Hey Holly, this is Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) statement on ISIS
ISIS teachings against sharia: MUI - ANTARA News
Hey everyone. Can someone please clarify to me about Offensive Jihad? Is it true that Islam allows things like what Islamic State in Iraq is doing?
Hey Holly, this is Indonesian Ulema Council (MUI) statement on ISIS
ISIS teachings against sharia: MUI - ANTARA News
Conclusive scholarly opinions on ISIS
The following are views from various Muslim scholars and individuals on ISIS. The list by no means represents any endorsement of those listed by Islam21c or MRDF.
Some conclusive scholarly opinions concerning ISIS and their actions
The Syrian conflict has raged on, leaving conscious Muslims experiencing an agonising dilemma: to watch helplessly while thousands are oppressed and killed or to help with whatever is in their capacity. A number of Muslim youth have opted to join the revolt, offering their lives to the cause. This has prompted the government to adopt or suggest punitive actions against them citing fear that they would become ‘radicalised’. Years prior to this rather uncertain position assumed by the British government, scholars in Syria and abroad had warned foreigners of travelling to fight in Syria. This was not due to fears of ‘radicalisation’ as these are not substantiated by any empirical evidence, but rather for concerns that the course of the revolution would be hampered since manpower was never required as much as financial and medical resources.
Years into the mass uprising, certain elements sprung up and spread in the revolution, that severely stalled progress against the Syrian regime. In addition to this, certain groups began perpetrating crimes against Syrian fighters through internal provocation and conflict and through targeting aid workers and civilians, whilst following a warped reading into Islam unrecognised by countless Syrian and international scholars.  Scholars had previously communicated their position to the masses, but their incapacity to take these scholars seriously developed the catastrophe the scholars had warned of. The catastrophe culminated in predominantly misinformed outsiders bolstering the strength of the ‘Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’ (ISIS), duped by the group’s buzz-words (Khilāfah, Bay’ah, Amīr al-Mu’minīn, Hijrah and so on). In reality, if ISIS are not part of Assad’s regime as some claim, they have either been severely infiltrated by the regime or their ideology is starkly unrelated to Islam and critically misguided.
ISIS have not only weakened the fighters in Syria against Bashar, but have murdered arbitrators and committed heinous crimes against Muslims. The regime has benefited greatly by the presence of ISIS, even avoiding them in pursuit and attack. ISIS have furthermore shackled the progress of some of the most effective Islamic rebel groups by waging war on them for their refusal to ‘pledge allegiance’ to them and to their warped ideology. The government and media suggest that many of those who have gone to fight in Syria have joined ISIS while recent videos might be seen to confirm these claims. Assuming these claims to be accurate, it becomes binding upon those who are sincere in yearning for an end to the oppression to reveal the unmistakable reality.
Sadly, many eager individuals do not recognise the authority of Syria’s scholars, dismissing their views while accusing others of being “politicised”. Who did they follow and what did they risk? No doubt the scale of the crisis in Syria is unparalleled, thus what is at stake for those who travel there is most probably death. Death will lead to Paradise or the Hellfire. For those who opted to join ISIS, on what basis and through what justification are they willing meet Allāh when this faction has shed the blood of thousands unjustly? The question remains, did these individuals refer to the Book of Allāh, the injunctions of the Messenger salla Allāhu ‘alayh wasalam and the guidance of our leaders in understanding and faith, the recognised scholars of Islam, before embarking on this ākhirah-focused risk? Those who truly care for the course of the revolution and desire that it achieves the best end will categorically stop at the injunction of Allāh if nothing else. If our pride fails to lend Syrian scholars their worth, take the following international statements and verdicts regarding ISIS, issued by the following diverse list of scholars. 
Most scholars used the Arabic abbreviation ‘Dā’esh’ in reference to ISIS. ‘Dā’esh’ has been substituted for ISIS for the convenience of the reader.
Sheikh Abu Abdullah al-Masry:
Sheikh al-Masry was previously a member of ISIS but withdrew from them on the basis of their ideology and methodology. He justifies his withdrawal by mentioning ISIS’ defamation of the people of Syria, claiming they were ideologically misguided, asking how this could be the case if the Prophet salla Allāhu ‘alayh wasalam said: ”If the people of Shaam corrupt, there is no good in you.”
The Sheikh adds:
“The behaviour of many elements in ISIS including leaders consistently is offensive towards the people of Syria and its Mujāhidīn, accusing them of misguidance in belief and action.” He further said: “They moreover repeatedly accuse the people of Syria and the Free Syrian Army (FSA) of disbelief (Kufr).” The Sheikh also argued that ISIS cannot be theoretically classified as Khawārij although practically this may be the case since they throw around accusations of disbelief without evidence and without understanding the gravity of such a charge. Rather, they may indict someone as a disbeliever merely on the grounds of disagreeing with them. Many of them believe that the people of Syria are originally apostates before creating justifications to this effect, raising weapons in their faces for the most trivial of matters.
Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Tarifi:
Sheikh al-Tarifi is a Researcher in the Ministry of Islamic Affairs in Riyadh. The Sheikh is deeply erudite in the sciences of Islam, known for his profound ability to retrieve evidences and issue meticulous verdicts. Among his teachers are Sheikh Abdul Aziz b. Abdullah b. Baz, Faqih Abdullah b. Abdul Aziz b. Aqeel and Sheikh Muhammad b. al-Hasan al-Shanqeeti. The sheikh has an extensive number of printed works.
“It is impermissible for anyone to make his group or party a milestone against which loyalty and hostility are measured, such that he believes that allegiance and leadership should belong to him exclusively. Whoever believes that sole allegiance applies to him (or his party) from amongst all Muslims, then upon him apply the words of Allāh: “Verily, those who divide their religion and break up into sects (all kinds of religious sects), you (O Muhammad salla Allāh ‘alayh wasalam) have no concern in them in the least.”“ The Sheikh added: “it is incorrect that while in a state of fighting and factions that one group should request individual and general allegiance and all that it entails. The allegiance is to the Jihād, constancy, patience and reform. It is incorrect that one individual who leads a particular faction to call himself Amīr al-Mu’minīn (the leader of the Believers), rather he should call himself the leader of the army, the battalion or the battle. General leadership is determined by Shūrā (consultation) between believers, not for an individual to assume. Titles cause exclusivity that can lead to dispute, conflict, strife and evil… [Therefore], participating with ISIS so long as it does not agree with the law of Allāh, independent of it is impermissible.”
Sheikh Sulaiman b. Nasser al-Alwan:
The Sheikh began pursuing knowledge at the age of fifteen. He has written comprehensive explanations of Hadīth books including Sahīh al-Bukhari, Jāmi’ Abū Issa al-Tirmidhi, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Muwata’ Mālik among many others. He quotes:
“Al-Baghdadi is not the Khalīfah of the Muslims for him to do whatever he pleases; rather he is a leader of a faction. Requesting a pledge of allegiance, killing those who refuse is the action of an aggressor, not the action of a person of good and righteousness.” He further said: “If his own leader does not agree with his actions, how can he expect allegiance from others?”
Sheikh Muhammad b. Salih al-Munajjid:
Sheikh Mohammad al-Munajjid is a renowned scholar of Islam with an array of recognised works (including IslamQA.com). His teachers include Sheikh Abdul Aziz b. Abdullah b. Baz, Sheikh Abdullah b. Abdul Rahman b. Jibreen and Sheikh Abdul Rahman al-Barrak. He is currently the imām of the Mosque of Omar b. Abdul Aziz al-Khobar. He says:
“If a group thinks, for example, that it has established the Islamic state, its leader is the ‘Leader of the Believers’, that he should be listened to and obeyed by everyone, that anyone not under his command has rebelled against him, that [this ‘state’] has the authority to draw up borders, elect leaders over towns, that it has authority over public wealth, petrol, wheat and so on, that others should forcefully submit to them while they can stop whoever they want, that they have the sole authority of establishing Islamic courts and judges and that every court besides theirs is void, it has deviated. This will no doubt create competition over control of regions and eventually lead to a great Fitnah and bloodshed.”
Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi:
Sheikh Muhammad al-Maqdisi is considered the guide of the ‘Jihadist Salafist’ movement in Jordan. His name is Issam Barqawi but is famously known as Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi. Far from siding with ISIS, he says in a letter to the Mujāhidīn of Syria after hearing of ISIS and their behaviour with other fighters:
“…and we do not feel ashamed to declare that we are free from the actions of those who dare spill the blood of Muslims whoever they may be.” He further added: “How can you be expected to accommodate all Syrians including Christians and other sects [if you cannot even accommodate other Muslims]?”
Dr. Hassan Saleh b. Hamid:
Dr. Hassan Saleh has a PhD in the principles of Fiqh and Sharī’ah, he is the Director of the Institute of Higher Islamic Education at the Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah and is a Member of the (Islamic) Advisory council. He says:
“No one going to Syria to fight is excused to be part of al-Baghadi’s faction for even a moment… they are a faction that brings Fitnah, whenever they are called to a court for religious arbitration they turn away and whenever a truce is declared, they reignite the war.”
Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Fawzan:
Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Fawzan is a member of the Council for Human Rights, a Professor in Islamic Jurisprudence and the Head of the Department of Comparative Jurisprudence at the Islamic University of Imam Muhammad b. Saud in Saudi Arabia. He says:
“ISIS is a rogue, external criminal organisation. Whoever knows of what afflicted us in Iraq and Afghanistan and the blood that was spilled unjustly at the hands of some ignorant individuals in our nation will understand the gravity of what is happening in Syria.”
Dr. Abdul Karim Bakkar:
Dr. Abdul Karim Bakkar is one of the leading authors in the field of education and Islamic thought, who seeks to provide a deep-rooted analysis into matters concerning Islamic civilisation, renaissance and Da’wah. He has more than 40 books in this area. Dr. Abdul Karim Bakkar is a member of the Advisory Board for the Islam Today magazine (Riyadh). He says:
“I met a number of students of knowledge and Islamic jurists returning from Syria. I swear by the One besides whom there is no god that the only thing they spoke about were the repulsive actions of ISIS and their crimes. ISIS and the Assad regime are two faces of one evil.”
Dr. Shafi al-Ajmi:
Dr. Al-Ajmi sought knowledge under the supervision of Sheikh Muhammad b. Saalih and Sheikh Yahya al-Yahya. He studied at the University of Imam Muhammad b. Saud and is now the Imām of al-Ghazali Mosque in Kuwait.He quotes:
“I have not heard of a single scholar inside or outside of Syria who has praised this faction, had good suspicion of them or defended them, rather they have unanimously agreed that they are aggressors. Al-Baghdadi’s aim, since entering Syria is to weaken the fighters and he has indeed weakened al-Nusra Front and Ahraar al-Shaam and continues to do so.”
Sheikh Abu Basir al-Tartusi:
Sheikh Abu Basir al-Tartusi has played the effective role of the Syrian revolution’s Mufti. It is said that Sheikh al-Tartusi was the first Arab fighter to travel to Afghanistan in 1981, accompanying Abdullah Azzam on one of his trips. He has authored many books and is the founder of several of the revolution’s coordination groups. He says:
“The group known as ISIS are from the fanatical Khawārij, rather they have surpassed the Khawārij in many of their characteristics and actions, combining between fanaticism, aggression, hostility and shedding inviolable blood.” He further said: “We call upon all sincere individuals who have been fooled by them while still with this misguided group to severe their ties with it and to declare their freedom from it and its actions.”
Sheikh Abdullah Saad:
The Sheikh and notable Muhadtih Abdullah b. Abdul Rahman b. Mohammed Al-Saad Al-Mutairi is one of those at the forefront of 20th and 21st century Muslim scholars. His teachers include, Sheikh Abdul Aziz b. Baz, Sheikh Mohammed b. Saalih and Sheikh Abdullah b. Abdul Rahman al-Jibreen. He has authored tens of books and has explanations of Bukhāri, Sunan Abī Dāwūd, Jāmi’ al-Tirmithi and others.He says:
“I plea to whoever joined this faction (ISIS) to leave it and move away from it, and for its leaders to return to the truth and to repent to Allāh from the grave mistakes they have fallen into…”
Sheikh Abdullah al-Mahiseny:
Sheikh al-Mahiseny is a specialist in Islamic Jurisprudence, acquiring a PhD in Comparative Fiqh in the subject: “Rulings Concerning War Refugees in Islamic Jurisprudence.” He says:
“By Allāh, I have never witnessed the scholars who speak about matters of Jihād agree on criticising and opposing a Muslim movement as they have agreed on condemning ISIS.” Sheikh Mahiseny concluded by saying: “I implore you by Allāh O Baghdadi to allow a general Islamic court mediate to uphold the injunctions of Allāh.”
Sheikh Adnan Mohammed al-Aroor:
Sheikh Adnan al-Aroor is currently the Director of Research and Publishing in Riyadh. He grew up seeking knowledge in Syria under several scholars including Sheikh al-Albani and Sheikh b. Baz. He is one of the most notable scholarly icons of the Syrian revolution and has a multitude of published works. Sheikh al-Aroor says, directing his question at ISIS:
“Did Allāh set conditions that must be met before accepting that the Qur’ān arbitrate [in the affairs of difference]? Then where did you get these conditions [that you set] from? Why do you leave military fronts such as Homs and dedicate your efforts to the areas near the Turkish borders? … Who are the people of religious authority (ahl al-hal wal-’aqd) who you consulted before establishing your ‘state’? Do you aim to overthrow the sectarian dictator or to fight others [who want to achieve this]? … What is your Islamic proof that justifies your pledge to someone unknown?” He furthermore states: “ISIS are either Khawārij or infiltrated by the [Syrian] regime. It is composed of three groups of people: brutal Takfīrīs, wicked infiltrators and people deceived by them.”
The Scholars of Aleppo Front:
The Scholars of Aleppo Front issued a statement encouraging the sincere members of ISIS to leave this faction and join the legitimate revolutionary forces in Syria for the crime that has been perpetrated by this group, including:
Accusations of disbelief (takfīr), their shedding of inviolable blood without a second thought, kidnappings and documented armed robberies of weapons and ammunition from other rebel factions, their refusal to allow the Sharī’ah to arbitrate between them and the other factions and sowing the seeds of discord between fighers. ISIS’ takfīr sometimes extend to the entire population of Syria. This includes takfīr boldly levelled at the Free Syrian Army, accusing Ahraar al-Shaam that they are misguided ‘Surūrīs’ and that al-Nusra Front have defied their alleged ‘Khalīfah’.
A Joint Statement of 47 Scholars in Saudi Arabia including Al-Ghunaymaan, Al-‘Umar, Al-Mahmoud and Al-Jalali Al-Mahmoud
The joint statement asserted that it is impermissible and of tyranny for one faction to impose itself as the only holder of legitimacy and that it is necessary that all other groups pledge allegiance to it without consulting the Muslims, otherwise they become of the Khawārij and their blood becomes permissible. It argued that this is the main reason for divisions and internal fighting. Sheikh Hamoud b. Ali al-Omari added: “The reality of the matter is, every drop of blood shed between the (rebel) factions in Syria is due to al-Baghdadi’s refusal to allow the Sharī’ah to arbitrate while implementing his own innovated Sharī’ah.”
There is no act, the punishment for which has been mentioned more sternly than that of killing a believer intentionally where a collection of five severe retributions have been listed:
“But whoever kills a believer intentionally – his recompense is Hell, wherein he will abide eternally, and Allāh has become angry with him and has cursed him and has prepared for him a great punishment.”
Above are only some of the verdicts issued against ISIS by Muslim scholars. Such an agreement between scholars, analysts and intellectuals across the board should shake the heart of any individual who has participated in hampering the revolutionary effort while imposing an innovated ideology on its people. This neither pleases Allāh nor is it to the betterment of Syria. Syrians are in no need of further repression. Sincere individuals who have joined ISIS believing it endorses the true purpose of Islam should rush to change course and avoid further gambling with their permanent abode, and with a Syrian future that balances on a knife’s edge.
Source: Islam21c | Articulating Islam in the 21st Century
This article is presented for information purposes, and is not an official view of MRDF or Islam21c.
 Growing fears over Britons radicalised in Syrian conflict - Crime - UK - The Independent
 A Plea from Syria | Islam21c
 Concerns for five aid workers taken away in Syria · TheJournal.ie
 http://www.almokhtsar.com/news/ Title/author: أقوال العلماء والدعاة في داعش / إبراهيم بن عبد الرحمن التركي
 Al-Qur’ān 6:159
 Qur’ān 4:93
DISCLAIMER: All material found on Islam21c.com is for free and is for information purposes only. All material may be freely copied & shared on condition that it is clearly attributed to Islam21c.com [hyperlinked] as the original source. The views expressed on this site or on any linked sites do not necessarily represent those of Islam21c.com
Last edited by 'Abd-al Latif; 08-16-2014 at 12:18 PM. Reason: Altered formatting.
Jihad is only allowed for defensive purposes. Islam was never spread by the sword. When Muslims took up the sword, it was because they were being persecuted and because the disbelievers were a threat to the existence of Islam at the time. The command for Jihad by the sword was given after Muslim suffered for 13 years of Meccan oppression.
Let it be clear that Islam never allows anyone to use force to subjugate anyone else to the religion. Groups like Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Taliban, etc., are all wrong because they attack innocent people. They have no bearing on Islam and what they do is not Jihad, even though they claim it. They tarnish the name of Islam.
Muslims can only do Jihad when they are being threatened and killed because they are Muslims and for no other reason. The call for Jihad is given by the appointed Imam of the time. No person or group can collectively claim with a self-appointed leader that they can do Jihad. Only an Imam appointed directly by Allah can do so. They either have to be a Muhaddith, or a Khalifah. Anything else I say will simply be a digression, but this is the truth of the matter.
Yes, Muslims launched offensive war in the past, but Muslims were not the only people who attacked other lands. Offensive war were something common in the past, even it still happened in 20th century. German launched offensive which caused WW2. Japanese launched offensive which caused Pacific war. China invaded Tibet.
But now after the world realized about the importance of live peacefully and made a deal to not launch offensive to other countries, Muslims countries made the same deal too.
I'm not going to get into the details of these "peace" treaties because they're bogus deals. The point is that an offensive war recognised in islam. The Romans and Persians didn't want to attack Arabia because it's a desert land and it didn't offer any advantage to either by invading it. It was Abu Bakr (r) who initiated the offensive to both super powers at the same time and this war ended with victory during the reign of Umar (r).
Just because there is no official Muslim army under a caliph today doesn't mean an offensive war is now an unrecognised entity in Islam.
"The basic aim of Muslim conquests was to spread the call to Islam to all nations in all lands, away from all forms of coercion, and to conquer tyrannical rulers who would adamantly stand in its way.
When reviewing Muslim conquests that took place between Muslims and other nations, whether at its outset, during its peak, or towards it end, we realize that they were all based on one and the same principle: calling on people to embrace Islam, or to enter into a peace agreement and lead a dignified life under the protection of Muslims. If they rejected both options, war would be the only choice left.
This is illustrated in the words of Khalif Ibn Al-Waleed to the ruler of Al-Hayrah when he said: "I call on you to worship Allah and embrace Islam. Should you accept our call, you become Muslims enjoying the same rights and shouldering the same responsibilities. Should you reject, you have to pay the Jizyah. Should you refuse to pay the Jizyah, you will have to face men who are keener on death than you are on life. We will fight you till Allah's word comes to pass between us." Similarly, Khalid always had his army leaders call on people to embrace Islam first before battling with them. This is best expressed in the message he sent to rulers of Persia which read: "In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful, from Khalid Ibn Al-Waleed to the ruler of Persia: embrace Islam in order to live in peace. If you do not, you will live under my protection in return for the Jizyah. Otherwise, you are up against people who love death just as much as you love wine.""
As far as the expansion of Islam from Mecca to Medina, this same book has it written:
"Though the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, spent thirteen years in Makkah calling unto its people to embrace Islam, and ten years in Madeenah calling unto Arabs in general, along with non-Arabs, to worship their Sole Creator, and fighting whoever tried to stand in his way, he constantly focused on the universality of Islam even in Muslims' darkest hours. For instance, when Khabbaab Ibn Al-Aratt, may Allah be pleased with him, spoke to him complaining about the severe torture Quraysh inflicted on them, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, answered: "I swear by Allah that He will see this call through until the day comes when a traveler would journey from San'aa' to Hadramawt fearing none but Allah and the wolf lest it should devour his sheep, but you are impatient."
Also, during the battle of the Trench, while Muslims were busy digging a trench round Madeenah, the Prophet pointed to his companions that the call to Islam is for the whole of mankind. He also foretold that the Muslim state will extend to include the lands of the Persians and the Romans. He, peace and blessings be upon him, said that the light that glimmered from the rock that he hit showed him palaces of Khosrau, the Romans and Basrah. He also said that Gabriel told him that his nation will have the upper hand over them.
Consequently, once the Prophet made peace with Quraysh, he bgan to send messengers outside the Arab Peninsula, calling Khosrau, Caesar, rulers of Basrah, Egypt and Abyssinia to worship Allah and embrace Islam. He warned them that if they turned down his call, they would thus be committing a huge sin as they would have prevented the call for the truth from reaching their nations.
Afterwards, he sent out a campaign to the outskirts of Syria where the battle of Mu'tah took place. Further, at the age of sixty, Prophet Muhammad went out to Tabook in order to practically show Muslims the way to call to Islam so long as rulers and kings stood in the way of messengers and would not let the words of truth find their way to the masses.
The Prophet was hence setting an example for all Muslims who were to shoulder the responsibility of spreading Islam all around the globe..."
The primary purpose of jihad by the sword was not for the spread of Islam, it was a last resort either way you look at it.
You've proved my point.
P.S Even Al Qaeda have fallen out with them.
I did prove your point, because you were right. But you still do not acknowledge the fact that these wars, even if they seem like they are for the offensive, are not for that purpose. They were not meant to spread Islam, they were meant to remove the inhibitions to the spread of Islam. I think that's a very key point here.
This doesn't remove the defense aspect either. You have to look at the Holy Qur'an first:
2:190 Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.
22:39 To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;-
22:40 (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).
These are the reasons for Jihad. Since it was weak when only the Arabs had Islam, they needed to overcome the two superpowers at that time. If those powers inhibited them from spreading Islam, then this religion could not have spread to most of the world. It would have only remained in Arabia.
So please, read between the lines when looking at these texts. The main source of guidance is in the Holy Qur'an. It does not allow purely offensive Jihad, it allows it only in the guise of defensive Jihad. Even if Jihad may seem like it is Muslims fighting on the offense, it never is. Also, you can only consider the example of the Jihad of the first 4 Khalifas, the Khulafa-e-Rashidin.
The key thing to keep in mind is, "do not transgress" in Jihad. fighting peace-loving people who do not want to create war would be wrong. It's different with two huge empires who might view you as a threat. And yes, the Byzantines and the Persians would have potentially invaded Arabia if Islam grew too powerful. This is the way of kings, they enter other countries and they ruin them, making the highest of them the lowest. This is guidance given in the Holy Qur'an as well:
27:34 She said: "Kings, when they enter a country, despoil it, and make the noblest of its people its meanest thus do they behave.
In fact, this whole story of Hazrat Sulaiman (as) is an example of why this type of Jihad occurred. Read it carefully and consider the facts. It is very similar to the situation of the Muslims when the Holy Prophet (saw) was alive. After all, the Qur'an pointed out many prophecies and many examples of things which the Muslims needed to do.
If he first step of jihad is within oneself, and that is a continuous journey, and the outward jihad is the mannerism in which we portray our deen to the world outside. Again, that should be a daily jihad. Not to lose temper, to be forgiving, charitable, punctual, honest, do His bidding, etc and if the situation warrants it, participate in the jihad that will require you to leave your creature comforts of home.
Offensive jihad? Don't understand it. Paradox, almost..
It did seem that way didn't it? But read between the lines. Yes, Muslims campaigned in other territories, but only after a proper method of introduction and intention was relayed to the Kings of those countries.
By their very acts of refusal to entertain the idea of Islam, with such acts as tearing up the letters sent by the prophet pbuh, they had in effect - spoken of their ill will against Islam and therefore eyed it with suspicion - refusing to even let trade commence with the Muslims. This is tyranny - and in Islam brother, we do not tolerate it - it must be removed so the people can get the truth.
The act of tearing a peaceful invitation to something, is an act of war itself - because the act itself (of tearing up the document) is advocating the Kings hatred for anything not of his own vision - that my brother, is a sign of a tyrant.
Even so, knowing this - the Muslims, were very careful to not be the "starters of wars" in these times. And this is well documented also, so though it may appear that we engaged in "offensive jihad" the reality is, we did not. We instead, afforded every option to the non believing nations Kings to 1) accept Islam 2) let the Muslims preach in their land 3) trade with them...
...when all three were refused, and armies were being gathered on their behalf, the Muslims had no choice but to also prepare.
War, is not a simple thing by any standard, not black and white.
then, there are the stark examples being brought to light in the modern age - which tell of a non violent approach to how Islam spread in the northern territories, for example:
Syrian archaeological dig reveals myth of Islam spreading by the sword
by Mike Addelman
Source: The University of Manchester
An archaeologist working in Syria has solved the mystery of why one of Islam’s earliest fortresses dropped out of the historical record around 1,100 years ago.
Senior Lecturer Dr Emma Loosley from The University of Manchester was one of an international team of experts invited into the world-renowned Khanuqa Gap by the Syrian Department of Antiquities before its secrets – and 11,000 years of human history – may be lost to a controversial dam project.
Dr Loosley, who has been unable to return to Syria because of the current conflict, found that 1,100 years ago a fire raged through what was regarded as an impregnable fortress.
Her work has also helped show that, contrary to popular understanding, the earliest Muslim expansion across the Middle East was largely peaceful and typified by coexistence with Christians.
Like Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, the citadel – called Zalabiyeh – was one of the first buildings to be inhabited by Muslims as they spread across the Syrian desert.
It was constructed during the Byzantine Empire before being renovated under the Umayyad Dynasty during Islam’s first period of expansion from Mecca in the early seventh century.
The first of four Arab caliphates following the death of Muhammed, the Umayyad dynasty left Mecca to establish one of the largest empires the world had yet seen.
Zalabiyeh, its sister citadel Halabiyeh and dozens of other crucially important sites may be flooded as part of a major HEP project.
Dr Loosley’s undergraduate student Joshua Bryant, who worked with her, was able to date the citadel to c.500 AD by analysing the way its walls were constructed.
He received a University award for his dissertation which he hopes to publish in a journal – a rare feat for an undergraduate.
Dr Loosley excavated burned beams and roof tiles – alongside other finds -including a fully functioning barracks, a human tooth, copper belt buckle, plaster spinning wheel, fragments of an alabaster mirror, and painted wall plaster.
She also found some ovens still crammed with charred chicken bones and ash.
The evidence points to a fire which forced the soldiers to leave but also a peaceful takeover of the previously Byzantine controlled citadel by Umayyad soldiers.
The artefacts are in Syria awaiting further analysis by Dr Loosley once – or if – she is able to return.
She said: “There is little evidence of any violence in the years before the citadel burned down, but there is intriguingly so much more to learn.
“We don’t even know if the soldiers who took over control from the Byzantines were Muslims or Christians even though they were subjects of the Umayadd caliph.
“Coexistence typified those times: some even argue that one reason why so many Christians converted to Islam is because the major sources of tension and conflict were between Christian factions themselves."
She added: “The Khanuqa Gap is a major crossing point on the River Euphrates and so has been politically, economically and socially important to human beings for 11,000 years.
“It contains evidence of continuous human settlement through many civilisations including Assyrian, Roman, Arab – an astonishing area to work in and one of the most important in the world.
“So our work to understand as much as we can before it disappears is hugely important and I hope to be able go back as soon as it is safe to do so.”
The work was funded by the British Academy and the Osmane Aidi foundation.
A version of Dr Loosley’s book, Christian Responses to Islam and Muslim-Christian Relations in the Modern World, edited with Anthony O’Mahony is published by Manchester University Press in January 2012.
Further, De Lacy O'Leary in the book, "Islam at the cross road" (page8) states that "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated"
To see it repeated here by Muslims is somewhat confusing for me.
Last edited by Scimitar; 08-19-2014 at 03:48 PM.
IS is serving the enemies of islam way more than it is serving islam. Since when it is allowed to behead journalists even when these journalists come from your enemy country?
This caliphate is bogus, it does harm us more than it does good. A caliphate and its army should be good for muslims, but right now they're just putting us in danger as this action will cause blowback.
Was this man complicit with crimes against muslims? Did this man fought alongside the US army? Did this man even harm muslims?
To add more, we can't forget the US crimes in Iraq, but does that justify this? No.
If there is one IS supporter here, can he give me one fatwa or one reason how this is allowed? I bet i won't recieve a answer, because this isnt and there isnt even one example from history prophet muhammed(SAW) nor the salaf did such acts.
Last edited by Insaanah; 08-20-2014 at 06:29 PM. Reason: 3 consecutive posts merged at request of poster
I don't think I responded to the last part of your question, Holly.
No, Islam does not allow what is happening in Iraq. ISIS is a terrorist group and they are not Islamic in the least. They have been killing innocent Muslims, innocent non-Muslims, beheading journalists, overthrowing governments with violence, instituting a false khalifa, etc. They are not a Muslim group in the least bit. I hate to ever label those who call themselves Muslim as being non-Muslim in general, so I can safely say that ISIS's actions are all un-Islamic, to say the least.
If you kill a person, it is as if you killed all of mankind. With non-believers, even if we were ever at war with anyone, we have to be peaceful in our approach. We accept any treaties they propose, we never transgress in the matters of war and we never kill innocent lives that have nothing to do with the war itself. ISIS has breached all of these sacred rules and they are causing bloodshed in the land for no reason other than their own glory.
As for their claiming that their actions are for the sake of Islam, it is bogus. They could claim they are fighting for the sake of a bottle of ketchup for all I care. They have no claim on anything. A group of violent men like these do not deserve a peaceful night of sleep. If the US bombs them, then it would be wrong to feel remorse for them. They have slain many innocent Muslims, and so that makes them anti-Islamic. Anyone who supports them or are part of them are part of the same crime.
According to Islamic law, the punishment for killing a Muslim is death or paying blood-money. Since this group doesn't give a whit for the people they killed, they only deserve death considering their actions. They are a menace and their Caliph should above all be slain too. He is instigating this. Worse, he is a liar who claims he is from God. So by definition he is also a Dajjal (Anti-Christ).
In Islam, the Dajjal would come from a road between Syria and Iraq, and would spread mischief right and left. He would reward those who follow him and leave the ones who reject him in drought and suffering with nothing in the form of wealth. These are the signs I see in this Caliph and in his cronies. This Caliph is not "the Dajjal", but he is a manifestation of this menace.
I hope you see why according to Islam, ISIS is an evil group. They are anti-Islamic. The sign of the lie in this Caliph is that Muslims are not rushing to join him. The Mahdi would be the first one to re-institute Khilafat in the Final Age of mankind. This man is not a Mahdi by any means. His assassination might be the best thing for Muslims, if anything.
Though he never claimed to be a prophet or come from Allah, the tribe where he comes from are far descendants of Hussain(Ra). So that made a caliph and from qurayshi lineage. BUT this is the deception where the muslims will fall in.
Extremism has destroyed religions and people in the past, and it has destroyed islam as well.
They even use surah Al-Mumtahanah ayah 4 to prove that their caliph mentioned in the Qur'an. Read that ayah, and you will find a name that mentioned there which they claim as name of their caliph. This is what I found from their supporters site.
Good thread. With ISIS ramping up and becoming more and more in the spotlight, and especially with the recent posted beheading of the American journalist Foley, now is the time for sane Muslims to shield against the inevitable linking in peoples minds between Islam and barbarism. It is nice to see so many good muslims doing so. ISIS is not Islam any more than Joseph Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army are Christianity.
This very forum, with its domain name, no doubt draws a lot of curious westerners to read it (if not post on it), and you have a golden opportunity with threads like this one to remind westerners that Islam doesn't equal terrorism, like Fox news would have them believe.
It is also an opportunity to present reasonable views on conflicts such as Israel/Palestine without the western media distorting things in favour of Israel.
Last edited by Pygoscelis; 08-20-2014 at 08:15 PM.
For some reason the board won't let me edit my post above. I press edit and it just locks up endlessly trying to load the page.
I was going to edit what I said because I stupidly wrote it before I read the posts above. I assumed you would all be differentiating Islam from ISIS.... and instead I see posts say that Islam decrees that:
1. You accept and convert yourself, and your people to Islam; or
2. You pay us money (with the assumption you can afford it, if not go to 3?); or
3. We will invade and kill you.
And somehow you are trying to tell us that this defensive and not offensive?
It is the logic of the conqueror. It is clearly aggressive. It is the way ancient Rome operated. It is how biker gangs operate. Swear loyalty, pay protection, or we kill you. This doesn't show Islam being oppressed. It shows Islam demanding superiority and seeking to oppress others. And if this is what Muslims stand for, then we non-muslims have every reason to fight against Islam.
Please tell me I'm reading this wrong. I really want to be able to peacefully co-exist with Islam.