Support NeoGAF

[Maninthemirror]

They seem to want to emulate Mohammad as much as possible, and follow his word and actions (crucifixion and slavery) more than you do.

But he says there aren't any "real muslims", like when he says no one can declare it "the religion of peace", because it is too vast and varied.

They emulate the Muhammad (saw) that you view from your information about islam, they don't emulate Muhammad (Saw) most Muslims see. your view is the Holy Prophet was a warlord just like Daesh views him. Most Muslims view the Holy Prophet (saw) as a peaceful person.

 

[Kurdel]

They emulate the Muhammad (saw) that you view from your information about islam, they don't emulate Muhammad (Saw) most Muslims see. your view is the Holy Prophet was a warlord just like Daesh views him. Most Muslims view the Holy Prophet (saw) as a peaceful person.

So he didn't have slaves or condone crucifixion?

 

[KingGondo]

There is absolutely no historical precedent for what ISIS is doing.

I've read the history of the Caliphates (Ottomans in particular) and none of them were barbarously formed in the way ISIS has declared theirs.

There's no scriptural or historical basis for beheadings, amputations, genital mutilation, subjugation of women, or subjugation of Jews and Christians?

 

[Kabouter]

They emulate the Muhammad (saw) that you view from your information about islam, they don't emulate Muhammad (Saw) most Muslims see. your view is the Holy Prophet was a warlord just like Daesh views him. Most Muslims view the Holy Prophet (saw) as a peaceful person.

For a peaceful man he spent an awful lot of time fighting wars.

 

[Stereogatari]

There's no scriptural or historical basis for beheadings, amputations, genital mutilation, subjugation of women, or subjugation of Jews and Christians?

There IS, but the Sharia is an evolving body of law and doesn't necessarily have to stay static.

Look at the Sharia law of the middle Ottoman Empire (medieval barbaric laws) and the Sharia law of the latter Ottoman Empire (which resembled Western style monarchies and Japan). Night and day difference, and both were legitimate Caliphates on the level of what the Catholic Church/Vatican is.

For a peaceful man he spent an awful lot of time fighting wars.

To be fair to him he mainly fought wars against the oppression afforded to him by the Pagan Arabs.

 

[Maninthemirror]

For a peaceful man he spent an awful lot of time fighting wars.

defensive. dont know why its hard to understand who would want to get a whole city eliminated. any group would want to defend itself when under attack consistently.

So he didn't have slaves or condone crucifixion?

he freed slaves and didnt condone crucifixtion (please don't use hadith which contradict the Quran as your source lol)

 

[Azih]

with a cotton-candy view of their own religion Is the operative quote.

It's bullshit. I do not have a cotton-candy view of my faith. And irrationality like his is dangerous.

 

[Kabouter]

defensive. dont know why its hard to understand who would want to get a whole city eliminated. any group would want to defend itself when under attack consistently.

That's far too convenient to be in any way likely. They kept getting attacked until they united the entire peninsula? When in history has that ever happened?

 

[Azih]

That's far too convenient to be in any way likely. They kept getting attacked until they united the entire peninsula? When in history has that ever happened?

You're going from 'what Muhammad did' to 'what the early muslims after Muhammad did' in this post.

 

[Stereogatari]

That's far too convenient to be in any way likely. They kept getting attacked until they united the entire peninsula? When in history has that ever happened?

Good point, but the core of Mohammad's own life genuinely involved events between Mecca and Medina.

But the fact that the successors to Mohammad would forcefully Islamise Persia is a good argument, even if Mohamad himself wasn't involved it shines Islam's early years in a bad light.

 

[MisterFalcon]

That's far too convenient to be in any way likely. They kept getting attacked until they united the entire peninsula? When in history has that ever happened?

North Korea claimed that in 1950 they repelled a South Korean invasion and then drove all the way to the Pusan perimiter. That's about as plausible.

 

[Maninthemirror]

That's far too convenient to be in any way likely. They kept getting attacked until they united the entire peninsula? When in history has that ever happened?

Know Islamic history? Muslims were confined to Arabia during time of Muhammad (saw). it didnt expand until after his death. With the death of Muhammad (saw) , so ended the religious Prophethood for that time. Islam after Muhammad (saw) became a political empire as much as a religious one and the expansion started after the Shia and Sunni divide began

 

[Kabouter]

You're going from 'what Muhammad did' to 'what the early muslims after Muhammad did' in this post.

The same goes for the huge portion that he did conquer during his lifetime though. Such a large portion of land in an area with many different tribes, you don't conquer that when you're only fighting defensively. It's completely implausible. It's the sort of narrative victors tend to create when they want to make their conquests seem justified.

Know Islamic history? Muslims were confined to Arabia during time of Muhammad (saw). it didnt expand until after his death. With the death of Muhammad (saw) , so ended the religious Prophethood for that time. Islam after Muhammad (saw) became a political empire as much as a religious one and the expansion started after the Shia and Sunni divide began

I mentioned nothing of non-Arabian territories?

 

[Stereogatari]

Know Islamic history? Muslims were confined to Arabia during time of Muhammad (saw). it didnt expand until after his death

Mohammad or not, deep down in the text there is a detestation and disdain reserved for non-Muslims. This can always lean towards seeing non-Muslims as less Human and therefore more viable for conquering.

Then again Muslim on Muslim conquering was a widespread thing as well.

 

[Maninthemirror]

The same goes for the huge portion that he did conquer during his lifetime though. Such a large portion of land in an area with many different tribes, you don't conquer that when you're only fighting defensively. It's completely implausible.

the large tribes embraced Islam more than they were conquered. Orientalist revisionist history would tell you its impossible islam would be accepted by them as who in their right mind would accept Islam voluntarily. if you remove the inherent bias you would realise many tribes accepted islam voluntarily and became part of the Muslims at that time

 

[2San]

So what changes when we consider ISIS as actual Muslims. What changes? Do all Muslims need be prosecuted or do they all need to be monitored?

 

[Stereogatari]

the large tribes embraced Islam more than they were conquered. Orientalist revisionist history would tell you its impossible islam would be accepted by them as who in their right mind would accept Islam voluntarily. if you remove the inherent bias you would realise many tribes accepted islam voluntarily and became part of the Muslims at that time

I'm sure plenty saw the political tide was turning and threw their lot behind Mohammad.

So what changes when we consider ISIS as actual Muslims. What changes? Do all Muslims need be prosecuted or do they all need to be monitored?

I think the aim is that Muslims should stop looking outside and start looking inside to solve their problems. Muslims need to acknowledge that ISIS are Islamic and that they don't exist in a vacuum that is removed from what is preached in certain mosques (not all mosques, but certain mosques) across the Muslim World.

 

[Maninthemirror]

So what changes when we consider ISIS as actual Muslims. What changes? Do all Muslims need be prosecuted or do they all need to be monitored?

some non-Muslims want Daesh to be treated as Muslims who practice islam like it meant to be so they can target the faith at that point. Again if you consider the onset of Islam as evil, then the golden age of knowledge among muslims would happen NOW not THEN as the most vehement critics of islam say 80% of muslims are peaceful and 20% are not, by that logic if you think Islam was evil from onset, 80% of muslims are already reformed. Also Wahabbism as a powerhouse began in the 19th century. What was between 7th century and 19th century?

 

[Red Liquorice]

Even if they were following Islam to the letter, who cares - obviously the majority of Muslims enjoy a more liberal approach to their religion.

Religions change, they always have and they always will. Islam has changed, it does not stand alone as a rigid rod of truth, there are sects and edits, and some follow this way and others follow that way - it's no different to any other world religion.

Now let's blow these IS fuckers sky high.

 

[Mrmartel]

You're going from 'what Muhammad did' to 'what the early muslims after Muhammad did' in this post.

But even isn't this a important bit of information. So the early Muslims who emerge right after Muhammad, (even ones that knew him in person, were taught directly by him) went on rampages and expanded violently?

Just to juxtapose it to Christianity. Jesus's disciples and those that knew him personally went on to eventually spread the religion. Albeit in peaceful ways and many of them were eventually captured, crucified, (upside down for St. Peter) fed to lions etc. But there was not any violence from early Christians for the first 3 centuries it existed. Contrast it to Islam and the muslims already had control of the Iberian peninsula.

I just think there is a important difference there in how the immediate followers decided to conduct themselves. Also what exactly they learned from their prophets/saviors to act in such a way.

I figure the first ones after a prophets set the template for those to act afterwards.

 

[Foshy]

After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

holy shit hahaha

 

[Stereogatari]

But even isn't this a important bit of information. So the early Muslims who emerge right after Muhammad, (even ones that knew him in person, were taught directly by him) went on rampages and expanded violently?

Just to juxtapose it to Christianity. Jesus's disciples and those that knew him personally went on to eventually spread the religion. Albeit in peaceful ways and many of them were eventually captured, crucified, (upside down for St. Peter) fed to lions etc. But there was not any violence from early Christians for the first 3 centuries it existed. Contrast it to Islam and the muslims already had control of the Iberian peninsula.

I just think there is a important difference there in how the immediate followers decided to conduct themselves. Also what exactly they learned from their prophets/saviors to act in such a way.

I figure the first ones after a prophets set the template for those to act afterwards.

So you're arguing that Christianity is innately more peaceful than Islam and that this explains why the Muslim world is the way it is and why the Christian world is the way it is?

 

[Kurdel]

So you're arguing that Christianity is innately more peaceful than Islam and that this explains why the Muslim world is the way it is and why the Christian world is the way it is?

Is it possible to have discussions around here without accusations and grandstanding?

 

[Maninthemirror]

But even isn't this a important bit of information. So the early Muslims who emerge right after Muhammad, (even ones that knew him in person, were taught directly by him) went on rampages and expanded violently?

Just to juxtapose it to Christianity. Jesus's disciples and those that knew him personally went on to eventually spread the religion. Albeit in peaceful ways and many of them were eventually captured, crucified, (upside down for St. Peter) fed to lions etc. But there was not any violence from early Christians for the first 3 centuries it existed. Contrast it to Islam and the muslims already had control of the Iberian peninsula.

I just think there is a important difference there in how the immediate followers decided to conduct themselves. Also what exactly they learned from their prophets/saviors to act in such a way.

I figure the first ones after a prophets set the template for those to act afterwards.

there comes a distinct inherent bias when talking of rampaging. consider the conquering of the Romans, Alexander, the Greek, the Mongols, the British, the Scandinavians, The French etc etc, all these 'EMPIRES' are often looked at just historic and with a sense of historic romanticism as they conquered land but somehow when Islamic rule became more political and more countries were conquered with arguably much less bloodshed and oppression than the previous mentioned empires, it is somehow labelled and isolated as savage.

I'm sure plenty saw the political tide was turning and threw their lot behind Mohammad.



I think the aim is that Muslims should stop looking outside and start looking inside to solve their problems. Muslims need to acknowledge that ISIS are Islamic and that they don't exist in a vacuum that is removed from what is preached in certain mosques (not all mosques, but certain mosques) across the Muslim World.

ISIS are as Islamic as Tea Party are patriots. Muslims are looking to solve it with education. we as a community in the Ahmadiyya community are doing our part

 

[Stiflers Mom]

After its battle in Dabiq, Cerantonio said, the caliphate will expand and sack Istanbul. Some believe it will then cover the entire Earth, but Cerantonio suggested its tide may never reach beyond the Bosporus. An anti-Messiah, known in Muslim apocalyptic literature as Dajjal, will come from the Khorasan region of eastern Iran and kill a vast number of the caliphate’s fighters, until just 5,000 remain, cornered in Jerusalem. Just as Dajjal prepares to finish them off, Jesus—the second-most-revered prophet in Islam—will return to Earth, spear Dajjal, and lead the Muslims to victory.

If that happens, I really don't know what to think anymore..

I would be SO CONFUSED!

 

[RustyNails]

The same goes for the huge portion that he did conquer during his lifetime though. Such a large portion of land in an area with many different tribes, you don't conquer that when you're only fighting defensively. It's completely implausible. It's the sort of narrative victors tend to create when they want to make their conquests seem justified.



I mentioned nothing of non-Arabian territories?

The only portions that came under his medinan state were Mecca, after the Quraish's seige failed in Battle of Khandaq, and after a bloodless conquest of Mecca, the confederate tribes surrounding Mecca were aimed at namely in Battle of Hunain and Taif. The Tabuk Expedition was the first skirmish against Byzantine empire, after his ambassadors were killed by them which led to Battle of Yarmouk.

He died soon after that, and Abu Baqr Siddiq became the Caliph. Immediately after Muhammad died, all the tribes that swore fealty to Muhammad turned renegade and the entirety of Abu Bakr's campaign was spent subduing these tribes. The first major expansion happened under Umar, the 2nd Caliph.

 

[2San]

I think the aim is that Muslims should stop looking outside and start looking inside to solve their problems. Muslims need to acknowledge that ISIS are Islamic and that they don't exist in a vacuum that is removed from what is preached in certain mosques (not all mosques, but certain mosques) across the Muslim World.

What do you mean with stop looking outside? You do know that terrorism is mostly a problem in Islamic countries and they take the threat as seriously as they can.

 

[Mrmartel]

So you're arguing that Christianity is innately more peaceful than Islam and that this explains why the Muslim world is the way it is and why the Christian world is the way it is?

I'm saying their origins are quite different. Really is that so hard to see? As far as how their original followers conducted themselves, well yes I think it could have long term ramifications on the generations of adherents afterwards.

I would also say that yes, absolutely Christianity was very peaceful in it's first few centuries compared to Islam. That is a fact.

 

[Kabouter]

there comes a distinct inherent bias when talking of rampaging. consider the conquering of the Romans, Alexander, the Greek, the Mongols, the British, the Scandinavians, The French etc etc, all these 'EMPIRES' are often looked at just historic and with a sense of historic romanticism as they conquered land .

You know, it's pretty funny, because that was exactly what I was saying earlier. Conquerors come and go, their arguments for conquest are never convincing, their rule is idealized afterwards as successful empires were able to write their own narrative and so on. People shouldn't idealize any conquerors and shouldn't idealize any empire. These empires were machines of death and destruction fuelled by the ego of a small number of people who thought nothing of throwing countless lives away to achieve their goals.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I'm saying their origins are quite different. Really is that so hard to see? As far as how their original followers conducted themselves, well yes I think it could have long term ramifications on the generations of adherents afterwards.

I would also say that yes, absolutely Christianity was very peaceful in it's first few centuries compared to Islam. That is a fact.

thats because the first 300 years Christians were driven out into caves and after Constantine, their rule actually began. Islam was much more potent in terms of getting people on their side so their oppression was only a couple of decades

 

[Maninthemirror]

You know, it's pretty funny, because that was exactly what I was saying earlier. Conquerors come and go, their arguments for conquest are never convincing, their rule is idealized afterwards as successful empires were able to write their own narrative and so on. People shouldn't idealize any conquerors and shouldn't idealize any empire. These empires were machines of death and destruction fuelled by the ego of a small number of people who thought nothing of throwing countless lives away to achieve their goals.

I would argue Islamic political leaders years/decades/centuries after Prophethood at its best was a lot less bloody in terms of how it treated people of a conquered lands. I mean hell, jews in promised land were much happier under Muslim rule than Christian rule if you want a good example

 

[Stereogatari]

I'm saying their origins are quite different. Really is that so hard to see? As far as how their original followers conducted themselves, well yes I think it could have long term ramifications on the generations of adherents afterwards.

I would also say that yes, absolutely Christianity was very peaceful in it's first few centuries compared to Islam. That is a fact.

I agree with you that Islam was less peaceful than Christianity in its early years, but I don't think those differences have a bearing as to why today the Islamic world is more prone to violence and militancy than the Christian world.

It's all about the fact Christian lands went through widespread Secularisation, something the Muslim lands haven't had to the same extent. If Western countries entered a Middle East like political chaos today you wouldn't get people united under the banner of Christianity because the connection between man and Church has been eroded organically over time. In the most of the Islamic world the connection between man and Mosque hasn't been eroded, so people are easily manipulated by religious feelings.

 

[Jag]

What do you mean with stop looking outside? You do know that terrorism is mostly a problem in Islamic countries and they take the threat as seriously as they can.

They may take the threat seriously, but people in Islamic countries still need Islam to control the people. It is a double edged weapon that is being turned against its own.

I can see the appeal for disenfranchised Muslims whether from poverty, dictatorships or war torn countries. ISIS is the ultimate symbol of the true faith and it is empowering a generation of unempowered people.

It is scary as hell, but the article did make 2 points that give me some hope. First, they need land to be a Caliphate. Once you have land, you can be attacked on it. Second, they follow such a strict ancient code of Islam, it can possibly be exploited and predicted.

My honest biggest fear about ISIS is that THEY get their hands on a nuclear bomb and use it to start the war they so clearly want. Maybe they want to lure a coalition into battle and wipe them out with one shot. I wouldn't put anything past these crazy bastards.

 

[Kabouter]

I would argue Islamic political leaders years/decades/centuries after Prophethood at its best was a lot less bloody in terms of how it treated people of a conquered lands. I mean hell, jews in promised land were much happier under Muslim rule than Christian rule if you want a good example

Yes, this is a common argument for empire. It is similar to the civilizing arguments that were popular amongst the European powers in the late 19th and early 20th century. The idea that people were better off under the new empire, so that means conquest was totally justified. Meanwhile all the countless combat deaths, all the looted and pillaged villages, all the raped women and children, the mass starvation as all local food is requisitioned, all the people murdered for their belongings and all other atrocities that were (and sadly are) an inevitably consequence of conquest are neatly swept under the rug.

 

[y2dvd]

If the Koran, or the Bible for that matter, is up for wide interpretation, how hard is it to grasp that these extremists can interpret it to justify their violent actions? That's the problem with interpretations, everyone is right.

The Westboro Baptist Church are Christians just like some of your favorite big name celebrities are. The former just interprets it in a much more volatile way. It's simply one of the points the author was making with ISIS and Islam.

I kinda like the defense being used here to call out Christians here as if two wrongs makes a right. It just furthers my beliefs that religion really isn't needed.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Muslims are the number one victims of Daesh. Daesh is fighting, killing and beheading muslims left and right every day, or burning them alive. The people on the ground actually fighting Daesh are Muslims. I don't think it's fair for Muslims to also have to go through being put in the same box as Daesh.

What does need to happen though, is for there to be a global push by Muslims to discredit and criticise those parts of the religion that encourage or even leave a door open for acts of violence, or bigotry against other religious groups. Even the historically true parts. Muslims need to openly criticise parts of their religion, openly and fairly.
Teaching children that religiously motivated violence is not okay in our time and world in the same way many Islamic nations have outlawed slavery even though it is legitimately allowed in Islam. No such thing as a good jihad.
Teaching children that being Jewish means you are just as human as being a Muslim. Jewish people are the only people who can help Palestinians, and hating people for being Jewish will most certainly not help the Palestinian cause.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Yes, this is a common argument for empire. It is similar to the civilizing arguments that were popular amongst the European powers in the late 19th and early 20th century. The idea that people were better off under the new empire, so that means conquest was totally justified. Meanwhile all the countless combat deaths, all the looted and pillaged villages, all the raped women and children, the mass starvation as all local food is requisitioned, all the people murdered for their belongings and all other atrocities that were (and sadly are) an inevitably consequence of conquest are neatly swept under the rug.

quran specifically specifies no person should harm any woman or child every muslim except Daesh would say that and stealing of property of people like food and homes is not allowed nor is murder of any civilian.

So if anyone did it at that point it stops being islamic in terms of rule and becomes political rule as they are not following islams instructions of treating others

 

[Stereogatari]

I would argue Islamic political leaders years/decades/centuries after Prophethood at its best was a lot less bloody in terms of how it treated people of a conquered lands. I mean hell, jews in promised land were much happier under Muslim rule than Christian rule if you want a good example

I agree with this. Islam as funneled through the Persian culture (the form of Islam which the Turks and Indians adopted) is a very different beast to the Arabocentric Islam of its early days. Almost as if the Persian cultural influence was more central to these conversions than Islam itself.

 

[CloverCarr]

Muslims are the number one victims of Daesh. Daesh is fighting, killing and beheading muslims left and right every day, or burning them alive. The people on the ground actually fighting Daesh are Muslims. I don't think it's fair for Muslims to also have to go through being put in the same box as Daesh.

What does need to happen though, is for there to be a global push by Muslims to discredit and criticise those parts of the religion that encourage or even leave a door open for acts of violence, or bigotry against other religious groups. Even the historically true parts. Muslims need to openly criticise parts of their religion, openly and fairly.
Teaching children that religiously motivated violence is not okay in our time and world in the same way many Islamic nations have outlawed slavery even though it is legitimately allowed in Islam. No such thing as a good jihad.
Teaching children that being Jewish means you are just as human as being a Muslim. Jewish people are the only people who can help Palestinians, and hating people for being Jewish will most certainly not help the Palestinian cause.

I think that's a great idea, but is it even possible?

I mean, you're asking some humans to actively teach against the perfect word of their God. How does one do such a thing, and still claim genuine belief? It's not like a disagreement amongst peers, or with a state. You'd be looking God in the eye and saying 'I see what you're getting at with the whole lashing adulterers thing, but you're wrong'.

I can't imagine many would choose that option over sweeping things under the rug and pretending they don't matter.

 

[RustyNails]

ISIS has declared Sh Hamza Yusuf and Yasir Qadhi as apostates and threatened to kill them in their latest Dabiq magazine...The two most prominent US scholars who have repeatedly spoken out against ISIS.

 

[m_shortpants]

I think that's a great idea, but is it even possible?

I mean, you're asking some humans to actively teach against the perfect word of their God. How does one do such a thing, and still claim genuine belief? It's not like a disagreement amongst peers, or with a state. You'd be looking God in the eye and saying 'I see what you're getting at with the whole lashing adulterers thing, but you're wrong'.

I can't imagine many would choose that option over sweeping things under the rug and pretending they don't matter.

You just need to provide a massive amount of context with each Quran. Reading those verses in a vacuum is no longer sufficient. For example say "this verse was revealed at X time, and applies to when Y was happening to these specific people at that time in history".

 

[Stereogatari]

I think that's a great idea, but is it even possible?

I mean, you're asking some humans to actively teach against the perfect word of their God. How does one do such a thing, and still claim genuine belief? It's not like a disagreement amongst peers, or with a state. You'd be looking God in the eye and saying 'I see what you're getting at with the whole lashing adulterers thing, but you're wrong'.

I can't imagine many would choose that option over sweeping things under the rug and pretending they don't matter.

The same way it's possible for American/European girls to dress in sexy clothes, get drunk, have sex and wear a Cross around their necks, Turkish girls to wear sexy clothes, get drunk, have sex and wear Crescent Stars round their necks and Israeli/Jewish girls to wear sexy clothes, get drunk, have sex and wear Star of Davids round their necks.

It doesn't make sense, it's illogical, but it's a common thing across the world.

 

[Jag]

quran specifically specifies no person should harm any woman or child every muslim except Daesh would say that and stealing of property of people like food and homes is not allowed nor is murder of any civilian.

So if anyone did it at that point it stops being islamic in terms of rule and becomes political rule as they are not following islams instructions of treating others

But isn't apostasy punishable by death in the old quaran? I think Daesh/ISIS uses the fact that any Muslim who doesn't follow their rules is an apostate.

The example they gave in the article was interesting:

In Islam, the practice of takfir, or excommunication, is theologically perilous. “If a man says to his brother, ‘You are an infidel,’ ” the Prophet said, “then one of them is right.” If the accuser is wrong, he himself has committed apostasy by making a false accusation. The punishment for apostasy is death.

So according to Daesh, they are right and every other Muslim is an apostate.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

Happened before with a number of things. The Qur'an may be the word of God in the eyes of Muslims, but at times, some parts of it have been ignored for a lack of a better word. There detailed descriptions of how slavery should be conducted and what rights a master and slave have over each other. Yet, slavery is largely forbidden in many Muslim countries and no longer considered something Muslims should engage in.

But I see exactly what you mean. People have a hard time even criticising many aspects of Islam simply because most Muslims don't understand the religion.

 

[Oppo]

quran specifically specifies no person should harm any woman or child every muslim except Daesh would say that and stealing of property of people like food and homes is not allowed nor is murder of any civilian.

So if anyone did it at that point it stops being islamic in terms of rule and becomes political rule as they are not following islams instructions of treating others

just to be clear, you don't support death for apostasy?

 

[Maninthemirror]

But isn't apostasy punishable by death in the old quaran? I think Daesh/ISIS uses the fact that any Muslim who doesn't follow their rules is an apostate.

The example they gave in the article was interesting:


So according to Daesh, they are right and every other Muslim is an apostate.

No

just to be clear, you don't support death for apostasy?

Yes I don't support death for apostasy and neither does the Quran

 

[m_shortpants]

just to be clear, you don't support death for apostasy?

I doubt he would. There is no punishment for apostacy in the Quran.

There were instances of treasonous acts in the days of Muhammad being punished by death, as is today in most countries, and this becomes the basis some individuals use to argue that death is the punishment for apostacy.

 

[Jburton]

It is more akin to a cult, an Islamic doomsday cult.

Think Koresh and the seventh day adventists and their doomsday cult and it's relation to Christianity.

 

[Azih]

If the Koran, or the Bible for that matter, is up for wide interpretation, how hard is it to grasp that these extremists can interpret it to justify their violent actions? That's the problem with interpretations, everyone is right.

Not for the idiot prof in the article. For him the 'ISIS interpretation' is more correct while any Muslim who disagrees doesn't really believe in Islam but a 'cotton-candy' Islam. Seems like a lot of gaffers in here agree with that absolute nonsense.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

They emulate the Muhammad (saw) that you view from your information about islam, they don't emulate Muhammad (Saw) most Muslims see. your view is the Holy Prophet was a warlord just like Daesh views him. Most Muslims view the Holy Prophet (saw) as a peaceful person.

Let's stop talking about how people "view" him and talk about how he actually was.

I think people have a tendency to "soften up" these figures over time, but from what I've read of Moses and Mohammed, if they were to be brought back to life today, they would not be moderates by any stretch of the imagination.