What is the problem with Islam?

Devils' Advocate said:
an extreme version of Islam.
Click to expand...
I know this is a term you are using because we all know that it means this terroristic style. But the word extremist wasn't really used until fairly recently, and it feeds into what you are describing as an issue. People believe that since we say these people follow "an extreme version of Islam", that what they are doing is permitted in Islam, but they are just the ones that aren't progressive enough to disregard those portions of Islam. This isn't the case. A true Extremist Muslim is a Family who lives within their means, pays Zakaat, Prays 5+ times a day, Fasts regularly and all month of Ramadan, is an active member of society and does everything they can to help those around them (This list can obviously go longer, but it serves the point.). What ISIS is at best... Misguided. So far off the straight path that they have wandered onto the wrong road to the wrong destination they are seeking.

May Allah guide them back to the straight path so they may repent and pay for their sins.
 
Kill them wherever you find them, an explanation by Mufti Menk


Just because I think it applies to the questions posed many times.
 
I don't understand why certain things in islam are left ambiguous at least to certain people in certain times which for example give rise to ISIS? Even certain rules and so on like jizyah for example are made in such way that it might cause misunderstanding or problems to the general public ,as in people looking it from an objective POV.
 
Vivandall said:
I don't understand why certain things in islam are left ambiguous at least to certain people in certain times which for example give rise to ISIS? Even certain rules and so on like jizyah for example are made in such way that it might cause misunderstanding or problems to the general public ,as in people looking it from an objective POV.
Click to expand...
Maybe it feels ambiguous because you don't know enough about it?
 
Vivandall said:
I don't understand why certain things in islam are left ambiguous at least to certain people in certain times which for example give rise to ISIS? Even certain rules and so on like jizyah for example are made in such way that it might cause misunderstanding or problems to the general public ,as in people looking it from an objective POV.
Click to expand...
ACOT touched on the answer to your problem. There is very little "vague" discussion in the Quran to begin with. The description of Jizyah is quite clear in that it is a tax for non-believers living in lands controlled by Muslims. If you want to know more about it, like limitations and correct practice of such, we look at the Prophets' (PBUTA) actions, specifically Mouhammed (PBUH) as he was the final Messenger and Prophet (according to the vast majority view). Mouhammed's (PBUH) actions and sayings are recorded as Hadith. Now, Hadith weren't as preserved as the Quran. And many false (intentional and non-intentional) Hadiths made their way into records. So in studying these one must also look at their chains to see how strongly we can trust that that Hadith is preserved, and how "likely" it is that Hadith is from the intended source. Some Hadith Collections have been made that are generally all considered strong chains and reliable Hadiths. These are referred to as Sahih Hadiths. Collections such as Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, etc. are considered reliable sources. Someone who is allowed to make rulings and determine understanding is called a Mufti (amongst other names) Which makes rulings based on their in depth knowledge of both Quran and Hadiths, of which they must be certified as an expert in both. There are many people who are experts in parts of Islamic teachings, the title most used today is Ustadh. Then there are Sheikhs which are scholars of Islamic teachings. All of these require certification from multiple sources before one is allowed to teach. The problem is nowadays, some people are looking so hard for someone to follow they aren't worried about credentials, or look at those credentials as corrupt. And some actually are getting their certifications before they are actually worthy. This is what leads to men like Abu Baghdadi. People follow him, because he has stated he is a Caliph, thinking that anyone who makes that claim wouldn't do so lightly (due to severe punishment in the afterlife if one is incorrect). The have flocked to him, and ran from his group. the numbers in ISIS are dropping by the day due to people realizing that his direction is neither Quranic nor Islamic in any measure. There are a few adherents that still believe his claims, and there are many others that use those claims as a reason to do terrorist acts, due to a underlying hatred of a government action against either their country or family.

If this isn't in depth enough, I'll be around again to try to clear it up when I don't have a 6 year old asleep in my lap :p.
 
Vivandall said:
I don't understand why certain things in islam are left ambiguous at least to certain people in certain times which for example give rise to ISIS? Even certain rules and so on like jizyah for example are made in such way that it might cause misunderstanding or problems to the general public ,as in people looking it from an objective POV.
Click to expand...
ISIS is not created by Islam, but regional and global politics. The moment US empire becomes weak enough to let go of its colonies, and regional powers realize creating proxy wars through mercenaries doesnt work, entities like ISIS will vanish.

Jizyah is a Islmic tax for non-muslims. just like muslims have to pay zakat and ushr, non-muslims pay Jizyah. Zakat and Ushr are considered "financial worship", so it cant be imposed upon non-muslims. If a non-muslim is willing to be a part of military, then even jizyah isnt suppoed to be imposed upon him.
 
I mean why Allah seem to have left certain things ambiguous to to certain people in certain times which for example give rise to ISIS?

Btw, are the houri basically immortals that enjoy with the residents of jannah? Are they tested before becoming houri? If they are not tested , isn't that unfair to us?
 
Last edited:
Blowing up ancient buildings and killing innocent people en masse, there is nothing about all that thats left ambiguous in Islam. This is "institutionalized crime" and is always dealt with severely by Islam.

Houris dont get to come down to earth plane, pretty much like angels. Thats how they are supposed to function in the whole divine cosmic plan.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I'm not seeing ISIS being dealt with at all by Islam. Muslim nations seem willing to let IS do its thing without interference. Bout the only countries actively opposing the renegade group is Western countries.
Click to expand...
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/34-muslim-...set-military-alliance-fight-terrorism-1533357
I don't get this DA, you keep coming back to you not seeing things. I don't know what to tell you, you have to use google yourself. What news feeds are you watching that you expect would inform you, a white American, that nations in the middle east are fighting for peace?
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I'm not seeing ISIS being dealt with at all by Islam. Muslim nations seem willing to let IS do its thing without interference. Bout the only countries actively opposing the renegade group is Western countries.
Click to expand...
Jordan, Syrian Army, Iraqi Army, Saudi planes, Turkish planes and border troops to help protect the innocents, Heck even Iran is beginning to step in (some...) Which Muslim Nation isn't actively opposing them that you feel should join? Not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of scholars actively fighting the ideals of ISIS weekly at Friday Prayers and through PSA's to inform the populace of the errors in ISIS.
 
Well first of all this 'coalition' just decided they should maybe do something in mid December of last year. How long has this been going on? And all they decided is to set up a response; far as the article goes beyond getting set up no actual action has been taken.

From the article:

The joint statement was accompanied by a rare press conference by Saudi Arabia's deputy crown prince, second deputy prime minister and minister of defense, 30-year-old Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud. However, he failed to give any insight on how the military cooperation aims to undertake its fight against terrorism.

Salman told reporters on 15 December that the campaign would "coordinate" efforts to fight terrorism in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Afghanistan but did not say how this will be carried out.

So, no I am not impressed. And Tea I have to say 'right back at ya'. I am not seeing things because nothing is happening. How are you seeing things differently by showing me an article about how the Islamic nations are planning on creating a plan about doing something!
 
BigJoeNobody said:
Not to mention the hundreds if not thousands of scholars actively fighting the ideals of ISIS weekly at Friday Prayers and through PSA's to inform the populace of the errors in ISIS.
Click to expand...

I never denied this, Joe. Yes there are plenty of regular people and scholarly people speaking out against the evils ISIS is perpetuating. That is all to the good. It does not answer my question about these countries actually having boots on the ground actively fighting them.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
And Tea I have to say 'right back at ya'. I am not seeing things because nothing is happening. How are you seeing things differently by showing me an article about how the Islamic nations are planning on creating a plan about doing something!
Click to expand...
I posted 7 min after your post, I did a three keyword search and just took the first thing that popped up and it specifically shows a list of nations that oppose Daesh. I know you are used to Bush "attacking terrorism", news shows speculating for hours on how a plane could disappear and Jack Bauer fixing the world. But I don't think these people are very interested in impressing you. How long it takes to coordinate between these very different counties and how interested they are in sharing their battle plans with you may vary.

If you would like to assume that these people don't care about terror spreading through the region sure, but I don't know what it's founded on.
 
If there were a rebel group in some nation called.the Christian liberation front....would you expect every Christian nation, or only Christian nations to handle this?

Why? Or why not?

And now same question for ISIS or al queda, when it is quite clear that without US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq neither would probably be the trouble they have been or exist at all..
 
Tea, you are accusing me of making statements which you believe have no foundation in facts. You then ran up a quick article to prove I am wrong, and it turns out your example does not prove the facts that you are representing either. It would seem to me we could both be equally accused of posting what we believed without adequate confirmation.

And this isn't about who is right or wrong anyway. If someone could point to articles that show a consistent, concerted attack by other Muslim countries against ISIS, I will have no problem stating that I am wrong. Thus far no such material has been shown to me.

I'm not saying no Muslim country has ever fought ISIS. The terrorist group pissed off Egypt, I believe and Egypt retaliated. There was one other country in the region where the same happened with the same result. Those were isolated incidents. I am saying there has been no reports that can be confirmed that show that Muslim countries around ISIS are actively fighting against them. An active, sustained campaign to take them down.

I've read that the US, Britain, France, and Russia are doing sustained air strikes. That is the bulk of what I have found in my reading.
 
wil said:
If there were a rebel group in some nation called.the Christian liberation front....would you expect every Christian nation, or only Christian nations to handle this?
Click to expand...

This is not a fair question. There is no corresponding world situation similar to what is currently happening in the Middle East. It's not about which nations should be fighting and which should not. It is about a cancer growing in the midst of nations which all happen to be Muslim as ISIS claims they are Muslim. This is their back yard, it should be up to them to clean up the mess. Not the US, the EU or Russia.
 
Russia and USA made that mess...

Oh yeah, party foul at your house...yes we got to drunk with power and crapped all over your floor...but we are leaving...you clean it up.
 
wil said:
And now same question for ISIS or al queda, when it is quite clear that without US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq neither would probably be the trouble they have been or exist at all..
Click to expand...

Did not have time to respond to this portion of your post until now. I agree with you in principle with a bit of variation. I think our initial war in Afghanistan was justified since Al Queda took responsibility for 9/11. Our initial foray into that country was going very well and if only we had stayed the course I believe we could have won a victory for the entire region, as well as ourselves.

Where it all went wrong was when W decided he had to have his war in Iraq. There was no justification for that war. W lied to both Congress & the nation to justify going into Iraq. Worse, he let the country completely fall apart after we had 'won'. In the process he managed to kill 100,000 Iraqi civilians thru collateral damage, took the only single secular government in the Muslim Middle East and now it is in the hands of the religious leaders, completely destabilized the region, and as a parting gift lost the war in Afghanistan because he didn't stay there and finish the job.

The rise of ISIS came from the complete collapse of any coherent form of government in Iraq once we left. ISIS is absolutely a creation of our own making.

Far as I am concerned, George W should be in the Hague standing for charges of crimes against humanity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top