I.S.I.S has Nothing to Do With Islam?

FireDragon76 said:

A Christocentric hemeneutic is not essential to all forms of Christianity. Both Catholics and Protestants have believed, at times, in a more theonomist type approach, not completely unlike Salafism in Islam. Today in the US, in fact, there are some Christians that still uphold the notion that being a Christian is synomymous with upholding social and legal sanctions against people not living in accordance with their understandings of the Bible.

Click to expand...

Christianity-proper has to be what Christ teach in alignment with God as in the Gospels.
A Christian-proper is one who had entered into a relationship with God via a covenant with the covenanted terms as stipulated within the Gospels and the epistles, acts, and relevant verses from the OT as supporting.

If a Christian change the covenanted terms unilaterally, then s/he cannot be a Christian-proper but will be a pseudo-Christians whose salvation may be compromised.

One of the overriding terms of the covenant of the Christian is to love all - even enemies. Thus if a Christian insist by himself, that s/he can kill and be violent upon non-Christians, then in accordance to the terms of the covenant with God s/he would have sinned against God's term.

Point is a Christian can think, do and act whatever they want, but if the acts are outside the ambit of the covenanted terms, then that has nothing to do with Christianity.

Therefore if a Christian killed and be violent upon non-Christians and others, then it has nothing to do with Christianity itself, i.e. a third party cannot blame Christianity itself for the violent acts of the person who happened to be a Christian.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

I see ISIS is a manifestation of self motivated greed in all its worst forms. One of the worst being the thought that paradise awaits a tyrant.

I also see it has naught to do what I think as it is God that knows the Beginning and the End. I think it will takes decades to unravel the Truth and only after the Faiths embrace each other as a path to our same God.

Thus to me It has all to do with our given free will. Gods knows all if mans decisions and thus guides with His chosen Messengers, no person has been without the guidance of God, or covered by God's Mercy, Bounty and Compassion.

God allows us to pursue our hearts desires, no matter how dark they are. In understansing that we know there is a bounty, mercy and justice we are yet to fathom.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Note what the Muslims of IS did are in >90 in accordance to what is presented in the 6236 verses of the Quran - the core constitution of Islam.

This can be verified objectively by using the 6236 verses as a checklist and tick YES or NO in terms of complying with each of the intent of each verse and its context.

I can confirm [based on the research done] the members of IS agree and comply with more than 90% of the 6236 verses of he Quran while the so-called moderates agree and comply with only <60%.

Your views above are merely guesswork

JosephZ said:

This is what Islamic extremists teach, not the religion of Islam. Suicide and killing innocent people are forbidden in Islam, so suicide attacks can't possibly be acceptable.

Click to expand...

I have already stated many times,


There are many verses in the Quran praising and promising greater rewards for martyrdom.
WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong if they believe that is their divine duty to sacrifice themselves?

There is only one circumstance and that circumstance is well defined in the Qur'an as to when a lie is permissible.

Below is the ONLY verse found in the Qur'an that suggests that lying is acceptable and even then it is better to choose death rather than to lie as the hadith below it states:

"As for anyone who denies God after having once attained to faith - and this, to be sure, does not apply to one who does it under duress, the while his heart remains true to his faith, but only, to him who willingly opens up his heart to a denial of the truth upon all such falls God's condemnation, and tremendous suffering awaits them" (Qur'an 16:106)

"There is a consensus that whomsoever is forced into apostasy and chooses death has a greater reward than a person who takes the license to deny one's faith under duress, but if a person is being forced to eat pork or drink wine, then they should do that instead of choosing death." (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Click to expand...

I agree again, general lying in ordinary circumstance is wrong. Note in the particular case, it was more of "pretending" rather than deliberately telling a lie.

The verses aren't the problem, it's the individuals who alter them from their original course or meaning that are the problem. Christian extremists also twist and distort the scriptures to justify committing atrocities.

Click to expand...

Again, WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong.
Note what is at stake here is 'salvation for eternal life in paradise' and no believers would dare to twist God's word deliberately.
The 3400++ verses of antagonistic and hatred loaded on non-Muslims is so obvious and thus will influence Muslims to follow their God in hating non-Muslims [a pool of 320 million is likely to do so].
Thus some % will be influenced to kill non-Muslims via 9:5 and other verses with evil and violent motives.

Note Christians may twist the words of God and Jesus in the Gospels, but that has nothing to do with Christianity because Christianity has protected itself from blame with the overriding pacifist maxim of 'love all - even enemies'.

Do you feel that I should also be condemning the Bible verses that extremists or Christian terrorist organizations have used their actions?

Click to expand...

There are not many verses in the Gospels that are 'grey' in terms of evil and violence.
You can regret they are there BUT you should praise your religion, Christianity, God and Jesus as having the wisdom and moral for including the overriding pacifist maxim within the Gospels.

You mean I haven't countered the above to your impossible standards.

Click to expand...

What impossible standards.
I have demonstrated it very objectively and you can verify the verses to the Gospels, i.e. the core of Christianity.

The Qur'an was written 1,400 years ago. What you are reading in the Qur'an are verses that were supposedly revealed at different times in Muhammad’s life. Some verses answered specific questions at a specific time or during a specific historical event such as a battle. Many verses have specific messages intended for specific people, while others give general guidelines to be used for future generations. So when you read the Qur’an it's important to understand what was happening at the time that resulted in a particular verse to be revealed to Muhammad.

The Bible is similar in the fact that each book was written to a specific audience, who were facing specific circumstances, at a specific point in time. The Bible wasn't written to Christians living in the year 2019, but it was written for us in 2019.

Historical context means everything when trying to understand and properly interpret religious texts. You are obviously having a difficult time in doing this in regards to the Qur'an, and this is why I suggested you take some courses in Islamic Studies in the other thread.

Click to expand...

When you bring the historical context, then it become very subjective, contentious and flimsy.
We can consider the history perspective, but one has to note the various related contentious issues, and we cannot put too much weight on the history criteria.

What is more objective is to take whatever as presented in the Quran and delivering the doctrines and principles for Muslims to comply with as terms of their covenant with Allah.

Here is Qur'an 5:3 in full context:

Prohibited for you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and animals dedicated to other than God; also the flesh of animals strangled, killed violently, killed by a fall, gored to death, mangled by wild animals—except what you rescue, and animals sacrificed on altars; and the practice of drawing lots. For it is immoral. Today, those who disbelieve have despaired of your religion, so do not fear them, but fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My favor upon you, and have approved Islam as a religion for you. But whoever is compelled by hunger, with no intent of wrongdoing—God is Forgiving and Merciful.

It's ironic that you would use this verse to defend your position that the the Qur'an is saying that disbelievers are a threat to Islam.

This verse was supposedly revealed to Muhammad when Islam had finally developed into a complete way of life for Muslims and is referred to as the Ikmal al-Din or "perfection of the religion" in English. This verse says that non-Muslims had now reached a point of no hope in destroying Islam and it tells Muslims that they no longer needed to fear non-Muslims; they should only fear God. This verse is considered by most Muslims to be the final verse revealed to Muhammad and in essence it tells Muslims that non-Muslims are no longer a treat to them which is the exact opposite of what you believe it's saying.

Which brings us to this:

Click to expand...

What I meant is the Quran is perfected by Allah as claimed in 5:3.
There are many verses []3400++ of the perfected Quran that sent the message to Muslims, disbelievers are a threat to Islam, thus their salvation. This is why SOME believers will do whatever Allah advise them to do against the disbelievers.

Note the quote I referred directly from IS which claimed they killed non-Muslims because they are disbelievers as the primary reason, and the others, e.g. political interference and occupation are secondary reasons.

Since Qur'an 5:3 is considered to be the final revelation to Muhammad, using your own theory of abrogation and how the verses revealed later in Muhammad's life override previous ones, the war between Muslims and non-Muslims is over. That verse tells Muslims that non-Muslims have lost hope in the fight against Islam and that Muslims no longer need to fear them.

Click to expand...

Nope, 5:3 is not the final revelation. It is just a report and in any case the Allah already had the perfected religion beside his 'throne'.
The significance of 5:3 is that the Quran is perfected by God thus cannot be changed by believers and humans.

Do you believe we should ignore them? Why shouldn't we judge extremists and point out how they are morally wrong in their interpretations? Should we just allow their perverted ideologies spread without consequence?

Click to expand...

As long at the perfected and immutable Quran and Islam exists there is no way you can do anything effectively to change the minds of the 320 million evil prone Muslims, especially when what is at stake is salvation for eternal life in paradise. They are like drowning people grabbing at straws or anything to save themselves.

Note again, WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong?

What is critical is to recognize is Islam as it is, i.e. it has perverted elements in its ideology which are supposedly from a God and thus cannot be changed. These evil laden ideology has influenced, inspired and compelled [subliminally] to commit terrible evil and violence to please Allah and be assured of their salvation.

In Islam these stories are important in telling how the Muslim faith came into existence.

Click to expand...

So it is the same with those stories of wars committed by Muhammad against the innocent Jews, Christian and infidels.
Point is those stories from the Bible are to highlight the necessary principles, thus it the same with those stories of war mongering and killing by Muhammad and his gang.

If history;
the people of Mecca before Muhammad started preaching, were living harmoniously among themselves practicing different religions with tolerance.
It was Muhammad the false prophet with a false religion [note you agreed on this] that started to preach and condemn the practices of the Meccan people then in 610 CE. These people warned Muhammad not to preach but he insisted, thus obviously the Meccan people then were angry especially when their religions is being insulted.
So in terms of history, it was Muhammad who initiated the historical horror since 1400 years ago to the present.
There are so many controversies within the historical perspective and you are not likely to have any solid grounding from your arguments.

Christian extremists alter verses from the Bible from their original course or meaning to justify their actions, therefore; Christian extremism is inconceivable without reference to Christianity.

Click to expand...

In a very loose way, yes, those people were identified as Christian.
But in principle, the evil and violent acts by Christians on their own free will has nothing to do with Christianity which has an overriding clause and maxim of "love all - even enemies" to absolve itself from any evil acts of Christians.
Example, it a pedophile Christian priest raped children, surely you cannot blame Christianity the religion for such acts. You can blame the church management skills but not Christianity the religion.

This mythical pool of yours is very weak. Since the inception of Islam, less than 1% of Muslims have participated in violent jihad. Today fewer than 1/10th of 1% of Muslims are doing so and there is no evidence that this number is presently increasing. If there are 320 million evil prone Muslims, why aren't there more of them acting out violently towards non-Muslims since this is what you believe the Qur'an commands Muslims to do? There isn't even 1% of your mythical 320 million doing this.

Click to expand...

Mythical??
I have provided provided objective argument to substantiate the existence of a 20% of evil prone humans within ALL of humanity. Thus 20% or 320 million of Muslims are evil prone.
Note I stated evil prone thus a strong potential of evil from a pool of 320 evil prone Muslims.
I believe it is stupid to expect ALL or 100% of the 320 million to commit terrorist attacks at the same time or at all times.

Note if 0.01% that is 160,000.
In terms of terrorist attacks even 16,000, i.e. 0.001% is a very serious concern.

Terrorist attacks are the usual mentions and referenced because these are very glaring but what i am more concern with is the whole gamut and range of evil and violent acts from mild to extreme from the potential pool of 320 million. I suggest you be more aware and mindful to the whole range of terrible evil and violent acts committed by evil prone Muslims around the world.

You seem to have difficulty comprehending what is being said in that article.

Until Western intelligence, military, and law enforcement personnel are provided with accurate information about the history and core religious doctrines of Islam and the intrinsically extremist nature of Islamism, and until they are taught how to distinguish between Muslim moderates and Islamist extremists (including those who are posing as moderates) and learn how to recognise the many telltale signs of Islamist ideological radicalisation, they will generally be unable to identify prospective jihadist terrorists in advance.

The above is talking about people like you who can't differentiate between the religion of Islam and what it teaches and the extremist ideology and what it teaches. Until you can can make a distinction between the religion of Islam and extremism, you will continue to be in error.

Click to expand...

I think you are having the problem due to confirmation bias.
Note I have already argued the Muslims of IS are >90% Islamic as demonstrated objectively based on their compliance to the 6236 verses of the Quran.
You have been able to counter this point convincingly using the historical excuses.

It should also go without saying that relying on Islamist activists for “advice” about how to deal with the threat posed by Islamism is not only preposterous but utterly self-defeating.

Click to expand...

Once again, the above is talking about people like you. The sources you have been using and relying on to support your position in these threads have been coming from extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists.

Dr. Bale differentiates between the religion of Islam and Islamism (Extremism) in his articles. Your failure to do this is what leads you to have a misunderstanding of what Islam teaches.

Click to expand...

You are waving silly excuses.
I derived by views and conclusion mainly based on the direct sources of Islam, i.e. the Quranic verses which I had researched and analyzed in great details.

While the present group of anti-Islamist are reasonable and objective with their critique of Islam based on Islamic sources, they have not dug deep enough into human nature.

Bale agreed Islamism is a part and parcel of Islam but he is unable to find the direct correlation like what I did because he missed out on the critical human factors.

What counts ultimately is a rational objective basis to support one's view.

JosephZ said:

I will get back to the friend issue, but you have repeatedly made the claim that Islam doesn't teach Muslims to love others, and especially their enemies, but this verse shows this not to be true. In this verse it clearly shows that the Muslims do love others, even those who hate them and want to do them harm. Where would they have learned this?

O you who believe! Do not befriend outsiders who never cease to wish you harm.They love to see you suffer. Hatred has already appeared from their mouths, but what their hearts conceal is worse. We have made the messages clear for you, if you understand. There you are, you love them, but they do not love you, and you believe in the entire scripture. And when they meet you, they say, “We believe;” but when they are alone, they bite their fingers in rage at you. Say, “Die in your rage; God knows what is within the hearts.” (qur'an 3:118-119)

I also gave you some supporting Islamic texts to show where Muslims are taught to love others, but you discounted it. Here is is again:



Now back to the friend issue:


If you read chapter 60 in it's entirety, that is only talking about some non-Muslims. Those who are fighting against Islam.

Perhaps God will plant affection between you and those of them you consider enemies. God is Capable. God is Forgiving and Merciful.

As for those who have not fought against you for your religion, nor expelled you from your homes, God does not prohibit you from dealing with them kindly and equitably. God loves the equitable.

But God prohibits you from befriending those who fought against you over your religion, and expelled you from your homes, and aided in your expulsion. Whoever takes them for friends—these are the wrongdoers. (Quran 60:7-9)

The non-believers that are considered enemies in verse 1 are only those who are fighting against Islam and persecuting Muslims. There is no condition that they someday become believers. Once they stop fighting against Islam and Muslims, they are no longer considered enemies.


Here you are once again using the point of view of an extremist to support your position.
Muhammad Al-Munajjid, [A Saudi Arabian Whahhabist Cleric] -- "Follows Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab movement." He is the founder of IslamQA.info and oversees the fatwas issued on the website. He follows the Hanbali jurisprudence and uses the basis of the salafi movement to answer questions on the website.

Salafis, and especially those who follow the Hanbali school of thought, follow a very strict literal interpretation of the Qur'an. They are much like the Fundamental Independent Baptists in Christianity and their numbers are very small.

The Hanbali school was founded by Ahmad ibn Hanbal in the 9th century. It is primarily found in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and has some presence in the countries surrounding the KSA, such as Qatar, UAE, Bahrain, Yemen, and Oman. It is the smallest Sunni school by far, estimated to contain fewer than 5% of the world’s Muslims as adherents, but as they are concentrated in areas of great wealth and power it has a stronger influence on global Islamic thought than might be expected.

Here are some examples of the extreme teachings found at that site you inked to:
Women who drive are prostitutes, women being "weak, defeated and dazzled" if they take part in politics, women being intellectually inferior to men, women who work as broadcasters will lead to illegitimate children, needing to divorce women who don't wear the hijab, needing to leave work if there are women working there too, polygamy being necessary for all Muslim males, women who do not marry will become prostitutes and the illegitimacy of the children will be reflected in their behavior, a muslim male being sinful for getting to know a girl for the sake of marriage, being sinful to live in non-Muslim countries (and needing to hate non-muslims if one does live in a non-muslim country), and not being allowed to appreciate the skills of non-muslim football players, because they are non-muslim.

Needless to say, the above are not a part of the teachings of the religion of Islam, nor do very many Muslims believe that way.


Yes, martyrdom is honored in Islam, but the above has nothing to do with suicide attacks or terrorism in general.


Yes, you cherry pick verses and have a problem comprehending what you are reading. I have already addressed some of these verses already for you in other threads. If you read the surrounding context and have an understanding of the historical context in which these verses are written, it will become clear to you that these verse do not tell Muslims that they can't befriend non-Muslims.

Whether you realize it or not, you are legitimizing extremists and their perverted teachings by equating extremism with the religion of Islam. I hope you will take a pause and enroll in some courses on Islamic Studies so you will have a better understanding of what Islam actually teaches. What you have been posting here comes straight from the mouths of Islamic extremists and anti-Islamic propagandists and it's counter productive in fighting against Islamic extremism. This was the entire point of Dr. Bale's article you linked to.

Click to expand...

I am not legitimizing extremists' acts of violence.
Note I have stated, even one act of evil or violence must be addressed or nipped in the bud.

What I am highlighting is the fact that the ideology of Islam contained inherently perverted evil and violent elements which had inspired, influenced and compelled [subliminally] SOME from the pool of 20% of Muslim, i.e. 320 million at present to commit terrible evil and violent acts upon non-Muslims and others.

Note again, WHO ARE YOU, me or anyone who can judge their interpretation is wrong?
As such your approach will ensure the existence of 320 million evil prone Muslim who will sincerely interpret the Allah's words accordingly as stated in the Quran, thus allowing the terrible evil and violent acts to continue and worsen with greater threats to humanity when WMDs [nukes and biological] are easily available.

My strategy of highlighting the existing of evil and violent elements in the Quran which are immutable and their exposure to a pool of 20% or 320 million evil prone Muslims is very factual and truthful.
You on the other hand is toying with lies and guess works.

Note humanity cannot change the DNA of humans to tweak the 20% of evil prone humans to eliminate the possibility of evil and violent acts by human.

In addition, no humans can delete, edit or change the verses in the Quran to make sure no one can will commit evil and violence from the Quran of Islam because the Quran and Islam is perfected [5:3] and thus immutable.

Humanity can try to suppress the evil and violent elements in the Quran but it will not work and had not worked since the attempts from 1400 years ago by various reformists who are humans thus cannot override Allah's words which is biddah and the worst sin.

Thus the long term solution [at least theoretical at present] is to suppress [or get rid] the ideology of Islam, and no one on Earth will be able to refer to rely on the words of a God to justify their evil and violent acts when driven by the impulse for salvation.
So what follows from this elimination is Muslims can convert to Christianity or other pacifist religions to deal with the inherent existential crisis.

From the above, in what sense am I legitimizing extremists and their evil and violent acts based on the Quranic verses?

Rather, your pussi-footing around the issue and placating will ensure Muslims from the pool of the 20% or 320 million of evil prone will continue to wreck evil and violence upon non-Muslims and others based on their sincere interpretation of Allah's words in the Quran just like what was going on since 1400 years ago.

Re the friendly verses;
Your excuses for 3:118-119, 60:8-9 are very flimsy and they are conditional and contextual to certain conditions.
Note the other 20+ verses I highlighted where Allah do not permit Muslims to befriend non-Muslims even their father, bethrens and kin. What are your counter to this?
Don't forget this 20+ verses are within the set of 3400+ verses that are antagonistic and contemptuous to non-Muslims that generate terrible hatred for non-Muslims especially coming from an entity [God] that is holding their life and threat death on a thread.

As for verse 3:52, 41:34 and others, I have already countered them that they are ineffective to support your points and claims that Islam is inherently peaceful. Relying on 3:52 is really a sham where there is room to kill non-Muslims if they commit corruption [fasadin] thus a threat, where even cartoons will warrant killing of non-Muslims.

Here you are once again using the point of view of an extremist to support your position.

Click to expand...

Again, who are you, me or any one to judge they are wrong?

JosephZ,

You condemned those who critique Islam as unreliable even when these critiques relied on direct sources from the Quran or Ahadith. From what I have heard from them, they clearly stated their references are directly from the Quran or Ahadith, plus exegesis [tafsir] from notable scholars of Islam.

You must substantiate your claims based on facts.

Show me evidence where these critiques* of Islam have been sloppy in arriving at their conclusion and views of Islam.
* e.g. David Wood, Robert Spencer, Christian Prince, et al.

Here is one view from David Wood re 5:32

Eyes wide Open said:

Isis is radically different because it's applied in a completely different culture and context to early Islam, without Muhammad.
I find it disturbing that it can be applied to current times by Isis members but then I'm disturbed by a president declaring a war on terror using the word God in his justification of that war, yes a Christian God. Islam and Christianity are uniquely different, but both subject to scrutiny both past and present but only with an unbiased eye. It doesn't happen. Both these religions do not serve us currently in our global overlapping, so I hope they both reduce in size to a tiny flicker and allow the rest of us to live peacefully.

Click to expand...

I agree with your last statement, but note this correction:

Islam was from Allah where its core of 6236 verses of the Quran were revealed via Muhammad through angel Gabriel.
A Muslim of Islam is one who had entered into a covenant [a divine contract] with Allah to comply with the covenanted terms within the 6236 verses [to the best of their ability] in exchange for salvation in paradise with eternal life.

Note IS members comply with >90% of the 6236 verses of the Quran thus they are correspondingly >90% Islamic.
The so-called moderate Muslims at most comply with <60% of the 6236 verses of the Quran - the core constitution of Islam.

The ex-President who went to war with reference to the Christian God was wrong. Such a claim cannot be attributed to Christianity itself, because Christianity per se has an overriding pacifist maxim of love all -even enemies, thus cannot be calling Christians to war against enemies.

Christians who went to war. commit various evil and violent acts did such acts on their own free will for various reasons [e.g. the greater good or personal] and they have sinned, thus will have to face God justice of Judgment Day.