The demand that more Muslims ‘must condemn ISIS’ is racist and ridiculous

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hulk
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 71
  • Views Views 22K
Abz2000 said:
Wa'alaikumussalam wr wb
I don't pretend to know the unseenso i won't pretend i am certain of their validity or invalidity,
But i am careful since last time i fell into the trap of assuming OBL was a western intel asset.
And since i know their accusers are liars, i would tend to give I.S the benefit of the doubt.

Bear in mind that even 'Umar (ra) developed suspicions about the Prophet pbuh when he (pbuh) caved to demands at hudaybiyyah.
It was Abu Bakr Assiddeeq (ra) who brought him back to his senses.
So we know there will only be grey areas until the picture is clear.

Best we can do is follow Quran and sunnah and judge in that light, and yes, there are valid reasons for suapicion but it may be due to false flags or mistakes too.
God knows best but i'll keep a good opinion of them until proven otherwise - since they are portrayed as monsters by the western crusaders.
Click to expand...

I don't really care for what the corrupt leaders of the west say either but I do give credit to what other Muslims say especially the Imam of Al Aqsa Mosque :)

:wa:
 
InToTheRain said:
I don't really care for what the corrupt leaders of the west say either but I do give credit to what other Muslims say especially the Imam of Al Aqsa Mosque :)

:wa:
Click to expand...

Always bearing in mind that the christians have a wolf shepherd "pope" / clueless actor in robes who insults their intelligence and tells them that religion doesn't allow violence lol.

Not to be mistaken that i suspect or know of the imam of al aqsa, just that the zionists work hard to groom leaders from a young age.
Same could apply to I.S head.
Allah A'lam.

The only hope is to continue learning Islam and follow events and be certain that all trust should be placed on Allah, not groups or people, and that all claimants and leaders must be scrutinized in light of Islamic shariah.
 
Last edited:
Abz2000 said:
Always bearing in mind that the christians have a wolf shepherd "pope" / clueless actor in robes who insults their intelligence and tells them that religion doesn't allow violence lol.

Not to be mistaken that i suspect or know of the imam of al aqsa, just that the zionists work hard to groom leaders from a young age.
Same could apply to I.S head.
Allah A'lam.
Click to expand...

That defenitley does happen; Allah Most High protect us.

A friend of mine was telling me some years back he read an article in a newspaper in his country. It was regarding an imam in an institute they had who was initially a revert and reached high status to the extent he lead them in prayer for years and went to important meetings. Suddenly this Imam left... and the only contact they got from the Imam some months later was a letter stating they need to re-do all the prayers he led over the years as he was never a Muslim! Not sure why he gave the letter but it happened.

But the People around Masjid Al Aqsa are not people who will be duped so easily. Some Hadiths on them:

Masjid Al-Aqsa - The place of Mujahideen
25, Umamah Al-Bahili (ra) reports that the Prophet (saw) said, "A group of my Ummah will remain on truth, they will vanquish their enemy and those who disagree with them will not be able to harm them until Allah commands". "Where are these people"? The Companions (ra) asked. The Prophet (saw) said, "In and around Al-Quds (Jerusalem). (Ahmad)

26, Muawiyah Ibn Sufyan (ra) relates that the Prophet (saw) said, "There is a group among my followers who will continue to be openly on the truth. No one who opposes them can harm them until the coming of the Hour". The Companions (ra) asked, "Where will they be"? The Messenger of Allah said, "They will be in and around Bayt Al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem)". (Ahmad)

27, Abu Hurayrah (ra) relates that the Prophet (saw) said, "A group of my Ummah will not cease to fight at the gates of Damascus and at the gates of Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and its surroundings. The betrayal or desertion of whoever deserts them will not harm them in the least. They will remain victorious, standing for the truth, until the Final Hour rises". (Tabarani)

:wa:
 
There is no extremism in Islam. The killing of civilians is unjustified and not allowed in Islam. Furthermore, emissaries /ambassadors are also not allowed to be killed even in time of war. We have two precedents from the History of Islam as evidence for this. One is that Abu Sufyan came to Madina after the treaty was broken by the unbelievers and, while none of the Muslims were willing to talk to him, yet Abu Sufyan was not harmed, though he was in Muslim land and he had always fought against the Muslims in battle. The second is the the verse of Surah Al-Tawbah, amidst verses declaring war: And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah . Then deliver him to his place of safety. That is because they are a people who do not know. (9:6)

Note that in this verse it doesn't say that the unbeliever should convert but rather only that he/she seeks the protection of the Muslims. (This could be verbal or even implied, for example when an aid worker enters Muslim territory.) This verse has two injunctions: 1. Grant the unbeliever protection. 2. Deliver the unbeliever to his place of safety. Note that the word is "deliver" meaning that authorized persons should actually make sure that the unbeliever has reached safe territory. There may be two reasons for this: 1. That a misguided person doesn't harm the unbeliever unknowingly. 2. That an enemy of Islam doesn't harm the unbeliever on purpose in order to defame Islam or that group of Muslims.

Islam does not allow that an unbeliever be killed on the basis of being an unbeliever. Islam also doesn't allow forced conversions.

Since it's proven that neither killing civilians nor forced conversions are allowed in Islam, therefore I agree that all Muslims need to speak against this when given a chance, even if only to clear Islam from blame. As for the accusation that IS engages in these activities, it is hardly believable. I find it strange that IS would behead a Western journalist around the same time that America was saying it was considering acting against IS. What was it trying to accomplish? Get America to attack it or what?
 
Dreamin said:
As for the accusation that IS engages in these activities, it is hardly believable. I find it strange that IS would behead a Western journalist around the same time that America was saying it was considering acting against IS. What was it trying to accomplish? Get America to attack it or what?
Click to expand...

Do you think it was staged by the US as a false flag operation to give them an excuse to attack?
 
IF it was a false flag, it would more likely be a method of chasing reporters away from the region before a bloody bombing campaign which would weaken backing for the war (which had already been initiated before the executions) - and also turning them against Islamic fighters.

Similar method has been used previously in iraq to coerce journalists into embedding with military units out of fear and thereby getting "friendly" (unjustly biased) reporting.

But the deceptions are so twisted that it's difficult to make sense of.
 
Last edited:
Pygoscelis said:
Do you think it was staged by the US as a false flag operation to give them an excuse to attack?
Click to expand...

It is highly likely, especially in the case of the beheading of a French journalist in Algeria. Such acts are both unislamic and do not help the Muslims.

There are a lot of false accusations being thrown. For example, in one CNN report, IS is accused of engaging in drug trade (and using that to fund its activities). But how can that be when another CNN video shows that IS has banned cigarettes and alcohol in its areas? In the video IS is shown to burn lots of cigarette packets and a man states that if someone is seen with a cigarette, then he/she is given a few lashes. So how can a group not allow cigarettes and alcohol and still engage in drug trade?

[video]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2014/09/23/tsr-pkg-todd-inside-isis-stronghold.cnn.html?iref=videosearch[/video]
 
Last edited:
Pygoscelis said:
Do you think it was staged by the US as a false flag operation to give them an excuse to attack?
Click to expand...

Just my opinion on this:

I have a friend who did Humanitarian work in Iraq for some years. He is actually a socialist Shia though he doesn't adhere to Shia beliefs or practices. I have known for some time whats happening there.

He mentioned the Shia and Sunni who were residents of Iraq were caught in the power struggle between Saudi and Iran over Iraq; naturally the ZOG too wanted their share who are allied to Saudi. ISIS was created to overthrow Asad. but the disgruntled Sunnis who were abused and ousted from authority due to Americas meddling in Iraq, this being putting Shia in power, went to ISIS to convince them to change their target and look at the riches to be plundered in Iraq. With the west "staging" its exit it was the perfect time; though ZOG never had any intention to let the people of Iraq run their own affairs or keep the riches of the land to themselves; meaning they wouldn't exit without putting measures in place to ensure control over their keys interests. ISIS has now become a threat because no longer complies with it's founders demands due to the riches they have amassed and has the potential power to turn on its founders. They also have the know-how on how to do this as they have been trained to do so.

So ISIS is a result of a botched covert operation and now a serious threat as the plan has backfired leaving a lot of mess to be cleaned up.
 
Last edited:
:salamext:

I haven't been following this thread, nor do I know much about this topic. But I noticed this statement:

Abz2000 said:
Thirdly, i noticed al maqdisi, mufti of jordan etc were quick to condemn the Caliphate at instance one, on the grounds of lack of consultation and wider consensus. This despite the fact that even milder organizations are criminalized and sought out for attempting to establish a united ummah state and the impracticality of an ummah vote. Plus the fact that the first four Caliphs of Islam were all elected to position using different methods according to circumstances.

The main aim was to get a practical consensus from the active members within the establishment and demand allegiance from all other groups and citizens, with the case of abu bakr assiddeeq (ra) he had to take the sword against so called Muslims who had taken shahadah, , fought jihad, prayed and fasted but refused to submit to the State and pay zakat. He pronounced takfir on them and slew many - even 'Umar (ra) questioned his stance.

The baya' to the Prophet pbuh himself was conducted in secret and then implemented in stages.
Click to expand...
Dear brother, what about the statement of numerous other scholars condemning the actions of ISIS? See here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarifications-about-islam/134323881-offensive-jihad.html#post2832408

Moreover, the example you gave of the bay'ah and the 4 khaleefahs seems totally misplaced. As the above link says: '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?'

The Companions, radhiyallahu 'anhum, referred to the Qur'an and Sunnah and consulted each other when making decisions. Abubakr :ra: did not fight anyone to become the khaleefah. As far as I recall, he was already a khaleefah when the issue of those who refused to pay Zakah arose. Although Umar :ra: initially questioned him, he agreed to Abubakr's view in the end. A Caliph of Muslims is the one who all Muslims or most of them agreed upon and accepted him as their leader. All these characteristics were certainly met by Abu Bakr, then ‘Umar, then ‘Uthmaan and then ‘Ali
icon4-1.gif
.
 
Dreamin said:
It is highly likely, especially in the case of the beheading of a French journalist in Algeria. Such acts are both unislamic and do not help the Muslims.

There are a lot of false accusations being thrown. For example, in one CNN report, IS is accused of engaging in drug trade (and using that to fund its activities). But how can that be when another CNN video shows that IS has banned cigarettes and alcohol in its areas? In the video IS is shown to burn lots of cigarette packets and a man states that if someone is seen with a cigarette, then he/she is given a few lashes. So how can a group not allow cigarettes and alcohol and still engage in drug trade?
Click to expand...

Sister, the link between opium trade in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda has been well-documented. On the one hand, al-Qaeda is publicly lashing Yemenis for drinking alcohol in 2012, and yet, on the other hand, they use opium to finance their operations.

The point I'm trying to make is that groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda love to present a righteous image to the Muslim world, and in public. However, behind the scenes, things are very different. I'm not saying for sure that ISIS is trading in drugs, but I will never believe anything that a group like this has to say.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top