grave threat (weapons of mass destruction etc) instead of them simply being infidels or whatever else.

But that's really just attempting to simplify the picture. Because while you are obviously right about the inherent political motivations, there is absolutely no doubt that there is a heavy underlying religious goal which, in the minds of these individuals, is justified in some way by their interpretation of a holy book. You cannot in my view take one of these elements out, because both are vital aspects of what's going on.

If you took faith out of the equation, they may have found some other justification for what they were doing right now - but we can't, since they aren't. They quote verse at you as easily as you probably could quote verse to me. And at the end of the day, none has such authority to say 'this is obviously the right way.'

Interested to hear your opinion on this: www.islamqa.info/en/90112

I mean... it sounds pretty silly to me.

This is the clearest sign that the Muslim can use to determine what is the saved group, so he should follow the way of the majority of scholars, those whom all the people testify are trustworthy and religiously-committed, and he should follow the way of the earlier scholars among the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and the four Imams and other scholars, and he should beware of every sect that differs from the main body of Muslims (jamaa’ah) by following innovation (bid’ah).
...

Hence the saved group is described as Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah, and they are the greater majority and the vast multitude. As for the other groups, they are followers of weird ideas, division, innovation and whims and desires, and none of these groups reached anywhere close to the size of the saved group, let alone being equal to them, rather some of these groups are very small in number. The sign of these groups is that they go against the Qur'aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus. The one who follows the Qur’aan, Sunnah and scholarly consensus is one of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah.

This is just something that can be reduced to another argument. Who do 'all the people testify are trustworthy'? What is the scholarly consensus? Which scholars are considered proper interpreters of the Qu'ran, and which are considered not? Do we have some easy guide to listing all scholars who fit in the 'true' category and all scholars who fit in the 'innovatation' (bi'dah) category? Did 'all the people' hold a vote to determine what way was the most trustworthy way?

The issue remains that as long as do not have Muhammad here, even if someone were to follow the earliest Qu'ran scholars or whatever this wants us to do, there would be individuals who would (and, in fact, already have) used those beliefs to justify violence and horrific acts.

It's a vicious cycle when you give divine authority to anything.

You really can't. Hadith, however, is an entirely different story.

But you can. And every time a Christian or Islamic or any religious extremist comes out of the woodwork, they always do. Always. You can only say that they are interpreting it wrong. And then that would just be your interpretation.

 

[kobashi100]

I take it you don't live in Iraq? Tell me, how would you like a group of armed thugs asking you to convert, pay a puntive tax, or leave? How would you like if these thugs could rob and murder you with impunity, and destroy places you deem to be sacred, which have stood for hundreds of years?

These people are a bigots and scum of the worst kind.

where did I say robbery and murder is fine?

where did i say its okay to destroy churches.

All I said what that the Jizya fee demanded was $80 per year. Christian men pay the Jizya and muslims pay Zakat.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

You don't know the half of it. In Timbuktu, one of the greatest reservoirs of ancient knowledge from Afrika, Islamic extremists destroyed some of the oldest texts we have from the region. Entire libraries which contained irreplaceable texts that confirm the illustrious history of not only Islam, but all of Afrika, was systematically destroyed, stuff that you can't even imagine how impossible it is to replace. The history of some of the oldest peoples and civilization on Earth, eradicated. And as you can imagine, given how important Afrika was to human history, what precisely that means.

They don't give a fuck.

Yeah, I remember reading about them destroying historical manuscripts. The bastards actually torched them as they were forced to retreat.

Just as despicable as when the taliban destroyed the centuries old Buddhas statues.

that did not happen as you describe.

christian men were asked to pay the Jizya.

The amount asked was $80 per year. Let me clarify that again, not per month but $80 per year.

Muslims pay more on zakat.

the christans were paying more in taxes when maliki was in control.

Its sad to see the Christians leave mosul to be honest as they were welcome to stay, churches are protected and so are homes and businesses.

Why are you trying to defend this?

I.S don't have the right to demand anyone pay a fine for being a different religion and they sure as hell don't have the right to demand those people leave if they refuse to pay the protection money to that bunch of warped cunts.

Welcome to stay my ass. Pay a fine or face exile/death. Sure seems like they were being welcomed to stay...

 

[Contra11]

Funny thing is that some of ISIS financier are Kuwaitis from the MB group.

Not true .. and you know that .. if you are arabic man

تمويل داعش مجهول و بالتأكيد و بدون أدنى شك أنه ليس من جماعة الإخوان .. داعش أصلاً يكفرون الإخوان و فكرياً داعش وهابيين متطرفين

 

[Kenshin001]

Saudi Media are going crazy over this incident, from Saudi Islamic Scholars are condemning touching any Prophet burial grounds. I think there is a Sunni Mosque next to burial ground that got destroyed. ISIS is really wiping out everything all Sunni, Shia, Christian and ancient Mesopotamia.

Saudis have destroyed dozens of historic sites though.

 

[2San]

that did not happen as you describe.

christian men were asked to pay the Jizya.

The amount asked was $80 per year. Let me clarify that again, not per month but $80 per year.

Muslims pay more on zakat.

the christans were paying more in taxes when maliki was in control.

Its sad to see the Christians leave mosul to be honest as they were welcome to stay, churches are protected and so are homes and businesses.

Well this makes if Muslims are forced to pay zakat. Are Muslims forced to pay Zakat or else they'll be forced out?

 

[kurisu1974]

There is one simple answer. Using violence to promote the spread of your view (any religion or ideology) is not Islamic. And NO, Islam as a religion was NOT spread by violence by force that is the orientalist view not the Islamic view. And NO, Islam does not call on to kill all jews and all non Muslims and No, Islam does not call on to BEAT wives. And NO, Islam does not call on the killing of Homosexuals. And NO, Islam does not call on the killing of Apostates. And NO, Islam does not say Jihad means 'Killing the Infidel'. And YES, All these No's are only changed to yes by those who don't dislike Islam and don't understand it AND ideologies like those followed by Taliban and ISIS.

Your Islam doesn't, other people's Islam apparantly does.

And yeah you cannot hit women, only 'push them gently with an open hand', right

Keep telling yourself all that if it makes you sleep at night, I guess.

 

[Hyperactivity]

The Wahabi's in Saudi Arabia have wreaked havoc on Islamic history in Mecca and Medina. They demolished the house of the Prophet along with most other buildings dating from that era and later. They are even in talks to demolish the cave in which the first revelations were supposed to have come down. These were sites that were honored and respected all through out Muslim history through all the different powers who have had control over that region. Wahhabism truly is a curse on Islam.

Never forget Jannatul Baqi

The nativity is so palpable that I can cut it with a knife. It's actually really sad that there are some people in this world that fall victim to such obvious lies.

If the ISIL aren't above blowing up mosques and holy sites of Islam, why are they so reserved and gentle when dealing with filthy kafirs who deny Allah?

Basic ideology behind events such as this is that the Muslims are actually kafir and that we're actually praying to the prophets and other holy figures, where at most they just ask for intercession ( which these types of groups and Wahhabism views as shirk and associating something else with Allah)

 

[enewtabie]

What a bunch of assholes. If they had a pinch of real Islam they would be going to fight the Israeli army instead of blowing up innocents and wiping out history.

They don't want to fight a real Army and get wiped off the planet. Regardless of any faith, destroying historic/religious sites are insane.

 

[Nokagi]

Makes me sad when people destroy historic artifacts or sites.

 

[Razgreez]

They don't want to fight a real Army and get wiped off the planet. Regardless of any faith, destroying historic/religious sites are insane.

Regarding your second statement, and this is in no way meant to be a sign of support for whatever these people are calling themselves these days but Abraham, generally accepted "father of the prophets" (across all Abrahamic faiths), did exactly that though didn't he?

 

[DeSo]

So can anything be done about these pieces of shit or is this a lost cause?

It's a lost cause, isn't it?

 

[P44]

Of course that is my interpretation. Anyone can use any interpretation of how a betterment of society is better from my point of view. Hitler thought he was doing society good by ethnically cleansing people. He was not. That was HIS view. People who are religious and non-religious have their own view of how the world should run. What should be is more clear is what the religious texts AND examples say. There is NOWHERE in the Quran where Homosexuals are to be punished. There is NOWHERE in the Quran than Apostates are to punished. There is NOWHERE in the Quran that wives have to be beaten.

But there's a fair amount of all of that in the Hadith, which is the biggest issue really. The Hadith clearly have significant weight, I mean, the exact process of salah/prayer isn't defined in the Quran at all, it's all in the Hadith. When such a major source is advocating these acts, it's a pretty bad message, at least in this day and age. Now, you could take a Quranist view, but that's just not mainstream at all at the moment.

Note so the post is readable:

Hadith = teachings of the prophet
Salah = prayer but I think I did that one
Quranist = disregards all documentation besides the Quran

I hate when people use jargon I don't know, so

 

[gutter_trash]

US bares responsibility for removing Saddam Hussein and military commanders,
The power vacuum created a breeding ground for the worst of the worst,

It's like if you eliminate the Mafia, the smaller violent street gangs will take over and act worse

 

[nailbombxx]

They not only are destroying mosques, but statues too. This almost moves me to grief. Earlier this year I was reading about this place in my art history text book and now it is gone... artifacts of human history obliterated from the earth. What a fucking shame.

 

[kurisu1974]

Yeah Islam is such a strong and true religion that a mere depiction of an animal can topple it.

It's a shame too, because the few works of Islamic art that still exist (in remote Islamic areas like latter day Moorish Spain and parts of Italy, where I guess they didn't know this rule) are beautiful.

I guess this forum now needs to be destroyed.

 

[P44]

US bares responsibility for removing Saddam Hussein and military commanders,
The power vacuum created a breeding ground for the worst of the worst,

It's like if you eliminate the Mafia, the smaller violent street gangs will take over and act worse

US ideally would clean up then fuck off. But clean up properly. And when I say fuck off I mean stop intervening in this manner.

 

[Maninthemirror]

But there's a fair amount of all of that in the Hadith, which is the biggest issue really. The Hadith clearly have significant weight, I mean, the exact process of salah/prayer isn't defined in the Quran at all, it's all in the Hadith. When such a major source is advocating these acts, it's a pretty bad message, at least in this day and age. Now, you could take a Quranist view, but that's just not mainstream at all at the moment.

Note so the post is readable:

Hadith = teachings of the prophet
Salah = prayer but I think I did that one
Quranist = disregards all documentation besides the Quran

I hate when people use jargon I don't know, so

Here is the biggest issue people have when they don't study islam.

Quran: The word of God, memorized
Hadith: The word and Actions of the Prophet, first, second and third hand accounts

e.g. Apostasy

Excerpt from the book 'Murder in the name of Allah':




Quranic Verses on Apostasy

O ye who believe, whoso from among you turns back from his religion let him remember that in place of such a person, Allah will soon bring a people whom He will love and who will love Him, who will be kind and considerate towards the believers and firm and unyielding towards the disbelievers. They will strive hard in the cause of Allah and will not at all take to heart the reproaches of fault finders. That is Allah’s grace; He bestows it upon whosoever He pleases. Allah is the Lord of vast bounty, All-Knowing. (5.55)

Whoso disbelieves in Allah after he has believed, excepting the case of one who is forced to make a declaration of disbelief while his heart rests securely in faith, but one who opens his mind wide to disbelief; on him is Allah’s wrath and he shall have a grievous punishment. (16.107)

Those who believe, then disbelieve, then again believe, then disbelieve and thereafter go on increasing in disbelief, Allah will never forgive them, nor guide them to any way of deliverance. (4.138)

Muhammad is but a Messenger; of a surety, all Messengers before him have passed away. If then, he dies or be slain, will you turn back on your heels? He who turns back on his heels shall not harm Allah a whit. Allah will certainly reward the grateful. (3.145)

No corporal punishment can be understood to have been mentioned by any stretch of imagination in the foregoing passages from the Holy Quran.

The Main Quranic Study Source about Apostasy

In a desperate search for at least one verse in the Holy Quran which might lend support for death as a Punishment for Apostasy, recourse has been made to verses 12 and 13 of Chapter 9 (Surah AI-Tauba). We quote below verses 3–14 of that chapter. These speak for themselves and defy all attempts on the part of anyone who would have them understood differently:

3. This is a public proclamation on the pan of Allah and His Messenger on the day of the Great Pilgrimage, that Allah is free of all obligation to the idolaters, and so is His Messenger. So now, having witnessed this Sign, if you will repent and make peace, it wilt be better for you; but if you hum away, then know that you cannot frustrate Allah’s design. Warn the disbelievers of a painful chastisement.

4. Excepting those of them with whom you have a pact and who have not defaulted in any respect, nor supported anyone against you. Carry out the obligations you have assumed towards them till the end of their terms. Surely, Allah loves those who are mindful of their obligations.

5. When the period of four months during which hostilities are suspended expires, without the idolaters having settled the terms of peace with you, resume fighting with them and kill them wherever you find them and make them prisoners and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. Then if they repent and observe prayers and pay the zakat, leave them alone. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful.

6. If any one of the idolaters seeks asylum with thee, grant him asylum so that he may hear the Word of Allah; then convey him to a place of security for him, for they are a people who lack knowledge.

7. How could there be a guarantee for the idolaters on the part of Allah and His Messenger, except in favor of those with whom you entered into an express treaty at the Sacred Mosque? So long as they carry out their obligations the reunder, you must carry out your obligations. Surely, Allah loves those who are mindful of their obligations.

8. How can there be a guarantee for the others who, if they were to prevail against you, would have no regard for any tie of kinship or pact in respect of you. They seek to please you with words, while their hearts repudiate them; most of them are perfidious.

9. They have bartered the Sign of Allah for small gains and hindered people from His way. Evil indeed is that which they have done.

10. They show no regard for any tie of kinship or any pact in respect of a believer. It is they who are the transgressors.

11. If they repent and observe prayer and pay the zakat, then they are your brethren in faith. We expound our commandments for a people who know.

12. But if they break faith after pledging it and ridicule your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief that they may desist, for they have no regard for their pledged word.

13. Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths, who plotted to turn out the Messenger from his home, and who were the first to start hostilities against you? Do you fear them? It is Allah Who is Most Worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers.

14. Fight them: Allah will punish them at your hands, and will humiliate them, and will help you to overcome them, and will relieve the minds of the believers of fear and distress.

Those who deduce from verses 12 and 13 that the Punishment for Apostasy is death offer no explanation of the contradiction this creates with numerous other verses. These verses relate to the period after the migration from Mecca to Medina (see verse 3) when the Quraish of Mecca had embarked upon hostilities to wipe out Islam by force.

The advocates of capital Punishment for Apostasy should remember that these verses refer to idolaters who have broken their pledges and ridicule religion; there is no mention of people renouncing their faith. They have broken their pledge after their firm commitment to it. Those who have become hostile to your religion are the first to initiate hostilities against you. The permission for you to fight them is restricted to their leaders whose covenants are worthless and false. The permission is given in order to stop them from entering into hostile acts against you.

Other Examples in Quran Linked to Apostasy

Another verse of the Holy Quran states:

A section of the people of the Book urge some from among themselves: why not affirm, in the early part of the day, belief in that which has been revealed unto the believers and repudiate it in the latter part of the day, perchance they may turn away from their faith. (3.73)

The people of the Book mentioned in this verse are the Jews of Medina. Theirs was a Jewish tactic to create doubt among the Muslims in the hope that some of them might thereby by beguiled into repudiating Islam. How could it be possible for the Jews to have enacted this plan if death was a penalty for apostasy? Had anyone been executed for commuting this crime, that would have been a deterrent for others who would not follow in their footsteps.

The advocates of the death penalty urge that this verse merely refers to a Jewish philosophy which was never put into practice by them. Even if it was merely a philosophy, this verses conclusive proof of there being no punishment in this world for apostasy because the Jews could never have conceived the idea had there been such a punishment. Moreover, it is wrong to say that the idea was a hypothetical case; the books of tradition mention that it was put into practice by twelve Jewish divines of Khaibar and Urainah.2(See also p.65)

All commentaries agree that this chapter of the Holy Quran was revealed between the victory of Mecca and the demise of the Holy Prophetsa. This conclusively proves that the Jews put it into practice after Islam became firmly established in Arabia. How could the Jews ever think of such a suicidal and insane strategy if death was prescribed as a Punishment for Apostasy? How could they encourage Muslims to follow their faith by affirming it during the day and repudiating it at the end of the day if they knew that the Muslims would be executed for changing their faith?

Traditions of the Holy Prophet of Islam regarding Apostasy

The advocates of capital Punishment for Apostasy misconstrue out of all proportion the traditions narrated about the Holy Prophetsa. Traditions lend no support to their thesis. On the contrary, there are many traditions which clearly show that there is no Punishment for Apostasy in this life.

However, for the sake of completeness, we set out those traditions which are most often cited by advocates of capital Punishment for Apostasy.

Abu Qalabah reports on the authority of Anas that the Holy Prophetsa told the people of Akal or Uraynah to go and stay among his she-camels outside Medina. These people killed the keeper of the camels and ran away with the herd. Although it is true that these people had become apostates, their punishment was not a result of their apostasy but of their murder of the keeper of the she-camels. (See also page 34.)
Whereas Ibn Khatal, who was without doubt one of the four executed on the fall of Mecca, was an apostate, he had also committed the crime of murdering his traveling companion. His execution was, therefore, obviously ordered as a result of his having been convicted as a murderer. (See also page 66.)
Another incident is that of Maqees b. Sababah who killed an Ansar in revenge for Hisham, his brother, who was accidentally killed during the campaign of Zeeqard. Thereafter, Maqees became an apostate. He was executed on account of the murder of the Ansar. (See also page 67.) In each one of the above incidents, the executed person had committed murder. The three people had also happened to renounce their faith, but how can anyone shut their eyes to the murders and attribute their executions to their acts of apostasy?
The advocates of capital Punishment for Apostasy rely heavily on a tradition which mentions the execution of a woman for apostasy. This tradition is most unreliable, to say the least. The truth of the matter is that the Holy Prophetsa never ordered the execution of a woman on account of her apostasy. The well-known treatise of jurisprudence, Hedayah, sets out the following:
The Holy Prophetsa forbade the killing of women for apostasy, because the principle of punitive regulations is that in such cases the penalty should be left for the hereafter, as a penalty imposed in this life would contravene the purpose of apostasy, being a trial calling to account what pertains to God alone. This can be departed from only when the object in view is to restrain the person concerned from continuing hostilities (during times of war). As women, by their very nature, are not capable of fighting, a woman apostate cannot be punished in any case.

Strangely enough, scholars like Maududi, who might be supposed to be fully aware of serious flaws in the reliability of these traditions, still adhere to weak traditions which have been rejected by most eminent Muslim scholars.

e) The incident of Abdullah Bin Sad has already been quoted on page 66. Had there been any Quranic penalty for apostasy, how could the Holy Prophet’ssa words to the effect that no one is above the law would be a clear reminder of his strict observance of God’s laws. If death was the Punishment for Apostasy, how could the Holy Prophetsa disobey the commandments of God?

Examples of the Companions of the Founder of Islam

We have observed that neither the Holy Quran nor any reliable traditions of the Holy Prophetsa lend any support to those who advocate capital Punishment for Apostasy. But those advocates have some other tricks up their sleeves. It is necessary to examine their remaining arguments at greater length. Those arguments are based on the opinions of the Companions of the Holy Prophetsa, and not directly on his own personal judgement. Let it be known at the outset that observations or opinions of Companionsas can only be a commentary; they have no right to be treated with as much respect as an injunction of the Holy Quran. At best they can only be regarded as an opinion.

The incident of the widespread apostasy in relation to the payment of zakat has been discussed (pages 69–72). The Abs and the Zubyan were the tribes which initiated hostilities by attacking Medina. Hazrat Abu Bakr fought them before the return of Osama from his expedition. The apostates were the aggressors. They not only refused to pay zakat, but also took up the sword against the Muslims. Thus they rebelled against the Islamic state, slaughtered the Muslims amongst them by burning some alive and mutilated those they had killed.3 Those who advocate execution for apostasy on the authority of this incident are either ignorant of the facts or deliberately seeking to mislead people by playing down the killing of innocent Muslims by the rebels.
The advocates then pose the question that if there was no Punishment for Apostasy, why was Musailmah the imposter not left alone? The truth is that Musailmah aspired to political power. He had accompanied Abu Hanifa and offered to the Holy Prophetsa his submission subject to his being nominated as his successor. The Holy Prophet’s told Musailmah that he would not yield him even a twig of a date palm tree. Musailmah returned and claimed that half of Arabia belonged to him. He sent a letter to the Holy Prophetsa in which he claimed: ‘I have been appointed your partner in authority.’ The Holy Prophetsa responded by quoting to him verse 129 of chapter 7 of the Holy Quran.4 After Musailmah’s claim of prophethood, he captured Habeeb b. Zaid, a Companion of the Holy Prophetsa, dismembered him limb from limb, and then burned his remains. The advocates of capital punishment ignore this gruesome murder and claim that apostasy was the only crime attributable to Musailmah. Had he not committed murder, would he have been killed for the crime of apostasy alone? Was he not brought to justice for the murder and for the mayhem and disorder which he created in the land? There is not the slightest shred of evidence that having heard of Musailmah’s rejection of his prophethood, the Holy Prophetsa condemned Musailmah to death or exhorted any of his Companions to kill him. Having failed to find evidence of any specific condemnation by the Holy Prophetsa, Maulana Maududi had to seek recourse in a wish which the Holy Prophetsa is said to have expressed during his dying moments, that Musailmah should be done away with. Had there been such a wish, it is impossible for us to believe that the Holy Prophet’ssa first successor, Hazrat Abu Bakr, would have ignored it and not sent an expedition in compliance with the wish of the Holy Prophetsa. Why did Hazrat Abu Bakr wait until the time when Musailmah himself took the offensive and openly rebelled against the Muslims? We find that Musailmah mustered a force of 40,000 warriors of Banu Hanifa alone when he fought Khalid b. Walid. Musailmah initiated hostilities and moved against Medina. It was only then that Hazrat Abu Bakr gave orders to march against him on account of his rebellion and his gruesome murder of Habeeb bin Zaid.5
Another incident cited is that of Tulaiha, another pretender to prophet hood. Again, he was not just a pretender but had murdered Ukasha b. Mohsin and Thabit b. Aqram Ansari. Before Khalid b. Walid commenced battle with him, he sent an emissary to Tulaiha to agree peace terms and avoid bloodshed. The advocates of capital punishment overlook the fact that if there had been capital Punishment for Apostasy, there was no point in sending an emissary offering forgiveness to Tulaiha.6
A similar case is that of Aswad Anasi who raised the standard of rebellion with his apostasy. He killed the Muslim governor of Yemen, Shahr b. Bazan, forcibly married his widow and made himself ruler of Yemen. When the Holy Prophetsa learned of his rebellion, he sent a letter to Muaz b. Jabal and the Muslims to oppose Aswad Anasi, who was subsequently killed in a skirmish with the Muslims. (News of his death arrived one day after the demise of the Holy Prophetsa7
Similarly, Laqbeet b. Malik Azdi became an apostate and claimed to be a prophet. He expelled Jafar and Abad who had been appointed as functionaries in Oman.8 He, like all these claimants to prophethood, had no concern with religion. He had his own political axe to grind. His search for political domination was through open rebellion against the Islamic state he lived in, so the question of apostasy is irrelevant here. Let us suppose for a moment that all these people had not recanted their faith but had merely rebelled against the Muslim state. The state would have had to take the step of quelling the rebellion; for the crime of creating disorder in the land, the Holy Quran prescribes capital punishment. That punishment is not for apostasy.
The advocates of capital Punishment for Apostasy cite also the case of Umm Qarfah, a woman who became an apostate during the time of Hazrat Abu Bakr. She had thirty sons whom she constantly exhorted to fight the Muslims. She paid the price for her treason and for her complicity in murder, not on account of her apostasy.9
The case of Hazrat Ali fighting the Khawarij is often cited. The Khawarij created disorder in the land, killed Muslim men and women, the governor appointed by Hazrat Ali, his female slave, and also Ali’s emissary.10 (This incident has been discussed on p.70.)
Reference needs to be made to the appointments of Muaz b. Jabal and Abu Musa Ashari, each as governor of a part of Yemen. As they were about to leave, the Holy Prophetsa instructed them: ‘Make things easy for people and do not put them into difficulty. Talk to them cheerfully and not in a manner that might repel them’ One day Muaz came to meet Abu Musa Ashari and noticed a person sitting there who had been secured with a rope. When Muaz enquired about this he was told that that person was a Jew who had become a Muslim and then became an apostate. The narrator adds that for the past two to three months the Muslims had reasoned with him in order to persuade him to become a Muslim but to no avail. Muaz declared that he would not dismount until the person had been executed and observed that this was the judgement of God and His Messenger. This last remark indicates no more than his personal opinion of what he understood to be the Will of God and His prophet. Such opinions carry no weight in law unless they are completely substantiated by references which verify the claim. (This principle is elaborated subsequently in this chapter.)
Now let us examine the reliability of this tradition. Muaz’s remark contradicts the instruction of the Holy Prophetsa to make things easy for people and not in amanner which might repel them. To place reliance on one tradition without investigating Muaz’s understanding of Islam on a key issue where human rights are involved is sheer absurdity.

Considerable doubt prevails regarding this tradition, the chain of narrators and their authenticity. Wherever such disputes arise, the tradition is rejected outright. It should be remembered that these traditions were compiled some three to four centuries after the advent of Islam and that, over a passage of time, memories are prone to error. According to one tradition, the Jew was beheaded upon Muaz’s instructions.11 In the second tradition, Muaz himself beheaded the Jew.12 When such fundamental differences occur in a key incident, how can anyone accept the authenticity of these traditions? People may forget what someone said, but if they were eye-witnesses they would at least remember what ultimately happened to the ‘apostate’ in question.

Next we turn to a tradition which has obtained much attention because it is strongly emphasized and relied upon by the school advocating capital Punishment for Apostasy. This has deliberately been deferred to the end of this chapter so that justice may be done to it without interfering with the general flow of the subject matter.

Before a detailed examination of this tradition, a few words concerning the application of certain principles accepted by Islamic scholars throughout the ages would not be out of place. These principles help to resolve controversies concerning the apparent contradiction between the Holy Quran and hadith (tradition) on the one hand and some traditions vis-à-vis other traditions.

The Word of God stands supreme.
This is followed by the actual practices of the Holy Prophet of Islamsa. This is known as sunnah.
This is followed by hadith, the words reported to be those of the Holy Prophetsa
If the authenticity of the words of the Holy Prophetsa is established unquestionably, the words concerned are words put into the mouth of the Holy Prophetssa by God Almighty. Where there is no apparent contradiction between the word of the Holy Prophetsa and the Quran, the tradition may be accepted as authentic.

There are no two opinions regarding the accepted fact that whenever any so-called tradition attributed to the Holy Prophet of Islamsa contradicts any clear injunction of the Holy Quran, such a tradition is rejected as false and is not accepted as the word of the Holy Prophetsa.

If such a tradition does not glaringly violate any injunction of the Holy Quran and there is room for compromise, then ideally an attempt should be made to search for a suitable compromise before the final rejection of the tradition.

In attempting to reconcile a tradition attributed to the Holy Prophetsa with the Holy Quran, it must always be borne in mind that the clear teachings of the Holy Quran are not to be compromised for the sake of a so-called tradition, but a genuine attempt is to be made to find an explanation of the tradition. Therefore in all cases of doubt, the tradition is put to the anvil of the Holy Quran and judged accordingly.

If there is no contradiction between the Holy Quran and hadith, then their mutual merit of credibility would be determined according to the reliability of the sources and the chain of narrators.

Such a tradition will also be compared with other authentic and widely accepted traditions to make sure that the tradition does not conflict with other traditions.

Lastly, another reliable method of investigating the credibility of a tradition is to study its internal evidence critically. If the contents of the tradition clash with the image of the Holy Prophet of Islam which has emerged from a study of his conduct and bearing throughout his life, then such a tradition would be rejected as a false attribution to the Holy Prophetsaor as being against the principles of logic and common sense.
In the light of the above principles, let us examine13 the tradition in question.

continued....

 

[Maninthemirror]

...continued re: Apostasy



The Hadith which is used to say Islam has examples of Apostasy' and its retort

It is recorded that:

Ikramah relates that he heard that some Zindeeqs were presented before Hazrat Ali whereupon he directed the burning alive of these people. Ibn Abbas stated that had it been him, he would not have ordered this because the Holy Prophetsa had said that the torment of the fire may only be decreed by God but the Prophetsa had also said, ‘Slay whosoever changes his religion’14

This tradition, with some variation, may also be found in Tirmidhi, Abu Daud, Al-Nisai and Ibn Majah’s compilations.

Contradiction with the Holy Quran with the Hadith

It is not possible for a fair-minded person to reconcile the following verses of the Holy Quran with this tradition:

2.57, 100, 109, 218, 257, 273
3.21, 73, 86–92, 145
4.83, 138, 139, 146
5.55, 62, 91–3, 99–100
6.67, 105–8, 126
7.124–9
9.11–14
10.100–9
13.41
15.10
16.83, 105–7, 126
17.55
18.30
19.47
20.72–4
22.40
24.55
25.42–4
26.117
28.57
29.19
39.30–42
40.26, 27
42.7, 8, 48, 49
47.26
50.46
51.57
64.9–13
66.7
88.22–3
Some of the verses listed have been quoted earlier. For the sake of further elucidation the following passage is set out:

Whoso seeks a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the life to come he shall be among the losers. How shall Allah guide a people who have disbelieved after having believed and who had borne witness that the Messenger is true and to him clear proofs had come? Allah guides not the wrongdoers. Of such the punishment is that on them shall be the curse of Allah and of angels and of men, all together, the reunder shall they abide. Their punishment shall not be lightened nor shall they be granted respite; except in the case of those who repent thereafter and amend. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Ever Merciful. Those who disbelieve after having believed, and then continue to advance in disbelief, their repentance shall not be accepted. Those are they who have gone utterly astray. From anyone of those who have disbelieved, and die while they are disbelievers, there shall not be accepted even an earth full of gold, though he offer it in ransom. For those there shall be a grievous punishment, and they shall have no helper. (3.86–92)

It is obvious from these verses that no punishment is to be inflicted by one man on another for apostasy. The words ‘thereunder shall they abide’ clearly refer to the life hereafter. By no stretch of imagination can any sane person interpret the words ‘curse of Allah’ to be a license to murder anyone whom he considers to be an apostate. No capital punishment is mentioned. If it had, according to the strict requirements of the law, the punishment would have been clearly defined, as in the case of all other hodud (punishments specifically prescribed in the Holy Quran). On the contrary, the Holy Quran mentions the possibility of repentance by such persons and subsequent forgiveness by God. How can anyone repent and atone for his sins in this world if he has been killed?

The advocates of capital Punishment for Apostasy need to consider how, if their tradition is presumed to be accurate, the clear contradiction between it and the Holy Quran is to be resolved. In particular, they should reconsider their stance in view of the verses quoted above and re-examine those with an impartial mind. How could anyone accredit greater weight to such a dubious tradition than to these manifestly clear dictates of the Holy Quran:

If thy Lord had enforced His Will, surely all those on the earth would have believed without exception. Will thou than take it upon thyself to force people to become believers? Except by Allah’s leave no one can believe and He will afflict with His wrath those who will not use their understanding. (10.100–1)

When God Himself does not force people to believe, who are we to raise the sword to force belief or to set Maududian mouse-traps? The problem with the advocates of capital Punishment for Apostasy is that they invariably accept literally traditions compiled hundreds of years after the Holy Prophetsa which obviously contradict the teachings contained in the Holy Quran.

Countering that particular Hadith with other Hadith in the Quran

Our second source of law is the conduct and personal example of the Holy Prophetsa. We have already demonstrated the hollowness of the claim that anyone has ever been executed for the crime of apostasy.

After all, what was the stand of the Holy Prophetsa against the Meccans? It was that he should be allowed to profess and proclaim the message of God in peace. The Meccans did not grant him this freedom and punished those who began to believe in him. As far as the Meccans were concerned, those who believed in the message of Muhammadsa were the apostates, having recanted their faith of idol worship.

The Holy Prophetsa spent his entire life fighting in defense of the fundamental human rights that everybody should be free to choose his religion, no one should change another person’s religion by force, and everybody has a right to change his own religion, whatever that religion is.

In fact, this has been the true meaning of ‘Holy War’, waged by all messengers of God against their opponents throughout the history of religion. The Holy Quran has repeatedly mentioned this with reference to earlier prophets of God (see 2.5; 6.113; 21.42; 25.32; 36.8, 31; 43.8). To name but a few, these are Abrahamas (6.75–9; 19.47; 21.53, 59, 61, 69–70; 37.89–91, 98); Eliasas (37.126–7); Lotas (26.166–8; 27.57;15.71); Noahas (7.60; 10.72; 11.26–7; 26.117; 71.2–21); Mosesas (7.105–6, 1247; 10.76–9; 17.102–3; 20.44–5; 50–3; 26.19–34); and Jesusas (3.52–6; 5.118; 19.37; 43.65). What was their struggle about? It was simply a response to the claim of the opponents of the prophetsas that they had no right to change the faith of their contemporaries. In fact everybody has a right to choose his faith and as long as the message of peace and love is spread by peaceful means, no one has the right to prevent this by force. The obstinate response of the opponents to this most logical and humane stance was that they positively rejected the prophets’ position and stuck to their claim that the prophets had no right to change the faith of their people. If they did not desist from this course, the prophets were to be ready to accept the penalty for apostasy which was (in the opponents’ opinion) no other than death or exile.

The Holy Prophet’ssa struggle with his opponents was consistent with the practice of all prophets of the past. How can any sane person deny the lifetime mission of the Holy Prophetssa and challenge his firm stance on this fundamental principle? The Holy Quran, the practice of the Holy Prophetsa, and the other traditions provide ample contradiction to the tradition in question. One cannot over-emphasize the utter unreliability of this tradition.

Reliability of the Sources and Narrators regarding the Hadith supporting Apostasy

Prima facie, the tradition refuted here has been authenticated by the reputable compilers Burkhar, Tirmidhi, Abu Daud, AI-Nisai and Ibn Majah; it is included in five out of the six generally accepted compilations of hadith. But there ends its claim to authenticity.

For a tradition to be declared authentic it is not enough for it to be found in an authentic compilation. There are other established measures which are applied to every tradition. The most important among these measures is the examination in depth and detail of the reputation and character of the narrators forming the links in the chain of narrators.

There are scholars who have devoted their whole lifetime to such studies and, thanks to their most painstaking and thorough investigations, we are today in a position to examine every link of the chain of narrators in any compilation. Let us turn our attention to the tradition under consideration. This hadith falls into the category of ahad gharib (i.e., a tradition in which there is only one chain of narrators connected to the same single source) because all the five books of hadith derive their chain of narrators from Ikramah as their ultimate source.

The late Maulana Abdul Hayy of Lucknow specifically refers to Ikramah, pointing out that merely because Bukhari had included him in his compilation, others followed suit without carrying out independent research.15

A tradition may be authentic and reliable even if it is quoted through a single chain of narrators. However, it cannot be regarded as being as reliable as traditions which have more than one chain of reliable narrators. Such traditions are not permitted to influence edicts regarding the rights, liabilities and penalties; in particular, extra caution is required in relation to hodud. Hodud is a term strictly applicable to punishments specifically prescribed in the Holy Quran. The exponents of death as the penalty for apostasy consider their view to be based on Quranic injunctions falling within the category of hodud. In fact, we have disproved this claim earlier.

It is important to bear in mind that the tradition under discussion is a tradition quoted by a single chain of narrators and has no jurisprudence even if it is considered to be correct by some. In this context, it is essential to learn more about Ikramah and his reputation.

Ikramah, the SOURCE of the hadith supporting Apostasy

Ikramah16 was a slave of Ibn Abbas, and also his pupil—a very indifferent pupil, for that matter, and a back-bencher of the first order. He confirms this himself by saying that Ibn Abbas was so infuriated with his lack of interest in his studies and by his truancy that he would bind his hand and foot to compel him to remain present during his sermons.17

He was an opponent of Hazrat Ali, the fourth caliph of Islam, and was inclined towards the Khawarij in particular at the time when differences between Hazrat Ali and Ibn Abbas began to emerge. Later, during the Abbaside period, (the Abbasides, it should be borne in mind, were extremely antagonistic to all those who were in any way allied to Hazrat Ali’s progeny because of political apprehensions), Ikramah acquired great renown and respect as a versatile scholar, obviously because of his hostility towards Hazrat Ali and links with the Khawarij.18

Dhahbi states that because lkramah was a Kharijite, his traditions were unreliable and dubious. An expert on the Punishment for Apostasy, Imam Ali b. Al-Medaini, is of the same opinion. Yahya b. Bekir used to say that the Kharijites of Egypt, Algiers and Morocco were strongly allied to Ikramah.

It has generally been observed that the traditions of capital Punishment for Apostasy emanate mainly from incidents in Basra, Kula and Yemen. The people of the Hejaz (Mecca and Medina) were totally unfamiliar with them. One cannot shut one’s eyes to the fact that the tradition from Ikramah under discussion is known as an Iraqi tradition. Let us recall the famous Meccan Imam, Taus b. Kaisan, who used to say that Iraqi traditions were generally doubtful.19

That is not all. A great scholar, Yahya b. Saeed Al-Ansari, has strongly censured Ikramah for his unreliability in general and has gone to the extent of calling him a kadhab,20 that is to say an extreme liar of the first water.

Abdullah b. Al-Harith quotes a very interesting incident which he witnessed himself when he visited Ali b. Abdullah b. Abbas. He was deeply shocked and dismayed to find Ikramah bound to a post outside the door of Ali b. Abdullah b. Abbas. He expresseed his shock at this cruelty by asking Ali b. Abdullah b. Abbas if he had no fear of God in him. What he obviously meant was that Ikramah, with all his renown of piety and so on, did not deserve such abase and cruel treatment at the hands of his late master’s own son. In response to this, Ali b. Abdullah b. Abbas justified his act by pointing out that Ikramah had the audacity to attribute false things to his late father, Ibn Abbas. (21) What better judge of the character of Ikramah could there be than Ali b. Abdullah b. Abbas? No wonder, therefore, that Imam Malik b. Anas (95–179 AH), the pioneer compiler of hadith and an Imam of jurisprudence held in the highest repute throughout the Muslim world, held that the traditions narrated by Ikramah were unreliable.22

The following scholars of great repute have declared that Ikramah had a strong disposition towards exaggeration: Imam Yayha b. Saeed AlAnsari, Ali b. Abdullah b. Abbas and Ara b. Abi Rabae.23

This, then, is the man who we are dealing with and on whose sole authority the matter of the lives of all those people who change their faith is left hanging till the end of time.


Ibn Abbas

Whenever the name of Ibn Abbas24 appears at the head of a chain of narrators, the vast majority of Muslim scholars is overawed. They forget the fact that because of his name and reputation concocters of false traditions tended to trace their fabricated chain of narrators back to him. Therefore, all traditions beginning with the name of Ibn Abbas must be properly judged and examined.

Moreover, even if Ibn Abbas is honestly reported by a narrator, the possibility of human error on Ikramah’s part regarding what Ibn Abbas might have said cannot be ruled out. The following would be a good illustration of the case in point:

Ibn Abbas says that Umar used to say that the Holy Prophetsa said that crying over the dead brought chastisement to the dead. Ibn Abbas further said that after Umar died, he related this tradition to Ayesha who said, ‘God forgive Umar!’ By God, the Holy Prophetsa said nothing of the kind. He only said that if the descendants of a disbeliever cried over his dead body, their action tended to augment his punishment, and by way of argument, Ayesha also said, ‘Sufficient for us is the saying of the Quran: “Verily no soul can bear the burden of another.” ‘25

If a man of Hazrat Umar’s stature and integrity can misunderstand the Holy Prophetsa, however rarely it might have happened, how much more is there danger of ordinary narrators misunderstanding the reports of Ibn Abbas?

With such wide possibilities for the miscarriage of the message of the Holy Prophet of Islamsa, how can a sane person rely entirely on the evidence of this hadith and draw conclusions of far-reaching import regarding matters of life and death and fundamental human rights?

It is likely that Ikramah concocted this tradition, attributing it to Ibn Abbas, as it was his wont to do, according to Ali b. Ibn Abbas.

Other Considerations

When we examine the subject matter of the tradition under consideration, we find the contents to be erroneous in several ways.

A person of Hazrat Ali’s stature is presumed to be unaware of the fact that Islam categorically prohibits a person to be punished by fire.
The words ‘slay whosoever changes his faith’ are so general that they can be interpreted in many ways. They can apply to men, women and children, whereas according to Imam Abu Hanifa and some other schools of jurisprudence, an apostate woman can never be slain.
The Arabic word deen (religion) used in this tradition is a general word meaning any religion, not Islam specifically. Even the faith of idolaters is referred to as deen. (Sura Al-Kafiroon)
In the light of the general nature of the language used, how can one restrict the application of this tradition to a Muslim who renounces his faith? In strict legal terms, according to this tradition anyone who changes his religion, whatever that religion is, would have to be put to death. It would mean slaying the Jew who became a Christian, slaying the Christian who became a Muslim, and slaying the pagan who adopted any new faith. ‘Whosoever’ also transcends the geographical boundaries of Muslim states, implying that anywhere in the world, anyone who changes his faith—be he an aborigine of Australia, a pygmy of Africa or an Indian of South America—must be slain forthwith the moment he renounces his previous faith and accepts another one.

Islam lays a great deal of emphasis on proselytizing, so that it is binding upon every Muslim to become a preacher in the path of Allah. How ironical it is therefore that many renowned Muslim scholars today negate the very spirit of Islamic jihad by audaciously sticking to the narrow-minded view that Islam dictates that whosoever changes his faith, meaning in this context Islam, must be put to death forthwith. What about those of other faiths? Islam declares it to be an obligation upon Muslims to stand committed to the noble goal of constantly endeavoring to change the faith of all non-Muslims around them by peaceful means. This task is so important and demanding that every Muslim is instructed to stick to the endeavor till his last breath

The Holy Quran states:

Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation. and reason with them on the basis of that which is best. Thy Lord knows best those who have strayed away from His way; and He knows best those who are rightly guided. (16.126)

The advocates of the bigoted inhumane doctrine of death upon apostasy never visualize its effect on international and inter religious human relationships. Why can they not see that according to their view of Islam, adherents of all religions have a fundamental right to change their faith but not so the Muslims, and that Islam has the prerogative of converting others but all adherents of different faiths are deprived of any right to convert Muslims to their faith? What a sorry picture of Islamic justice this presents!

To conclude, apostasy is the clear repudiation of a faith by a person who formerly held it. Doctrinal differences, however grave, cannot be deemed to be apostasy. The Punishment for Apostasy lies in the hand of God Almighty, against whom the offence has been committed. Apostasy which is not aggravated by some other crime is not punishable in this world. This is the teaching of God. This was the teaching of the Holy Prophetsa. This is the view confirmed by Hanafi jurists,26 Fateh al-Kadeer27 Chalpi,28 Hafiz ibn Qayyim, Ibrahim Nakhai, Sufyan Thauri and many others. The Maududian claim of consensus, concerning the tradition they hold to be true, is a mere fiction.

I hope it clears it up now.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Seeing it devolve into arcane theological argumentations every time is so amazing. It's like being in the Middle Ages.

 

[gutter_trash]

Seeing it devolve into arcane theological argumentations every time is so amazing. It's like being in the Middle Ages.

I 100% agree with you. Arguing about religious semantics is like trying to be ''understanding'' towards the most non-understanding group of terrorists there are

the power vacuum must be sealed off.

 

[Red Mage]

Considering how Jonah felt about God sending him to the Ninevites, I find this sad yet strangely ironic.

 

[Sayad]

Its sad to see the Christians leave mosul to be honest as they were welcome to stay,churches are protected and so are homes and businesses.

Yea, sure they are:

"If Isis stays, there is no way the Christians can return," Father Boutrous Moshi said from Qara Qoosh, a Christian area south-east of Mosul. "It is up to God whether we return or not. They have not burned the churches but they did set fire to the pictures and the books and broke the windows."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...tians-mosul-isis-convert-islam-or-be-executed

The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is now the richest terror group in the world, after stealing $429 million from the central bank in Mosul...

Even before taking over Mosul, "the group extorted taxes from businesses small and large, netting upwards of of $8 million a month, according to some estimates,” the CFR report says.

http://www.ibtimes.com/mosul-bank-robbery-isnt-only-thing-funding-isis-1601124

Man if I was Christian or a business owner I sure would love to stay there.

 

[ferr]

The residents told The Associated Press that the militants claimed the mosque had become a place for apostasy, not prayer.

I'll preface this by saying that I'm your typical internet agnostic just so people don't think I'm some christian hobo.

But this kind of reminds me of the biblical story where Jesus went into a temple, saw them selling t-shirts and flip-flops or something, and blew a gasket. Flipped over craps tables, threw shit at people, etc.

 

[Suen]

US ideally would clean up then fuck off. But clean up properly. And when I say fuck off I mean stop intervening in this manner.

They won't because they want to maintain the influence they have over Sunni countries in the region. Bombing ISIS would be seen as taking a stance against them and they'd get pissed like they did when US refused to bomb Syria. If anything part of the support the West gave the so called rebels in Syria has likely benefited ISIS due to all infighting there and as a result ISIS are coming back stronger than ever to Iraq. Then you have the all the times arms purchase from U.S by the Iraqi government has been delayed (or blocked) which hasn't helped in building a more capable force at all, particularly for the IAF. I think there's even some Senator right now who wants to block Iraq arm sales (again), citing worries about weapons benefiting the wrong side in the end. You can't help but laugh at it when you consider the smaller involvement US has in Syria and what that has resulted in.

Hopefully the block the senator wants goes through, it's a blessing in disguise since it would only force the incompetent fools in the Iraqi govt. to start dealing with Russia and China. Iraq's defence minister was recently on a visit in Moscow where a number of contracts where fulfilled and where it was said that Russia would supply Iraq with military helicopters and fighter jets. There's also talks about a South Korean air manufacturer being interested in building a new air field in Iraq for fighter jets,good news although that's more for the future than for the current conflict. Just getting weapons is not enough though, you need a proper army, a proper force and Iraq doesn't have it. No one trust each other in the army, no one is motivated and no one wants to die for Maliki of all people. Many Sunni soldiers in Sunni areas are just in for the money and would desert their posts at the first sign of trouble or orders by their superiors or tribal leaders as seen in Anbar and Mosul. Many in the army don't have enough experience, just a few weeks of crappy training (which is why you have militias getting involved who sadly have more experience in urban warfare). The only force in Iraq which is highly capable is the ISOF who, to no one's surprise hopefully, is mainly tasked with defending Maliki, his supporters and his interests in the country.

Simply put: US is useless in this situation, and is an absolutely useless and unreliable partner for Iraq. Of course anyone could have realized this in 2003; US has strong relations with Sunni countries in ME and is too invested in them. There's too much at play for them to truly have a genuine Pro-(Post-invasion) Iraq stance. Not only would the Sunni countries around Iraq not take kindly to it but it would be seen as a move aligning closer to Iran. That would not only piss off the Sunnis countries even more but piss off Israel, their strongest ally in the region, even more than them. If I was US I wouldn't do anything either. Why risk my interests in the region and get involved in a mess again?

The only two sides who are fighting against ISIS now (Iraq excluded) are Iran and Russia. There's nothing official about Iran joining the fight as far as I know but those of us who follow the news closely realize that some those fighter jets flying in the skies attacking ISIS are really Iranian, not Iraqi. Russians will hopefully continue supplying Iraq with weapons and if US tries to pressure them in canceling the contracts Iraq should promptly tell them to fuck off.

 

[LiK]

This is just insane.

 

[Suen]

Can people take the "Is this real Islam or not", quranic verses and hadith discussions to another thread and stop derailing this thread with that nonsense? Thanks.

 

[heyf00L]

It sounds to me like they're following Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine#Islam

 

[ASIS]

Not true .. and you know that .. if you are arabic man

تمويل داعش مجهول و بالتأكيد و بدون أدنى شك أنه ليس من جماعة الإخوان .. داعش أصلاً يكفرون الإخوان و فكرياً داعش وهابيين متطرفين

أنا سمعت ان تمويل داعش من قطر و تركيا. قطر تمول المال و تركيا تمول الاسلحة. لكني غير متأكد من مصداقية المصادر.

but why are talking in arabic again?

 

[Ikael]

Sometimes I think that if Sadam were still alive a ruling the country , this wont be news and so much people could still be alive now.

Also how this ISIS group took control of large territories?

I highly suggest anyone remotely interested on ISIS to read this and this article in order to understand their huge territorial gains (and how little they matter).

 

[MacNille]

What a bunch of assholes. If they had a pinch of real Islam they would be going to fight the Israeli army instead of blowing up innocents and wiping out history.

If they would do that, the land would be filled with corpses.... their corpses.

 

[Suen]

أنا سمعت ان تمويل داعش من قطر و تركيا. قطر تمول المال و تركيا تمول الاسلحة. لكني غير متأكد من مصداقية المصادر.

but why are talking in arabic again?

I think anyone living in the region or has ties to it is aware of this. The former is extreme anti-Iraq/Iran/Shia and the latter is interested in increasing their hemegony in the region (forget Syria for a moment and look at all the disputes and arguments they have with Iraq), it's not like their involvement in Syria is a secret anyway. It's just a matter of not being official and not knowing the extent of the support involved.

 

[3rdman]

Ugh...Is it wrong to wish cancer on an entire group of people? Man alive!

I remember something like happened in Afghanistan under Taliban rule...They blew up ancient statues just because...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

 

[Suen]

It sounds to me like they're following Islam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrine#Islam

Apparently not the Islam in Iraq since the shrines have been existing for centuries and the only ones who damaged certain shrines in Iraq the past decades (prior to the invasion) was Saddam and his Baath party, who were more of secularists than muslims. Again, if people want to discuss whether ISIS is practicing true Islam (whatever you define that to be) please create a seperate topic for it. This news isn't about it but about cunts blowing up the national heritage of a country.

 

[kurisu1974]

I hope it clears it up now.

LOL sure buddy. Like I said, whatever makes you sleep at night. It's never religion's fault. Carry on.

This news isn't about it but about cunts blowing up the national heritage of a country.

And damned be everyone trying to figure out WHY, right?

 

[SoulPlaya]

I am a bigot for explaining what IS asked from the Christians regarding the Jizya.

I need to stay out of these threads.

Why do you always seem to be vaguely defending these guys in all these threads? Fucks the matter with you?

 

[MikeDown]

Nothing about them should be taken as a legitimate representation of Islam. They have bastardized its teachings to the point of it being completely unrecognizable.

except for the part about jihad


at anyrate sad/infuriating to see it gone. I mean the work and architecture put into these buildings is amazing

 

[SoulPlaya]

Nothing about them should be taken as a legitimate representation of Islam. They have bastardized its teachings to the point of it being completely unrecognizable.

It would be easy to say this, if this was the only group doing these kinds of things, but this is a problem that's rampant throughout the entire Islamic world. Whether it's real Islam or not isn't the point anymore. For whatever reason, there is a large enough contingent of Muslims that believe this is true Islam, and it's fucking the world up. The point is to stop them, not to understand them, and not to debate them over the merits of true Islam.

These kinds only understand force, and aren't interested in rhetoric.

 

[Maninthemirror]

LOL sure buddy. Like I said, whatever makes you sleep at night. It's never religion's fault. Carry on.



And damned be everyone trying to figure out WHY, right?

lol sure. for most I have proved otherwise. You will come around too

 

[elrechazado]

lol sure. for most I have proved otherwise. You will come around too

You haven't proved anything except that there are some words that agree with your interpretation. There are millions who disagree, so what?

 

[Maninthemirror]

You haven't proved anything except that there are some words that agree with your interpretation. There are millions who disagree, so what?

I am just saying I provided text from Islamic text itself, hadith and Quran, you know the two things Muslims read most in terms of their religious knowledge? those who support apostasy cling on to ONE source of hadith, I provided at least 20 sources in there which goes against punishment for apostasy, but then again its up to people to chose. 1 hadith source or 20 Hadith & Quranic verses. Its really in the mind of men which they want to chose or chose to believe to fit thier notions of what islam is and should be. I mean in the end you can only tell people and you can't force them to change their view, thats the job of extremists not me, I am only countering the extremist view.

 

[Siegcram]

I am just saying I provided text from Islamic text itself, hadith and Quran, you know the two things Muslims read most in terms of their religious knowledge? those who support apostasy cling on to ONE source of hadith, I provided at least 20 sources in there which goes against punishment for apostasy, but then again its up to people to chose. 1 hadith or 20 Hadith & Quranic verses. Its really in the mind of men which they want to chose or chose to believe to fit thier notions of what islam is and should be. I mean in the end you can only tell people and you can't force them to change their view.

Your last sentence here makes all your other wall of text posts obsolete.

In Islam and all the other abrahamic religions there's so much stuff out there that you can justify literally anything you want to and find something to support it. As evidenced by all of history and these Isis idiots.

Interpretations are and will always be just that. So no, you haven't proven anything, since there's no authority that gives your word more validity than theirs.

 

[Suen]

LOL sure buddy. Like I said, whatever makes you sleep at night. It's never religion's fault. Carry on.



And damned be everyone trying to figure out WHY, right?

No I did not say that.

The practice of blowing shrines is not done in Iraq. The few videos of ISIS blowing up the shrines or crushing tombs aren't done by Iraqis; the arabic dialect spoken in the videos is not Mespotamian arabic. Finally many Iraqis who allied themselves with ISIS in these areas are hardcore Baathist remnants, and historically speaking Iraqi Baathists were nowhere close in destroying shrines at the pace ISIS is doing now.

The practice is for the most part foreign. ISIS members carrying out the destruction are foreign members with no relation to the country, therefore we're talking about a terrorist group imposing their practice of destroying shrines in a country that doesn't do it. Regardless of what religious justification people give it does not address the core issues: them not belonging to the country in the first place and imposing their rules on the locals. The debate would make more sense if we were talking about a bunch of Iraqis destroying their own history.

Having a discussion about the quran and hadith and what ISIS follows doesn't contribute anything to the thread. However, reporting current news happening on the ground, the continuos destruction of shrines and measures being taken to fight against ISIS raise the awareness of the situation and is significantly more important than some religious debate between muslims and non-muslims.

If you're so concerned about how much of Islam ISIS follow then start a fucking thread called "Why ISIS blows up shrines - a religious discussion about the conflict". The last thing we need in this thread is some fucking debate, religious citings and other nonsense when atrocities are being commited as we speak.

Why do you always seem to be vaguely defending these guys in all these threads? Fucks the matter with you?

He's the same like any other terrorist who is bent on Iraq's destruction. Did he even condemn what they did? The only thing I saw was him doing was to indirectly justify two things: laws passed down on a minority and the destruction of historical shrines.

It would be easy to say this, if this was the only group doing these kinds of things, but this is a problem that's rampant throughout the entire Islamic world. Whether it's real Islam or not isn't the point anymore. For whatever reason, there is a large enough contingent of Muslims that believe this is true Islam, and it's fucking the world up. The point is to stop them, not to understand them, and not to debate them over the merits of true Islam.

These kinds only understand force, and aren't interested in rhetoric.

Thank you.