/islam/ - 8ch Masjid

>>20186

Radicalization only occurs in people who were already predisposed to radicalism. Politics doesn't make serial killers or spree murderers. Omar Mateen, the fellow in your pic, would have been a murderer with or without Islam and with or without politics.

People who commit horrific acts always try to find an excuse. The devil made me do it. Islam made me do it. My dog told me to do it. This sort of thing comes from a severe mental illness and not from true outside sources.

>>20186

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABMbmWuFaZM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU90AaKsGm8

>>20186

The difference between the first and second generation is that the first was screened to make sure they weren't extremists. There's no screening for babies. The second generation youth can easily be influenced by extremist propaganda and there's not much Western countries can do to prevent it without violating peoples' civil rights.

I can explain:

When you get constantly told you're evil, your religion is evil, that you need to be put on watchlists, that you need to 'integrate' and throw away your morals, you're going to get angry.

Different people will act out in different ways, and once the extremists get to those people they're gone and there's very little chance of them going back because they will be taught to reject any dissenters as 'westernised hypocrites'.

I'm not a Muslim, but I hope I can give my Roman Catholic perspective.

Being raised in the west (i.e. mostly around leftists that try to push atheism and other degeneracy down my throat) I'm pushed into traditional/conservative beliefs of my faith.

When people in the media or in my uni keep attacking my core beliefs I just retreat further into a circle of people that think similarly to me (Traditional Catholics).

I'm sure it's the same for radical Muslims, mixed in with the fact that they hold a lot of hatred for western countries that have fucked up their native countries.

>>20293

Most of us don't really pay attention to such things, but from my personal experience the Left doesn't spew hatred at Muslims. It's the Right that has the most derision and hatred for Muslims because they see us as "invaders".

I'm White, blue eyed, and my family has been in this country for 200 years. Just being a Muslim gets Trump-loving flag wavers screaming at me to "gtfo muh country" while the Left tend to just shrug and move on.

It is different for Christians because it is the opposite. The Left hates Christians while the Right embraces them.

Generally it would be that Muslims born in America(or any other nation) would grow to like their country and would contribute to it and defend it, however after seeing how their country hates them, they feel betrayed they stop liking it and end up hating it. 1st generation Muslims, don't really have that in mind when they immigrate and only move for job opportunities so. I for one liked America at first, and was very interested in it's history and learned a lot about it, during school I was the most knowledgeable person in American history and law, even more than the teachers, but with recent events, I began to saw the true nature of Americans and don't like it any more. Although I certainly don't feel pushed to commit crimes, but others might have a similar through process and may end up committing crimes as a form of "retaliation".

>>20258

You kinda understand migrating to a country that allows you in the first place to come in, and asks you to integrate, and you refuse, is kinda retarded right?

Like if I moved to an Islamic country and refused to integrate, defied all the Islamic laws, self-segregated. I'd be persecuted - far worse. The question rises, why did stupid liberals allow Muslims to migrate in the first place to Western countries where they're so evidently unhappy?

>>20258

Also all the state apparatus school systems, educational institutions, and sho on, all push for 'muh diversity' inclusion and forces that narrative on people. I think you're talking about political fringes, or the reports of Islamic terrorism being said on the news. Reporting on terrorism is not being told you're evil.

>>20407

I don't know about Europe, but there is no integration in the US because there is no real US culture. We are an amalgam of the many different cultures that settled here. We don't ask immigrants to integrate because, well, integrate to what?

>>20409

I agree. I'm from Europe so it was from that perspective. America was originally an Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation, which subsequently accepted increasingly different immigrant populations. IIRC it was originally intended for 'white persons of good character'. But that got overturned. I guess you could categorize an American culture as common adherence to the ideology it was founded on; so Constitutionalism, free speech, self-sufficiency etc. Islam isn't so keen on free speech to my knowledge.

You also have regional cultures like in the South, which is extremely baptist and Celtic. There's a lot of hate for Islam in common people, because it is an invasive entity. I'm sure Muslims would feel exactly the same if mass migration of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Christians/Jews/Pagans/whatever were streaming into their nations and their elites were complicit in it. In fact I think you'd see a far more violent and decisive reaction, than the flabby impotency of the Western populaces.

>>20411

>America was originally an Anglo-Saxon Protestant nation

Nah. It was originally full of pagans. Then the Brits, Spaniards, and Chinese came. But that's not important.

No, Islam is not huge on free speech; but that doesn't matter in America. Muslims don't have to exercise free speech if they don't want to and can even silence people in the Mosques and homes. The First Amendment only protects you from interference by the government, but not from everyone and everything. You can't walk into a Mosque and start preaching Christianity and cry "free speech" when you're kicked out. Sort of like I can't start praying on the sidewalk, blocking a public thoroughfare, and cry "muh freedom" when I'm told to move.

I actually live in the South and there is not a lot of hatred for Islam that I've ever encountered. Some, yes, but not to the degree that people imagine. We're not the "yeehaw whites only!" place people imagine. Hell, I was raised in the 1970s-80s to give deference to people's cultures because every culture is what makes the US.

It's not really about the Founders, either. I mean, they all owned slaves - but slavery is illegal in the US. It was, perhaps, the idea that "White, Christian, landed men" were the only ones to whom the Constitution applied, but their document has been amended to include all people born in the US. I find the vast majority of people who demand we view the Constitution with that ideology would strip themselves of Constitutional protection because they don't own land. We have to take the document as a whole, not just the parts we like.

>>20414

>America was multiculti

The 'term' America comes from European colonists. The USA was founded by white Anglo Saxon Protestants. It's founding population were English people, and the ensuing Celto-Germanic populations that migrated were expected to merge into that population and integrate with the values of the republic.

That's why I put 'originally'.

>It's not really about the Founders, either. I mean, they all owned slaves - but slavery is illegal in the US. It was, perhaps, the idea that "White, Christian, landed men" were the only ones to whom the Constitution applied, but their document has been amended to include all people born in the US. I find the vast majority of people who demand we view the Constitution with that ideology would strip themselves of Constitutional protection because they don't own land. We have to take the document as a whole, not just the parts we like.

I see what you're saying.

Also, what would an Islamic state (not the terrorist one, an actual one) do about tens of thousands of non-Muslims migrating into the country, and ending up out-populating the founding population of Muslims?

>>20416

The term "America" is from an Italian explorer's name, so should we all be Italian? America has always been multi-cultural. I'm in no way ashamed of that. I'm quite proud that my nation has been around for this long without a whole lot of wars going on. We had the one Civil War, but can you imagine the individual states declaring war on each other all the time?

>what would an Islamic state … migrants

Islam has always been welcoming of migrants, but there's never really been a proper Islamic State. Sure, there are nations with a Muslim majority and some nations that incorporate Islamic law into their national laws; but we have no modern nations that are truly 100% Islamic. Even Saudi Arabia clings to a lot of its cultural past, rather than Islam, for its national laws.

Anyway, the idea is that "things change". What would a proper Islamic State do? Nothing. We're not afraid of other cultures and Islam does not build walls. Individual nations might, but there is nothing in Islam requiring the protection of some arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Even if every single other person around me is not Muslim, I still am. I don't look to my neighbors for guidance, only Allah.

>>20420

No, the USA was not founded on multi-racial/culturalism. It was founded as a White nation, otherwise why would they limit immigration to only other White people? I guess you could say, as they let in different European ethnic groups in the later 1800s, there arose 'multiculturalism' among White people, because the state couldn't assimilate all the different European/White ethnicities into the common Anglo Saxon culture.

>Anyway, the idea is that "things change". What would a proper Islamic State do? Nothing. We're not afraid of other cultures and Islam does not build walls. Individual nations might, but there is nothing in Islam requiring the protection of some arbitrary line drawn in the sand. Even if every single other person around me is not Muslim, I still am. I don't look to my neighbors for guidance, only Allah.

So, if Muslims were going to be outpopulated in their own nations, and inevitably would have the capability to install their own political regimes, like how Muslims conquered Christian, Zoroastrian, Hindu and Pagan countries, there wouldn't be any kind of limitation there? Muslims wouldn't think "Hmm, the kufr are really expanding a lot, could this be a bad thing for the Muslims? How do we stop them?"

>>20421

>It was founded as a White nation

Yes, but things change. I hate to pull the "muh current year" meme, but … we're not the same nation we were in 1790. The Constitution has been amended, which is something that the Founders permitted (Article V). So, whatever the Founders were doing way back in the 1790s was appropriate for the time, but they knew that things would change and that their document needed to be changed from time to time.

Do you want to live like people did in the 1790s? Turn off your electricity.

>>20425

The irony of this post is veritable. I won't point out the obvious silliness of a Muslim doing 'IT'S 2017', because I know this is a 'Muslim safespace', and you'll chop my… I mean, ban me.

All I'll say is, it's 2017. Islam should change and amend its founding documents because times are different. Mohammed would want homo-tolerance n' shit.

>>20425

Also there was no need to include non-white immigration. Literally none. It was more of an ideological and capitalist issue of (((them))) + moneybags wanting more and more cheap labor to exploit.

>>20429

The Constitution allows you to amend it. Article V. You should read it some time.

Qur'an doesn't have such provisions.

>>20430

>there was no need to include non-white immigration

Opinions.

>>20432

>shekel-surfing to include non-white immigration for dreadful economic exploitation is a valid reason

Opinions.

>>20431

So do you support stoning homosexuals, killing apostates, treating kufr unfairly when juxtaposed to a believer, etc?

>>20435

>So do you support stoning homosexuals, killing apostates, treating kufr unfairly

No, I do not. Do you?

>>20438

Isn't that written in the Quran?

>>20439

No, it isn't. At all.

>>20440

Where does it come from? The Surahs?

>>20441

It comes from a combination of weak hadith and cultural/tribal tradition. It's why the practice of Islam can be so different from nation to nation, similar to any religion. Sometimes a nation will incorporate tribal tradition into the religion. The most obvious example is the removal of girls' clitoris. There is absolutely nothing in Islam that requires such a barbaric practice, but some African Muslim nations have kept the practice up from the old tribal days.

There's no Caliphate anymore to keep that sort of thing from happening, so Muslims are generally free to do whatever they want and say it's "in the name of Islam" without any actual proof of it being Islamic. Someone with a turban and a beard says, "It is this way!" and his people just shrug and say, "ok".

>>20442

Intredasting. What would be the truly Islamic way to deal with homosexuals? Christians want to re-educate them, usually out of their own free will - if they're willing to leave that lifestyle behind. Does Islam not draw from biblical tradition like the Old Testament at all?

>>20442

+ How is/are the stoning of homos hadith/s weak? Could you explain?

>>20443

The Qur'an is exceptionally vague when it comes to doling out punishments for anything. Allah will punish the sins of others, but very little is proscribed to us. We're told to rebuke and correct, but killing someone doesn't allow them a chance to repent and come back to the right path. We do, after all, still have the whole "thou shalt not kill" thing from Torah as well as the whole forgiveness, love, and brotherhood from the Gospel. Outright killing someone for sinning is murder.

Yes, the Prophet did say (according to some) that people caught engaging in homosexual behavior should be killed. Just being homosexual means nothing as only actions can be sinful and not thoughts. A celibate homosexual is no different than a celibate heterosexual.

>>20444

Many of the "death penalty for homosexuals" writings came from Ibn al-Jawzi and Al-Nuwayri. Both men lived hundreds of years after the Prophet's death.

I suppose it should also be noted that hadith can be questioned. They are not to be blindly followed simply because of "tradition" or "appeal to authority". We do look to the Prophets for guidance, but Muhammad was the last … not the only.

>>20444

1] No hadith says to stone homosexuals

2] The Prophet may have said to execute homosexuals caught in the act, but he never actually put any homosexuals to death.

>>20450

So if you as a Muslim caught a homosexual in the act, would you kill him? If the prophet said so, wouldn't it be against his will not to?

>>20451

> if you as a Muslim caught a homosexual in the act, would you kill him?

No, that would be murder. Islam has courts, trials, and things like that.

>>20455

So you'd call the Islamic police to have him trialled for execution? How does this work if you're living in a non-Muslim country?

>>20457

If I see someone committing a crime, I tend to call the police, yes. However, we are bound by Allah to follow the laws of the land in which we live. Homosexual acts are not illegal in the United States and, thus, I would simply look away and move on.

Radicalization is caused by ignorance of Islam. Those extremists think they are doing what Muslims are supposed to do. If they understood Islam better then they wouldn't be doing it, or at least wouldn't "be using it as an excuse"

I am sick and tired of Muslims saying that radicalization has nothing to do with Islam. And it seems that this board bans anyone who says ISIS has anything to do with Islam. This is censorship that encourages ignorance (which encourages more radicalization)

>>20513

>this board bans anyone who says ISIS has anything to do with Islam

Yes. For the same reason this board bans people who equate the "Nation of Islam" to Islam. ISIS has nothing to do with Islam and anyone who believes it does is ignorant and needs to read before posting.

But, if you look at the actual ban list for this board, nobody has been banned for comparing ISIS to Islam. There are 2 active bans and that's it. But, hey, keep telling lies, eh?

>>20515

> needs to read

Read what? What are the prerequisite materials to read before posting on this board?

Also I've been banned more than a year ago. I didn't care to know my ban was up, sorry. Good job falsely accusing me of lying, pretty sure that's a big sin.And my point still stands; the threads are locked with no explanation and effectively that makes it censorship.

>>20521

>What are the prerequisite materials to read before posting on this board?

Qur'an and the Sunnah. This is a Muslim board.

>>20524

I have read the Quran and it says that only Allah can judge who is a Muslim or not. Actually it says anyone who greets you with Salam should be considered a Muslim and a Hadith said that some were skeptical of people saying these things and the prophet (pbuh) asked if they had cut out the heart to be sure.

Anyways, I have read the Quran and some hadiths and I don't get how anyone can say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. Only Allah can say such a thing.

>>20528

>I don't get how anyone can say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam

So, you think perverting Allah's word allows someone to call themselves Muslim simply for it being Allah's word?

If a group like NAMBLA claimed to be Muslim and greeted everyone with salam, would you embrace them as your brothers?

>>20530

They do not claim to be perverting Allah's word, and they will make the same accusation to you and anyone who does not agree with them. This is extreme hypocrisy.

I will greet anyone as my brother and sister, and if they are willing to discuss their opinions and beliefs then I will engage in discussion with them to wonder how they can call themselves Muslim in an attempt to clarify what I think our religion is supposed to be about. Doing anything else is risking division in our (lack of) ummah.

>>20532

They execute people by setting them on fire even though it is clearly states that punishment by fire is Allah's punishment alone.

If you want to defend ISIS, this is the wrong board for you.

>>20533

I do not want to defend ISIS. I want to defend the people who (correctly) think that there is a problem in the global Muslim community that is creating the issues of Islamic radicalization.

If it so clearly states it as such, then why do they call themselves Muslim? If there are ulterior motives to make our religion look bad, then who is responsible for such a travesty?

>>20534

If there are ulterior motives to make our religion look bad, then it is solidly within the hands of those who support, fund, and recognize the validity of ISIS as Islam.

You recognize their validity, thus, you are part of the problem. ISIS is no more Islam than Mormons. But, hey, if they greet with Salams, everyone's Muslim right?

>>20536

Listen bub. Declaring Takfir is not allowed without a court. To say ISIS is not Muslims is declaring Takfir. ISIS declares Takfir so that they can kill whoever they want to kill. It's hypocrisy to say ISIS is not Muslim when ISIS themselves say others are not Muslim so that they can be killed.

I simply refuse to be a hypocrite, unlike the people here who really should learn more about Islam. Get it through your thick heads that you are doing the exact same thing as ISIS when you say ISIS is not Muslim. I never said that they ARE Muslim, just that it's wrong to say that they are not. Discussing a topic does not validate it.

I am basically repeating myself when I say that I don't want to validate ISIS but I want to validate the issue in how Islam is being practiced today. There's literally nothing I have said that validates ISIS. Avoiding a topic is part of the problem. This problem needs to be discussed, ignoring it won't make it go away.

When I say that ISIS may be misinterpreting the Quran I am not validating them. When I ask why ISIS calls themselves Muslim I am not validating it. But avoiding these topics is fueling the ignorance that creates issues leading to ISIS.

If ISIS knows that Takfir isn't allowed without a court then they wouldn't be able to kill anyone. You can say that they are not Muslim and that they don't actually care about the rules, but ordinary Muslims do care about what is written in the Quran. And it's ordinary Muslims that end up becoming brainwashed to join ISIS. Id ordinary Muslims knew that takfir is bad, then they would not be able to get brainwashed.

But how can ordinary Muslims ever learn this, if the corrupted version of Islam that ISIS preaches is not analyzed for it's faults?

It's ludicrous to say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam. If that was true, then why would they call themselves Muslims and why are they attempting to create a caliphate? If an ignorant Muslim simply wondered hey how come we don't have an Ummah, they might end up joining ISIS without realizing that it's a corrupted version of Islam.

>>20543

tl;dr

>>20544

Was the Quran also too long?

>>20545

>comparing your drooling drivel to Qur'an

gb2 /pol/

>>20543

What happened to attacking the argument? Good job following your own rules

very interesting thread

Imagine you are a first generation muslim. You've learned about Islam and lead a normal life. Your friends in the home country were mostly all Muslim. You did your prayers (maybe) and fasted with everyone.

This is not unlike most Christians. They just go through the motions because there is no real challenge to their beliefs. They don't go to church every Sunday.. just whenever. If they are Catholic they may give up meat on Fridays of Lent.

Now the children are in the information age. They can get info about anything. They can look into Islam. Well, what is the origin of Islam? Is it a peace spreading religion, or did Mohammad fight quite a bit? What are the core-principals, the core-worldview?

Of course, as they dig deeper they become radicalized. And they have to dig deeper.. they were never part of a majority. Their beliefs are questioned. They are outcasts and .. well when they do dig deeper, you might end up trying to take out plane of Kufar..

>>20709

That makes no sense at all. The deeper you dig into Islam, the more you find out that murder is a sin, suicide is a sin, causing mischief is a sin, terrorism is a sin. War happens, but war has rules. Jihad has rules. It's not some wild west "yeehaw" while you blow up an airplane full of innocent people.

>>20710

You can't deny the historical aspect of Islam as a religion of war. What that means in the modern day doesn't equate to armies. That would take some herculean faith that Allah would give victory to a Muslim army. Instead, it means doing what Mohammad did; destroying the idols in Kaba. It means instilling the fear of Islam in non-Muslims because God's wrath is upon them.

Murder/Suicide/terrorism are all sins in Islam, but against other Muslims. In Islam there is a class system. First is the umma. Second are the people of the book. Third is polytheists and monothiests who aren't Jews/Christians. Finally there is the apostates. The rules of action toward each are different.

>>20711

I don't deny that Muhammad(pbuh) united the Arab peninsula through war; but you cannot deny that it was tried diplomatically at first.

Also, while there are different approaches to how people are treated in Islam, not one of them includes outright murder. Islam has a court system. Or did you not get that far in your "research"?

Well, if you agree that he took land after first offering them a peaceful conversion, then I think you see why the young get radicalized. Agree to convert or I will attack very easily translates into attacking non-believers. This is especially true if you are immersing yourself in Islam and making the mistake that others have the knowledge that you have.

Of course not one calls for murder outright, but if they should refuse to convert… well you can use a little force. If they resist? Well they might be dead.

>>20714

No, you cannot use coercion or force to convert someone.

There shall be no compulsion in acceptance of the religion. [2:256]

‘The truth is from your Lord.’ Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve. [18:29]

>>20711

>Islam was spread by the sword meme

Oh please, at the very least Google it and read about it from a Muslim perspective.

Anyways the real reason I explained already, it has to do with takfir, and how Muslims are ignorant about how takfir isn't allowed unless determined by court, and so they get brainwashed… but I got banned for it lol

>>20716

9:29"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued."

As you know, this verse comes after 2:256 and the method of interpretation in Islam says the later verses supersede the earlier ones. Unless you can show me another school of interpretation that is popular in Islam saying otherwise.

>>20721

I'm from Iraq.. I grew up in the Muslim perspective. No one seriously believes that it was spread by missionaries.

>>20727

>the later verses supersede the earlier ones

So [18:29] supercedes [9:29].

Force cannot be used to convert someone. Period.

>>20731

You know as well as I do Islam teaches that chronological order, not literary order, is used. The Quran is not chronological.

>>20732

But YOU said:

>>20727

> the later verses supersede the earlier ones

That's you. You said that.

That means, by your own statement, that [18:29] supersedes [9:19] since 18 comes after 9. [18:29] is a later verse.

‘The truth is from your Lord.’ Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve.

You can't backpedal, friend.

>>20733

Latter verses, as in chronologically latter. This isn't my own thinking, this is Islam's understanding. Just because I didn't specify chronological order doesn't change the fact that this paradigm of interpretation exists in Islam and is about chronological order.

I thought you guys knew how this worked, my apologies.

>>20735

Ok, well here's the order:

[2:256]

[9:29]

[18:29]

Which of those verses is the "latest" and "most important" of the three?

>>20709

>Of course, as they dig deeper they become radicalized.

…Yet ISIS members (and Salafis in general, if we're being honest) are all direly ignorant of classical Islamic jurisprudence and theology.

Extremism is a product of DIY interpretations, not "delving deeper."

[You're right about abrogation, although the actual mechanics of abrogation are rather complex and disputed.]

>>20746

Here http://www.qran.org/q-trad.htm

See how Surah 9 is second to last of all the books. It is the latest. So 9:29 in your list.

>>20746

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=256&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=2&tAyahNo=256&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=9&tAyahNo=29&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=18&tAyahNo=29&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0&LanguageId=2

>>20749

Thank you for this, but my point was that later verses (chronologically) replace newer ones in Islamic interpretation.

Tell me, what is the punishment for leaving Islam after giving your Shahada? Is there compulsion in religion there?

>>20748

>>20750

Ok, so you're making it up as you go along. So be it. We get that around here sometimes.

As for the punishment for leaving Islam, that is determined by the court. You don't get to just go around killing people for apostasy. Further, if there is no shariah court - such as in the United States - then there is NO punishment (except from Allah) for leaving Islam.

>>20751

I didn't make up the chronological order of interpretation. Nasikh has been Islamic interpretation since it's inception. Consider wine drinking in the Quran going from ok but still mostly bad to unlawful completely. The later verses (chronologically) supersede the earlier verses. If you're interested in learning more about Nasikh here is a wikipage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29

Are you saying in a Muslim country morality is different from outside a Muslim country? What constitutes having a Sharia court? Do they have a radius they operate under?

But let's hammer this home, you are saying in a Muslim country if there is a Sharia court the death penalty may be applied for apostasy even though "there is no compulsion in religion?"

It can be justified using Nasikh, because later verses supersede this one, but then you'll understand if you accept the principle (and it's a Muslim principle, not my own) you'll also accept that 9:29 supersedes 2:256.

>>20753

>you'll also accept that 9:29 supersedes 2:256.

Then why do you refuse to accept that 18:29 supersedes 9:29? Why do you cling to 9:29 as the last word when the 9th chapter is not the last chapter?

>>20753

>What constitutes having a Sharia court? Do they have a radius they operate under?

We are commanded to follow the laws of the country in which we live. If a court in Iran decides that I am to be put to death, then you are not allowed to murder me. That's how it works.

>>20757

Because it's about chronological order of the writings, and not the literary order. Here, I'll link the Wiki page again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_%28tafsir%29

Surah 9 is the second to last Surah written…

>>20758

That's nice, do you think killing someone who leaves the religion doesn't show a compulsion in religion?

>>20760

>Surah 9 is the second to last Surah written…

Qur'an wasn't written. It was revealed.

>killing someone who leaves the religion

I don't think you should kill anyone at all except in defense of your own life or in defense of the helpless. If someone chooses to leave Islam, then that's on them.

>>20727

>I'm from Iraq.. I grew up in the Muslim perspective. No one seriously believes that it was spread by missionaries.

That means nothing for you have said nothing.

What part of Iraq? There is shia and sunni iraq. Isis is radical sunni and there is a reason that they have made their base in the northerin Iraq where it is dominated by sunni.

In fact the shia government at this point is basically indiscriminately killing civilians because they are sunni and they don't give a fuck

In fact Iran is forever accusing Saudis to be takfiri extremists.

Iraqis are the stupid ones. Pakis too. Don't know shit and just talk

>>20727

> the method of interpretation in Islam says the later verses supersede the earlier ones.

What complete and utter bullshit is this.

All parts of the Quran are all valid all at once. If you think there is a contradiction, then you do not understand the verses.

If you folk are bickering about surah 9, that verse does have violent things. That is because the entire verse is NOT TO BE FOLLOWED UNLESS A WAR IS DECLARED AGAINST ISLAM. If no war is declared against Islam, you ignore that Surah. This is especially indicated by the fact that it is the ONLY SURAH IN THE ENTIRE QURAN THAT DOES NOT START WITH BISMILLAH

Godamn, muslims are stupid.

>>20747

I would argue that DIY interpretations are fine but you have to then engage in discussion with others, and be willing to reinterpret as you and others collaborate on a logical understanding

One can agree to disagree if there is no mutual agreement, but there must always be mutual understanding

The problem with Salafis and Wahhabis is the ideology itself. They don't understand takfir. Not the founder of Wahhabism, Al Wahhab or whatever, but also his greatest influence, ibn Taymiyyah. It was Taymiyyah who said that it's okay for muslims to kill other muslims. That is retarded. Wahhabism and Salafism allows the individual point the finger and accuse a Muslim of being an apostate and then killing them. All the terrorists have the same ideology but still kill each other because of this. Takfir cannot be done by an individual, there must be a court system to allow this

>>20768

>Godamn, muslims are stupid.

Including yourself in that?

>>20775

Brilliant rebuttal! WOW. I am amazed by your skill and eloquence. Just wow

>>20776

>not an argument

The person I replied to says he is Muslim, yet calls Muslims "stupid".

>>20782

My beliefs aren't anti-Islamic. Anyone who teaches that murder is acceptable is kafir.

>>20783

dont takfir man :^)

>>20786

I stand by it. It's no different than teaching homosexuality is acceptable or adultery is acceptable or drunkenness is acceptable. Someone who teaches that sin is acceptable cannot be Muslim.

>>20782

What are you talking about? I have already explained the deal on Surah 9 here in my post

>>20768

> bickering about surah 9, that verse does have violent things. That is because the entire verse is NOT TO BE FOLLOWED UNLESS A WAR IS DECLARED AGAINST ISLAM. If no war is declared against Islam, you ignore that Surah. This is especially indicated by the fact that it is the ONLY SURAH IN THE ENTIRE QURAN THAT DOES NOT START WITH BISMILLAH

>>20810

>Ibn Taymiyyah pointed out that muslims killing muslims doesn't mean one or both is necessarily kaffir since there was fighting of the sahaba against eachother and against the khawarij…

What does that have to do with anything? There is no Sahaba anymore and there sure was not any during the time of Taymiyyah. Taymiyyah is wrong to claim such things. Muslims killing muslims mean one of both is NECESSARILY a kaffir. It is written in the quran as such. It is indeed necessary

>Ibn Taymiyyah was a sufi who said that it was ok to fight the mongols because some of them claimed Islam at one point but refused to rule by shariah. If you rule muslims and claim to be muslim but refuse to allow shariah then you are engaging in oppression.

What the fuck is shariah? There is no such thing that exists in the human mind. Only Allah knows, and it is only a human interpretation that a human is able to enforce.

Sunni shariah is different from Shia shariah. Which one is right? We will never know until judgement day.

>Abu Bakr (ra) fought "muslims" for abandoning zakat

Okay zakat is then a fundamental and essential part of an Islamic society. This is set and ruled by precedent. You cannot infer anything more than that.

>No it does not. Btw, Fakhraddin ar-Rahzi had same ideas as Abdul Wahhab 600 years before his birth and Taqiyyideen al-Makrezi had same ideas 200 years before his birth. This wishful thinking on the part of those that hate the shuyukh al islam - that they were halfcocked aberrations couldn't be further from the truth. There is a chain of revivalists stretching all the way back to the time of the tabieen.

And don't change the subject. I don't care what kind of revivalist you are just as long as you do not corrupt the understanding of takfir! You are not talking at all about takfir so there's nothing for me to say about any of that, which is irrelevant to the conversation

This is what I said.

>Wahhabism and Salafism allows the individual point the finger and accuse a Muslim of being an apostate and then killing them. All the terrorists have the same ideology but still kill each other because of this. Takfir cannot be done by an individual, there must be a court system to allow this

This has been documented to be the truth many times in different countries all over the internet and across history. It is the same that Ibn Taymiyyah said and it is what influenced Al Wahhab. You say there was a chain of people who thought the same thing. Maybe but it doesn't matter. They are all wrong in their attempts to corrupt this essential understanding of takfir

>>20840

The verse from Al Nisa clearly shows that you can never kill a Muslim on purpose, and shows what you must to as consequence if you kill a Muslim accidentally. This doesn't change what I have said about takfir.

>No, we already know it is sunni.

No we don't. The Shia sure don't. Why don't you go to Iran and argue with the clerics there?

Shariah as we know it is human interpretation and prone to error. There is disagreement in human interpretation, that is just the nature of things.

The verses of the quran that you have posted from Al Maidah have nothing to do with takfir

If you do not want to engage in ideology and theology of takfir itself there is no point in continuing this conversation. I have shown what is correct and incorrect understanding of takfir and today it is only the Salafis in power of the Arab states, and the Jihadis fighting a false war that believe in the incorrect understanding of takfir. I have also shown where this ideology comes from and it is Ibn Taymiyyah misguided and false teachings.

Engagement in this argument is the only way forward in this conversation. Three times you have replied to me and avoided the argument. Why even bother responding? I do not wish to waste anyone's time

>>20846

yeah yeah yeah sunni shia history aside the real issue is interpretation of takfir, and within sunni everyone agrees except salafis

I just think arguing about sharia is ridiculous to say the least. it's like arguing when judgement day will happen. it's not knowledge we are meant to act on but knowledge we are meant to discover. Only God can judge

who is a Muslim or not and liberal Muslims who say ISIS is not Muslim are doing takfir just the same as ISIS declaring takfir on the Shias in the Levant. It's hypocrisy and we should not fall into the same trap of takfir as the terrorists nor the ideologies that encourage such thinking

>>20851

I don't know man, pursuing the shariah argument is a slippery slope that leads to the no true scotsman fallacy. the same one that the concept of takfir is supposed to ensure against. Personally I find it amazing that the quran ensures against all issues of the future, it preemptively solves the problem of the no true scotsman fallacy through the quranic basis of takfir by simply saying that one who kills another that happens to truly be a muslim they will probably go to hell. thus, you need a court to ensure that the person being declared an apostate when he calls himself a muslim…

logically everything is explained.

When there is scrutiny in hadith and when so many who claim to be muslim all disagree on shariah… I don't think humans know what shariah is. maybe we did a long time ago, but because of schisms and such it seems we fucked up. and at least in the quran there's no gurantee that I have seen that humans will have shariah.

also islam is for the humans and jinns. is shariah also for jinns? this is an incredibly slippery slope

Also I don't think shia say those people should die since they were already dead… don't think takfir works when they are already dead lol

>>20854

Making takfir just means calling someone thought of as a muslim a kaffir, they can already be dead.

As for sharia I think you're really overcomplicating it. Sharia is the basis for conducting ourselves and households derived from Quran+Sunnah and in muslim countries it is on a national level. Please watch this short vid.

>>20807

That's an interesting translation. I don't see it in the Arabic. The Arabic has no (acceptance of). anywhere in it. I went back to check and that is a translators addition.

But I accept the translator added it so as to make the Quran more coherent with itself without use of abrogation. I'm pretty sure that is a sin to change the Quran, but whatever. The point remains then, in Islam it is OK to kill someone for their beliefs. Which was my point. But I won't accept that the text says the (acceptance of) part.

>>20863

No, it is not OK to kill someone for their beliefs and you need to stop spreading falsehood.

>>20863

Scholars limit that to do only in a legitimate islamic state where apostasy is akin to insulting the constitution, destroying ones passport, and sowing dissension that endangers the community to shayateen of the jinn and men. And no that is not very democratic is it? Well Obama is gone we don't have to fake being democratic anymore.

>>20863

And the brackets of acceptance are added because people like you totally disregard context not to mention scholarly commentary on the subject.

>>20863

And the punishment for apostasy is investigated. You know why? NO COMPULSION. It must be proven the person was not forced to become muslim or is not being forced to renounce Islam. See everything ties together in the real world there is no ctrl+f.

>>20407

What about when I'm born into a country that I didn't choose?

>>20884

Nobody chooses their country of birth.

>>20885

What I mean is that 2nd and 3rd generation migrants didn't choose to come live in some Western shithole, so that argument for integration doesn't hold.

Nor can they leave back to their parents' home country because it's been turned into a shithole by the country they now live in - often the whole reason why their parents migrated in the first place.

>>20867

What exactly do you mean punishment for apostasy? Is the claim of their apostasy being investigated or the decision to kill them? If someone is obviously shown/proven to be an apostate can they be killed without an investigation?

For example what about someone who willingly declares that he is an apostate, continuously going around how they are an exmuslim. That's basically asking for a death sentence right, though maybe they might simply be asked to leave first lol. Stupid to stay in the islamic society and leave islam.

>>20886

But the first generation did choose. So the same thing applies that they should have integrated. The parents at least should have done a better job teaching their kids to pretend to be integrated

Basically stop having kids and barely talking to them… Big problem for people in general. Everyone is just incompetent

>>20294

The left "likes" us just for the sake of politics and to gain more victim votes. The left in many Islamic countries are just as aggressive in pushing their ideals to the people, mostly to the youths through socmed. The left will always be anti-religion, never think they are your ally.