Is ISIS/Taliban/etc. Muslim...

Nicholas Weeks said:
Steve P.: "... I remember hearing on the news that ISIS' rationale was that the Kaaba was tainted by its pre-Islamic association with the polytheistic religion of the region."

If that is the case, then even Allah was borrowed from amongst the many gods of the region.
Click to expand...
that's actually a Myth, Allah is the Arabic version of El from Semitic (canaanite). such as Elohim. They share the same base.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
that's actually a Myth, Allah is the Arabic version of El from Semitic (canaanite). such as Elohim. They share the same base.
Click to expand...

That is one version; an Islamic site says Allah was the unique, personal name of God. El and other forms are just generic words for 'god'. So the borrowing of the word is not a 'myth', but a fact. Even Allah as the personal name of God was used before Islam.
 
NW,
El, Ela, Elah, Ilah etc are all variations of the same base which basically means Deity. Arabic Allah is basically Al (the) Ilah (Deity), which was worshiped as the God of Abaham, or the supreme God by Arabs. According to the legend, Arabs traveled around for trade, and brought many different statues of many different gods from all over the region to Kaaba. But still, Allah was considered to be the supreme deity.

Steve,
If we accept ISIS' logic, then fasting and Hajj are also borrowed form pre islamic pagan culture. But then ISIS people are nobody to say what is Islamic or what isnt. They are nothing more than mercenaries, Islam cant be dumbed down to their level.


BJN,
 
farhan said:
Steve,
If we accept ISIS' logic, then fasting and Hajj are also borrowed form pre islamic pagan culture. But then ISIS people are nobody to say what is Islamic or what isnt. They are nothing more than mercenaries, Islam cant be dumbed down to their level.
Click to expand...

Farhan, you're right. As I read back over my post it appears I'm saying I accept their logic. I phrased that poorly as I certainly do not accept what ISIS has to say. They have proven to be nothing but aggressive militants and as BJN pointed out very well to start this thread, they fail to uphold the standards necessary to be considered Muslims in any but the absolutely loosest terms.
 
farhan said:
BJN,
Click to expand...
Not entirely sure why you directed this at me, but it is a good speech. I think it echoed what I was saying... with much more detail. He said we cannot say they aren't Muslim, but they are not acting Islamically.
 
All I can say is that if Muslims believe that it is permissible and moral to destroy holy sites....than they should accept when land becomes in control of another that it is acceptable to destroy their holy sites... and if in the laws of the land it is acceptable to draw pictures of Mohamed....then they should accept that law as well?
 
wil said:
All I can say is that if Muslims believe that it is permissible and moral to destroy holy sites....than they should accept when land becomes in control of another that it is acceptable to destroy their holy sites... and if in the laws of the land it is acceptable to draw pictures of Mohamed....then they should accept that law as well?
Click to expand...
I think you are trying to steer this into a geopolitical debate. Some issues I have with the way you state it...
1: you say they (we) "SHOULD" accept. Why on an interfaith Forum do you find authority to tell us what we SHOULD do?
2. If you are attempting to understand a POV on a topic you should ask.
3. If attempting to talk about politics, this should be a topic brought up in the political forum (and if I'm not mistaken has been, and discussed)

Now for the sake of easy reference and What I can validate applying to the topic.

From a purely religious standpoint, what difference does it make if a "holy site" is destroyed if the populace doesn't believe that religion. I'm a history nerd, so I wouldn't do it; but from a strictly religious standpoint, If an Islamic country took over Greece I would have no issue with them beheading statues of Zeus and other gods. They are nothing more than idols of false gods. Politically you would anger other people who don't believe in their value either. Really it is nothing more than people holding on to useless junk that means nothing to them other than it looks pretty. Again, I'm a History nerd, I would prefer them to be made into Museums, but since I've already said that, and you still felt the need to issue a statement about what we "SHOULD" do, I'm guessing you didn't understand what permissible means. It simply means that there is nothing sinful about it.

Mosques have been destroyed over time, how are we to stop it if we don't control the area? Now we (Muslims) might still fight to regain that land, that is a choice we as defenders make as to how long we are willing to fight. Once peace is decided and agreed on, however, all that aggression should stop religiously speaking. All treaties should be honored as long as it wasn't created under duress (someone telling them to sign it with a gun to your head).

Now we talk about free speech. A topic I know we discussed in great detail. The truth is there is no such thing. I can't go to the president and call him racist and provocative things in his office without being escorted out, and possibly arrested. If I (as a white man) call a black woman a n**** broad I can be sued, lose my job, etc. depending on the situation if she retaliated violently I couldn't even sue her or have her arrested for assault. Now if someone draws Mouhammed (PBUH) we as Muslims should allow that person to accept his sin and move on. maybe verbally inform him of his error. The problem here is that it isn't considered discriminatory, yet calling a someone a racist term is. So essentially the government is upholding a protection for those against Islam while not offering any protection from this discrimination. The people doing it aren't doing so in kind, they aren't drawing pictures to tell nice stories. They are doing it to be directly offensive. So please tell me how this is any different than the old white guys in sheets making cartoons about blacks as monkeys? These have been sued many times over it.
 
Again...all I am saying is that if you feel the destruction of historical items is appropriate under the laws of one land...it would also be in the laws of another land... Say one day in the future should Mecca be controlled by others...or others are currently revolting and occupying the land...(as ISIS is)

I don't wish any of this to happen, I am simply seeing how the logic plays out the same for all concerned.
 
wil said:
Again...all I am saying is that if you feel the destruction of historical items is appropriate under the laws of one land...it would also be in the laws of another land... Say one day in the future should Mecca be controlled by others...or others are currently revolting and occupying the land...(as ISIS is)

I don't wish any of this to happen, I am simply seeing how the logic plays out the same for all concerned.
Click to expand...
I would say your scenario is based on the idea that someone can "take" Mecca. If that happens I would say we have failed as an Ummah to stop a serious problem. Not that the place matters a whole lot theologically, but rather that we would allow someone to kill our people to that point without responding to defend it. Past that, what power do I or any Muslim have in demanding someone not destroy the sites, if we do not control them. If I buy your house I can't make you paint it later, nor can you stop me from painting it a different color. So your question has no base. If ISIS truly controls the area, those sites are up to their discresion as to what they do with them. That doesn't mean that those actions will not be punished by the rest of the world. That's like praising Lincoln for "freeing the slaves in states that are opposing the Union" nice speech, no effect until he actually controlled those states. No Confederate was sitting in his house waiting for the time to let up so he could go out and inform his slaves that they were free.
 
BigJoeNobody said:
I would say your scenario is based on the idea that someone can "take" Mecca.
Click to expand...

I don't think that was what Wil was saying. His statement as I understand it, boils down to what is good for one is good for all. If IS believes it has the right to destroy parts of our ancient world lineage, then, if we are to be consistent, anyone who comes into control of sites in other religions must also have the right to destroy their sites. And IS certainly would be against the destruction of any sites relevant to their history/religion. If IS is against destruction of their sites, they have no right to destroy the sites of others.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
I don't think that was what Wil was saying. His statement as I understand it, boils down to what is good for one is good for all. If IS believes it has the right to destroy parts of our ancient world lineage, then, if we are to be consistent, anyone who comes into control of sites in other religions must also have the right to destroy their sites. And IS certainly would be against the destruction of any sites relevant to their history/religion. If IS is against destruction of their sites, they have no right to destroy the sites of others.
Click to expand...
I addressed this scenario as well. The quote was talking solely about how I don't believe that it is possible that someone would take Mecca with an attempt to destroy Kaaba. Kaaba was taken in history by what I would call "actual extremists". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

Even then with 500-ish insurgents (enough to hold it for long amounts of time) they were captured soon after and executed.
 
It has been a while, I reread this, and I guess I just don't understand what is not clear about "If a religious society controls an area, who am I (or we) to tell them not to destroy/desecrate a site." for example, in Israel there is a Mosque. It is an amazing Mosque. If Israel was declared a Jewish Law State, and decided to destroy it after kicking all the Muslims out, what does my voice matter for disapproval. Yes from a world view I would have a problem with it, but I cannot fathom the idea that they should stop because of my opinion. Does this mean that I wouldn't support some kind of retaliation? No. That is a consequence of pissing someone off. Same thing with Palyrma (SP?). If someone has a problem with the destruction it is on them for not defending it in the first place. And it is up to the offended whether they are going to retaliate or not. This is a natural order.

If you don't disagree enough to do something about it, how much do you actually disagree? I do not go to fight ISIS because I don't have the means without losing more than I would gain (in this world) so I support efforts by promoting action against them, and doing what I can to support those displaced. I'm not paying mercs to go defend Roman sites, nor supporting IS in their destruction of them. I would prefer every Roman and greek temple be destroyed before 1 of those innocent people died. I would personally destroy the Egyptian Pyramids if it would stop IS from killing and raping people. And believe me that is hard to say with the level of love I have for history, but it is the absolute truth.
 
No offence to my Brethren of the Book, but I think Daesh is not Islam and those who control Daesh cannot be called Moslem in the true sense of the word.

As the New Testament says: "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

You can't turn back the clock, nor does Daesh want to. It doesn't want to create a tolerant state that reflects early Islam, they simply want to create a totalitarian regime, and are using Islam as 'cover'.

As long as we continue to countenance Daesh as 'Islamic', we're playing into their hands. Their usage of social media is very modern, very sophisticated, and wrong-footed the West on more than one occasion. It's very effective ... it's created Daesh as an 'idol' that many – driven by anti-western feeling – flock to support. This fact should not be ignored. Daesh's use of media is all towards creating a reputation for Daesh – an image in the mind. It's idolatry.

If they want to turn back the clock, let them destroy their phones and cameras and tech, in the same way they destroy ancient temples. Will they? Of course not. It's hypocrisy writ large.

They destroy ancient religious sites, yet they're happy to profit in selling the artifacts stolen from these sites. Hypocrisy.

Ahh ... I could go on ...
 
ISIS is "Am-EU regime change mercenaries", who were marketed as "Islamic terrorists" to fool westerners into continuous regime changes and loot n plunder campaigns. ISISes will continue to occur where ever a "vassal government" and "liberalized economy" are required without "boots on ground".

The stuff going on in Syria, Libya, Iraq is just hopeless, capitalism at its sickest worst. Islam is just a media scapegoat. It sells, so this "spice" makes things more lucrative.
 
Seems like an oversimplification farhan...these daesh, Islamic terrorists or whatever you wish to call them are not really a figment of western media...are they?
 
I never said that. My point, calling them "Islamic terrorist" is just a gimmick, because calling them US stealth forces wont sell. US interests, EU interests, Saudi interests, Turk interests, they kind of all converge at giving some good for nothing youth tonns of weapons and a bunch of Islamic slogans. They got weapons, they killed Gaddafi. They got weapons, they tried their best to kill Asad. But in came Putin (Russian interests), and so Asad is still standing. Both countries (and Iraq) are fecked up for decades to come.

This is Imperialist capitalism at its absolute best. The Islamic terrorist euphemism is just used to keep masses numb and dumb. A few weeks ago I heard on CNN,"we left Libya and now its an empty shell, filled up by ISIS". Just a few years ago it was,"We are supporting the anti-Gaddafi "liberation" forces". They are they same people, just re-branded themselves according to the market needs.

How is Islam to be blamed for that? Its free market economy, kill for money, die for money, lie for money....
 
I personally do not think ISIS, etc. is as controlled as farhan states. It is just my opinion, but I have no proof on either side, but some evidence does paint a picture of control by Israeli, EU, US backed ideals. At minimum Ideals of Corporations based here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top