Where does ISIS get's it's inspiration?

[Karachi]

Where does ISIS get's it's inspiration from to kill non believers?



This is what they quoted:



"What then if they live with their disbelief in the Peninsula of Mohammad," SITE quoted the speaker as saying, referring to the Arabian Peninsula, birthplace of Islam and where Saudi Arabia is located.
"They are disbelievers and apostates, and their blood is permissible to be shed, and their money is permissible to be taken. It is a duty upon us to kill them ... and even to purify the land from their filth," he said.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0OF0IU20150530

^ surely there must be some hadith or qoute some where, where it openly justifies to kill non believers

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

To answer your question: ISIS has a revisionist/modernist approach to religious scripture.

They believe they should interpret Qur'an & Sunnah the way it suits their predispositioned political objectives.


There are many references in Qur'an & Sunnah where killing of disbelievers are mentioned. But the texts are intended at specific situations.

I will show a specific example by explaining the ruling regarding presence of polytheists on the Arabian peninsula.

The Prophet Muhammed said that no polytheists should live on the holy land. That's why the subsequent rulers of the region expelled Jews & Christians from the peninsula.

the Shiite 12-er sect believe their 12 holy imams have divine attributes. Ascribing divinity to anything other than Allah is shirk/polytheism. Therefore Shiites are outside the fold of Islam.

This ruling is applied in the case of Shiite minorities in Saudi by Isis but with a modernist/revisionist twist.

Expelling polytheists from holy land doesn't necessarily mean genocide. In Sharia, killing is only applied to situations where persons can cause a greater harm and killing is the only way to prevent them from inflicting harm.

However, this ruling can not be applied on entire community of people. Plus, issuing a legal ruling to execute people must come from a judge who is a mujtahid.

There is another ruling which is linked to this matter. It is the ruling of blasphemy. 12-er Shiites faith prescribes them the curse the wives and companions of Prophet Muhammed sal allahu Alayhu wasalam. Therefore, all 12-er Shiites commit blasphemy.

Isis combines these two aspects of Shiism and uses it as a justification to kill all Shiites in the Arabian peninsula.

The way they approach these issues is exactly the same way revisionists of other sorts do it. Isis believe they don't need proper scholarly tradition to derive rulings. They use valid issues and combine them into one line of reasoning to justify their decisions.

For many laymen who have never read history of Islamic legal tradition, it is tempting to believe assume that Isis are applying Sharia correctly.

But if we look at the history and rise of Shiism we will find that despite their polytheism, they were never ethnically cleansed before.

Ethnic cleansing of Shiites started in modern era along with the rise of modernist interpretation Islam.

One case of ethnic cleansing of Shiites that I can think of is when Ikhwanis ruled Kabul in the 90's. Ahmed Shah Massoud and Sayyaf massacred thousands of hazara's in Kabul.

Similarly, secular Socialist dictator Saddam Hussain killed many Shiites. Siubsequently, when Ikhwani inspired Al Qaeda and former secular socialist Iraqis joined hands in Iraq, they started targeting Shiites.

Where does ISIS get's it's inspiration from to kill non believers?



This is what they quoted:



"What then if they live with their disbelief in the Peninsula of Mohammad," SITE quoted the speaker as saying, referring to the Arabian Peninsula, birthplace of Islam and where Saudi Arabia is located.
"They are disbelievers and apostates, and their blood is permissible to be shed, and their money is permissible to be taken. It is a duty upon us to kill them ... and even to purify the land from their filth," he said.

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0OF0IU20150530

^ surely there must be some hadith or qoute some where, where it openly justifies to kill non believers

[Karachi]

^ from what ever you are saying, Islam defiantly seems like a violent religion, violence is almost at the creed of the faith, this is why there has so much violence in the muslim world since the last 1400 years.

question again comes too, should a person choose to follow a violent faith/ideolgy or should they just adopt to western (human) values, which are much more peaceful. a lot of muslims, in fact I would say 90% have chosen the latter

[khushal]

^ from what ever you are saying, Islam defiantly seems like a violent religion, violence is almost at the creed of the faith, this is why there has so much violence in the muslim world since the last 1400 years.

question again comes too, should a person choose to follow a violent faith/ideolgy or should they just adopt to western (human) values, which are much more peaceful. a lot of muslims, in fact I would say 90% have chosen the latter

you speak nonsense which proves you are uneducated.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

[Shamlawar Khurasani]

^ from what ever you are saying, Islam defiantly seems like a violent religion, violence is almost at the creed of the faith, this is why there has so much violence in the muslim world since the last 1400 years.

question again comes too, should a person choose to follow a violent faith/ideolgy or should they just adopt to western (human) values, which are much more peaceful. a lot of muslims, in fact I would say 90% have chosen the latter

Islam teaches us to use violence when necessary. If you rather see a religion where there are no prescription for use of force, then you are basically in favor of having no punishments at all.

Even the secular West you rever so much uses allot of violence. Secularism started with the French Revolution




During the french revolutionary era, the Parisian river Seine was colored red due to all the human blood that was being flowing all across the city.

Similarly, the modern secular Western liberal democracy's use weapons of mass destruction in order to spread democracy. Take a look at Afghanistan. They used depleted uranium in most of southern Afghanistan. As a result many children are born with defects.

[Bengal_Tiger]

^ from what ever you are saying, Islam defiantly seems like a violent religion, violence is almost at the creed of the faith, this is why there has so much violence in the muslim world since the last 1400 years.

question again comes too, should a person choose to follow a violent faith/ideolgy or should they just adopt to western (human) values, which are much more peaceful. a lot of muslims, in fact I would say 90% have chosen the latter

Western civilization is the most violent and bloodthirsty in human history presiding over genocides of whole regions of the world in South America, North America, Australia, Asia, Africa and so forth.

The Western-based World Wars, WW1 and WW2 may have resulted in the death of over 70 million people.

- A few decades ago before ISIS, white Americans regularly used to burn blacks.

In pure statistics, despite western media (don't be an ignorant Mahmood al-Yemeni type guy who believes and swallows everything the western media says as the "gospel truth") portrayals of the middle east, the middle east is a comparatively peaceful place historically.

From around 1519 when Sultan Selim took control of the middle east (Ottoman first Caliph) till the 1900s there were only two major wars in the middle east:

- The Wahabi rebellion (we can see their progeny in ISIS today and some of their supporters on this forum)

- The rebellion of Muhammad Ali, the Albanian who governed Egypt against the Ottomans.

Even those were fairly minor in comparison to the wars of Europe during the same period.

Just look at all the wars and see how many were in Europe and how many in the middle east:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1500%E2%80%931799

The myth of an eternally violent and savage Islamic civilization is just that, a myth and nothing more.



However this does not negate that currently western societies are more pleasant places to live than Arab countries, but Arab countries do not nuke other people, carry out genocide, carry out economic pauperization of others etc.

Imagine the west as a castle, inside the castle there are nice rooms, gardens, everything is pleasant, but outside it brutalizes the vast majority of the population outside the castle and enslaves them.

[Badlun]

Islamic state is following the Madina state of Muhammad or the first 4 caliphs or other caliphs. They follow Quran and give 3 options to non Muslims. Conversion,jizya or murder.
After centuries se have a pure Islamic state inspired by Quran and Sunna.

[Karachi]

you speak nonsense which proves you are uneducated.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=124494788

so, but you are still admitting that Quran has violence, of course in my personal opinion all the abrahmic faiths have violence in them. Even prophet Abraham almost cut his own son's neck, that to me is extremism in it self

[Karachi]

Western civilization is the most violent and bloodthirsty in human history presiding over genocides of whole regions of the world in South America, North America, Australia, Asia, Africa and so forth.

The Western-based World Wars, WW1 and WW2 may have resulted in the death of over 70 million people.

- A few decades ago before ISIS, white Americans regularly used to burn blacks.

In pure statistics, despite western media (don't be an ignorant Mahmood al-Yemeni type guy who believes and swallows everything the western media says as the "gospel truth") portrayals of the middle east, the middle east is a comparatively peaceful place historically.

From around 1519 when Sultan Selim took control of the middle east (Ottoman first Caliph) till the 1900s there were only two major wars in the middle east:

- The Wahabi rebellion (we can see their progeny in ISIS today and some of their supporters on this forum)

- The rebellion of Muhammad Ali, the Albanian who governed Egypt against the Ottomans.

Even those were fairly minor in comparison to the wars of Europe during the same period.

Just look at all the wars and see how many were in Europe and how many in the middle east:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1500%E2%80%931799

The myth of an eternally violent and savage Islamic civilization is just that, a myth and nothing more.



However this does not negate that currently western societies are more pleasant places to live than Arab countries, but Arab countries do not nuke other people, carry out genocide, carry out economic pauperization of others etc.

Imagine the west as a castle, inside the castle there are nice rooms, gardens, everything is pleasant, but outside it brutalizes the vast majority of the population outside the castle and enslaves them.

yes true bro, the western civilization probably has been the most violent overall, however if you look at the reason for their (violence), it was mostly due to their human instinct/nature, for example when they were conquering and expanding, they were acting on their violent (human) instincts, rather then following a particular ideology. Only in some cases they did follow any ideology, for example (Nazi Germany). Human instinct does have two sides, either it is very violent, or it can also be very peaceful. For the past 50 years, much of the west has followed the latter and has been peaceful, at least for their own populations, this is why even most muslims want to migrate to the west and live in the west, because they know life is very peaceful here.

I also agree that a lot of random violence that does happen in the muslim world is because of human instinct/nature

However my argument is not about human nature, it is about religions/ideologies giving instructions to be violent, this is why asked the original question, where is ISIS getting it's reasoning for the violence it does, certainly this is not just human nature they are acting on, it seems very planned. German Nazi's did the same thing

[Bengal_Tiger]

yes true bro, the western civilization probably has been the most violent overall, however if you look at the reason for their (violence), it was mostly due to their human instinct/nature, for example when they were conquering and expanding, they were acting on their violent (human) instincts, rather then following a particular ideology. Only in some cases they did follow any ideology, for example (Nazi Germany). Human instinct does have two sides, either it is very violent, or it can also be very peaceful. For the past 50 years, much of the west has followed the latter and has been peaceful, at least for their own populations, this is why even most muslims want to migrate to the west and live in the west, because they know life is very peaceful here

My argument is not about human nature, it is about religions/ideologies giving instructions to be violent, this is why asked the original question, where is ISIS getting it's reasoning for the violence it does, certainly this is not just human nature they are acting on, it seems very planned. German Nazi's did the same thing

You have valid questions and they cannot be ignored.

Too many practising Muslims/"Islamists" use simplistic arguments:

i: They don't address the issue and divert the topic to something else.

ii: They basically try to silence people by saying things such as such discussion is sinful or will cause people to fall astray etc

iii: Other things.

Your point seems to be is the violence that certain Islamic groups carry out scripture based?

Yes, it is partially but mainly on non-Quranic sources even sometimes alleged accounts of the Sahaba (companions of the prophet صلی اللہ علیہ وسلم) or even ijtihadaat or fatawaa (legal rulings of "scholars") of so-called "Ulama" (scholars).

Even then when it is ostensibly derived from these questionable sources it even contradicts some of these sources.

The fact, historical fact, is that Muslims came from Arabia and conquered the largely Christian middle east (the middle east is the home of Christianity, Jesus pbuh was ethnically more like a Syrian, Palestinian, Iraqi Arab Christian than John Smith from London or Dan Whatmore from Boston).

They conquered a heavily Christian region and left the Christians there and their churches for centuries. Naturally as the ruling power and as a religion that seeks to convert, many people became Muslim but this was done in an organic and natural manner and not a forced manner.

The point being is that non-Muslims do enjoy security and safety in Muslim lands.

If however one follows either traditional Sunni or Shia schools of thought which both rely on questionable non-Quranic sources such as Bukhari or Usool-ul-Kafi and also the alleged scholarly works of these schools then yes, the truth is one would conclude that this form of "Islam" is indeed quite intolerant.

However this is not the true Islam of the Quran.

During the time of the prophet there were the munafiqeen (hypocrites) who wanted to destroy Islam, then after his death they continued and then there were "zanadiqa" who infiltrated Islam and introduced non-Islamic, non-Quranic concepts (some of which contradict Quranic Islam e.g. death for apostates) including the introduction of jurispudence from Rabbinical Judaism e.g. stoning the adulterer, killing apostates etc.

It's a completed issue but I have been in the house of big Sufi shuyookhs in both Mecca and Damascus (not that what I am saying what they believe in) and I have studied this issue but I cannot divulge much more because the person I am studying with (an Arab from a Sayyid family) has not authorized me to speak too much about this.

Bottom line, do your basics, your five pillars, eat halal, avoid riba, be a nice person, give charity, avoid the controversial things.

[khushal]

so, but you are still admitting that Quran has violence, of course in my personal opinion all the abrahmic faiths have violence in them. Even prophet Abraham almost cut his own son's neck, that to me is extremism in it self

You foolishly think that Western values and western civilization was built by peaceful and moderate means when in reality it has been built on genocide and they used verses from the bible to accomplish it.

Today, the middle east is reacting to invasions and its people are on a defensive approach and the Western corps are on an offensive approach. You dont see the reality because you are uneducated and can easily be brainwashed by western corps media and propaganda and that is proof that you are naive.

But to answer your question, yes humanity is violent, all one has to do is look at its history. If humanity was naturally non violent, then we would have a different history.

[Bengal_Tiger]

Anyway I might as well add.

1. The current "traditional Islam" (pseudo-Islam) we see of the books of Hadeeth and 4 Madhabs (schools of jurispudence) is not sustainable in the modern era.

Most Muslim societies went through European colonization and they have adopted European-based legal systems, where traditional "Islamic" law only pertains to family law.


2. Of the few remaining states that implement a lot of the whole traditionalist form of "Islam" it is only Saudi, Iran (maybe Sudan, not sure).

Saudi is changing socially and the society is divided between secularists more prominent amongst the educated elite, and the religious conservatives (stronger amongst the poorer masses).

However it will not be able to keep on applying Salafism/Wahabism and there are things going on in Saudi now which would have been unthinkable or "scandalous" 10 years ago.

With the Sudairi coup and takeover of Saudi the reform process has been somewhat reversed but even Salman and the Sudairis know they will have to change, but gently.

The Wahabi clergy are very powerful and influential, but more powerful than them is the global economy, the need for Saudis to have jobs, to get foreign education to do those jobs, to live in western liberal societies etc.

By living in these western liberal societies the Saudi elite eventually reject the old-style Wahabi/Salafi model.

This is what happened in late Ottoman Turkey. The children of the Ottoman elite including some of the Islamic scholars apparently, went to France to study to receive education in a technologically and more militarily advanced Europe.

After living in France they adopted western ideas of secularism and modernity and then imported it back to Turkey.

Turkish secularism was a gradual process which started off with the Tanzimat reforms in the early 1800s, it ended with the Ataturk revolution which was a brutal neo-Jacobin state-enforced secularism where many people were killed.


3. The point is in both Saudi and Iran there is a great clamour for change, they cannot keep the "traditional Islamic" legal system there indefinitely.


Wahabism is also an intolerant and violent ideology and represses pleasure and fun. Most educated Arabs are not really happy with it and are increasingly questioning it and rejecting it.

Many, if not most educated Arabs, know there is a problem with "traditional Islam". There are millions of people like Karachi in the Muslim world, actually tens of millions.

[randolph85]

^ from what ever you are saying, Islam defiantly seems like a violent religion, violence is almost at the creed of the faith, this is why there has so much violence in the muslim world since the last 1400 years.

question again comes too, should a person choose to follow a violent faith/ideolgy or should they just adopt to western (human) values, which are much more peaceful. a lot of muslims, in fact I would say 90% have chosen the latter

Human values?

You realize that these western values that you hold in such high regard were built on genocide overseas and white washed by the history that they, the victors, have white washed?

Western morality only seems appealing because there aren't millions of corpses on their clean paved streets, instead they leave behind millions of dead bodies in far away lands which most westerners could probably not even find on a map.

[Karachi]

You foolishly think that Western values and western civilization was built by peaceful and moderate means when in reality it has been built on genocide and they used verses from the bible to accomplish it.

Today, the middle east is reacting to invasions and its people are on a defensive approach and the Western corps are on an offensive approach. You dont see the reality because you are uneducated and can easily be brainwashed by western corps media and propaganda and that is proof that you are naive.

But to answer your question, yes humanity is violent, all one has to do is look at its history. If humanity was naturally non violent, then we would have a different history.

The problem with you is that you blame everything that is bad in the muslim world on to westerners. Yes westerners have done a lot of harm by their invasions, I have never denied that, however the core problems of muslims is from within not from outside. Even when west didn't even exist as a power, muslims were cutting each other's heads. Just look at our own history for crying out loud, it is stained with blood. Unfortunately people like you are blinded and blame even the smallest of things on the west. I am not fan of western politics, I still say America is the biggest (evil) in the world (politically). However I am only focusing on muslims and their issues, since I am from that part of world

[Karachi]

Human values?

You realize that these western values that you hold in such high regard were built on genocide overseas and white washed by the history that they, the victors, have white washed?

Western morality only seems appealing because there aren't millions of corpses on their clean paved streets, instead they leave behind millions of dead bodies in far away lands which most westerners could probably not even find on a map.

yes, but why blame them for what their ancestors did? I am focusing on present and looking at them as they are today