Is ISIS a physical manifestation of the teachings of the KORAN?

Is ISIS a physical manifestation of the teachings of the KORAN?

Other urls found in this thread:

theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/04/saudi-arabia-bombings-jeddah-medina-prophets-mosque-qatif
wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

I doubt anybody on this board, myself included, knows enough about the Qur'an to answer that question definitively.

I assume there's probably a lot of internal debate within Islam about the application of specific passages in the Qur'an and the history of the religion just like there's a lot of debate among those within the various forms of the Christian religion.

That being said, I'm not a Muslim sympathizer. I think the religion has produced far more violence and general terrorism per capita than any other religion in modern history and I don't think that's just a coincidence. However, not being a scholar of the religious text, I just can't make sweeping claims about their doctrine and its historical applications.

Yes.

The founder of Islam was a pedophile warlord. In their eyes, he's the best, the #1 muzzle. The epitome of perfection and compassion.

If you ignore the hadiths, which is the way muhammad instructed, then yes. All moderate muslims are basically reading the summary of the Q'uran rather than the book itself (if they do that much). To be a muslim in this day and age all you have to do is not drink alcohol, learn dawah, and hate non muslims.

It probably is, but that doesn't matter. Just look at all the polls that show that there is no "moderate islam". That is what counts.

>you can rape your wife

You can dislike Islam all you like, but making feminist arguments against it doesn't really work here.

No it is not. I have studied Islam for 4 years.

But go ahead and circle jerk yourselves to believing it anyway.

He was neither of those things. She was over 30 years old and also married previously to another man as well.

>Sweden
>studying Islam
Typical.

(((Moderate Muslims))) are heretics The Hadiths had to be introduced because the system would have to kill everyone if it followed the Koran.

Probably close, but humans are too self serving to really follow a text like that accurately.

4 years? Really? Can you give us a quick run down on what you think of the Koran?

Is there much violence against women like people say?

>Moderate muslims are heretics

You people are truly the allies of ISIS

No, that'd be the moderate Muslims.

Would you recommend that I read a book called "Opening the Qur'an
Introducing Islam's Holy Book"

Just reading a chapter now called "islam on women" it opens with the following. Would you say the book is biased in any way?
The message was clear: woman/women are dangerous, somehow connected to evil forces, death, sexual immorality, and deception. Logically, then, females are to be subjugated to men for their own sakes as well as for all humanity. Islam contains elements and themes that agree with and also contradict those views.

Yes 4 years. The koran is a blessed holy scripture sent directly to you from God, you should read it.

No there is not a lot of violence against women in it like people say - however I cannot deny that some people beat their women. This is prevalent in all human societies.

So a woman can't rape a man then since their married?

This post is making you sound retarded. soz.

ISIS is just a four-letter-word for Jewish false flag attacks.

I would generally recommend anyone who wishes to read any text to first read the original document (in this case the Qu'ran) with an open mind and then go on to reading different interpretations of said text.

I cannot agree with anything in that sentence.

>There is not a lot of violence

Other than the fact the Koran legitimises Mohammed taking as many wives as he wants but for everyone else they must only have what they capture in war?

Or that it says you are allowed to force women into prostitution so long as she complies?

Or how it calls for the beheading of all unbelievers?

The only "good" Muslim is a dead one.

What about

Sura 2:282:
The Prophet said, 'Isn't the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?' The women said, 'Yes.' He said, 'This is because of the deficiency of a woman's mind.' (Bukhari, emphasis added)

theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/04/saudi-arabia-bombings-jeddah-medina-prophets-mosque-qatif

no

Wow Quran is based whadda ya know?
Bitches aint shit but hoes. t.Muhammad.

daily reminder that "moderate islam" is a myth

No he cannot rape a woman because they are married.

A married man has the right to have sex with his wife. If she does not want to have sex with him then why are they even married? In such a case she is in reality oppressing her husband. He has sexual needs and it is her duty to attend to them. If she does not want to do that then she can get a divorce or at least not whine if he gets a wife number 2.

Seriously why the hell would a wife not want to pleasure her husband? What kind of world are we living in that this is even a subject of discussion. A wife who withholds sex from her husband is not a real woman. Nor is a man accepting of this behaviour (i.e not leaving her or getting wife nr 2) a real man, rather, he is as Sup Forums would like to say - something closer to a cuck than a man.

the hadith shows that the majority of the inhabitants of hell are women.

The Prophet said, 'I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women.

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

If we got kek, jews got moloch. What animal does islam have? goat?

A husband has sex with his wife, as a plow goes into a field.

The Quran in Sura (Chapter) 2:223 says:

Your women are your fields, so go into your fields whichever way you like

...

Yeah I can believe that.
Say Australia how is Musa doing?

yes, it is. 'moderate islam' does not exist, it is something invented by the west, in analogy with cristian religion

it might be crisized as an ignorant view, but I think "extremist islam" is just accurate interpretation

there are so many apologist, revisionist, fake muslims that western society has been conned about the true nature of islam

ISIS however is not a traditional islamic movement, they are barbarians

ISIS is a physical manifestation of a functioning multiracial society.

Responding to the entirety of that text and all your questions would take hours.

An apt response for now is simply; No.

Being a witness in a court of law is a duty and not a right. The objective of a court of law is justice - this is the primary goal of a court.

Women are scientifically shown to be more emotional and easily affected by an emotional situation. An emotional witness can be easily swayed by false testimony/crying etc. Islam takes a pragmatic approach to solve this problem.

>t. Mohammed
just look at Turkey, they just tried to pass a law or bill or however you call it, making child rape legal if the man marries the kid and btw there it is legal to smear nutella on your dick for example and you know what...that is the real islam, so fuck off

>Women are scientifically shown to be more emotional and easily affected by an emotional situation. An emotional witness can be easily swayed by false testimony/crying etc. Islam takes a pragmatic approach to solve this problem.


Okay, okay. Why do they get half of what men get?

The Quran in Sura 4:11 says:

The share of the male shall be twice that of a female . . . . (Maududi, vol. 1, p. 311)

The inheritance issue is a very easy one. The mans share is larger because men in an islamic society are the ones who have to provide for the women and children. She on the other hand can keep all her money to her self. I have seen LOTS of examples where the wife works and earns a full wage but the man pays all the bills and he is working his ass off but the woman is just spending money on traveling, make up, fashion and just saving up for her own.

If you knew the demands of some muslim women you would say that perhaps it is the muslim men who are oppressed by the women.

>In such a case she is in reality oppressing her husband. He has sexual needs and it is her duty to attend to them.
You muzzies and your fucking sexual emergencies...

Deep down you know its true. Spending your life to be with this woman exclusively (especially westerners) and then she is a b***h who wont have sex with you.

>The inheritance issue is a very easy one. The mans share is larger because men in an islamic society are the ones who have to provide for the women and children. She on the other hand can keep all her money to her self. I have seen LOTS of examples where the wife works and earns a full wage but the man pays all the bills and he is working his ass off but the woman is just spending money on traveling, make up, fashion and just saving up for her own.
Okay, okay, okay.
What about the Quran's passages that insight violence against non-believers?

LOL Sweden is feeling a little rapey today. But yeah you right bro, bitch gotta give it up... or else.

yes

Tbh no, although they are more so than many "moderate Muslims". The whole concept of killing unarmed civilians en masse is an innovated thing, only appearing recently. While you will find the early Muslims raided caravans and assassinated some poets (both of which were common things, especially the latter, as Pagan Arabs believed in curses, and Muhammad wasn't about to ignore them) during his stay in Yathrib, you won't find any Bataclan or Bastille Day massacres. Also, they use fire as an execution in spite of clear prohibitions in the books of ahadith. They have misinterpreted a verse concerning hellfire as a verse permitting a hadd punishment.

I am no fan of Islam, but I don't think may of the modern terrorist cells are necessarily exemplary Islam. A true caliphate would still be an oppressive and barbaric entity, but it would be perhaps a little better, and a whole lot more different than ISIS.

Another thing I would like you to address is why the Quran asks for women's clitorisses to be removed.

And also why it states that the majority of people in hell are women.

The verses are only in a state of defensive war. The only sanctioned war in islam is defensive. If you read the verses before and after this becomes clear, it becomes even more clear if you study the historical context of the passages.

Haha! Legitimately laughed at that. No - but seriously if a woman is constantly denying you sex then you should absolutely leave her or find a wife nr 2. Ironically if you get a wife nr 2 then she will be jealous and want to have sex all the time.

>or else

Yeah - or else its wife nr 2 or divorce - not rape - as you are implying.

Clitoris removal has nothing to do with islam and is a tribal tradition in certain african cultures / some other cultures as well. It is forbidden in Islam.

All the people in hell are in hell because of their deeds, not because of their gender. I have yet to read such a passage so please give me the quranic passage youre referring to.

It doesn't mention anything about defense. It specifically says 'if you don't believe what I do, then you do deserve to die'.
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people.

>All the people in hell are in hell because of their deeds, not because of their gender. I have yet to read such a passage so please give me the quranic passage youre referring to.

Hadith 4:464

I found this:

Circumcision is not an inherited custom as some people claim, rather it is prescribed in Islam and the scholars are unanimously agreed that it is prescribed. Not a single Muslim scholar – as far as we know – has said that circumcision is not prescribed.

Their evidence is to be found in the saheeh ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), which prove that it is prescribed, for example:

1-

The hadeeth narrated by al-Bukhaari (5889) and Muslim (257) from Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him), that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, cutting the nails, plucking the armpit hairs, and trimming the moustache."
This hadeeth includes circumcision of both males and females.

Thank you, we need more educated people on Sup Forums

This is a pretty good debate
No one is telling anyone to kill themselves or calling others Fags

Again if you read the historical context then you will see that is in a defensive context. However you should also note that whenever under war and physical attack muslims have to be vigilant in the response. In verse 8:19 it says if they desist then it will be better for them. In other words if they desist there will be no war. If you don't attack us and desist we will not attack you. In pretty much all the verses about war you will see the same type of thing.

I think it's a shame the Qur'an is so vague and open to interpretation, but the average Islamic scholar would say that verses should be understood in the context of it's revelation. If we examine the ahadith, the tafsir, as well as the context within the surah, we can derive that the "disbelievers" are the enemy combatants in the battle of Badr. Moreover, we can see that this verse is related to combat by looking a fie verses late:
8:19 If you [disbelievers] seek the victory – the defeat has come to you. And if you desist [from hostilities], it is best for you; but if you return [to war], We will return, and never will you be availed by your [large] company at all, even if it should increase; and [that is] because Allah is with the believers.

Although contrary to the Swede, I think jihad can be offensive, not just defensive.

Bring forward the hadith source.

This is a false hadith.

Please note that Bukhari and Muslim are sunni hadith books - sunnism is a corrupt version of Islam. Also for your information - Abu Hurayra is one of the biggest liars with regards to transmitting hadith of the Prophet (S) - there are even sunni sources where he himself admits to lieing and making shit up.

>pretty good
Can't be bothered since they can't be bothered trying to refute what is in their holy books.

Source? There is no denying that male circumcision is permitted and practically obligatory for males, but I have seen nothing of the same for females. I'm pretty sure the last sentence is an interpolation by the author of that article.

FYI: the spread of false hadith was profitable business in the early days of Islam. Whenever the tyrant rulers wanted some of their deviant ideas endorsed they would hire liars like Abu Hurayra to make shit up for them.
These tyrants would enjoy immunity for their actions when someone claimed the prophet did it as well. This is partly why you have hadith about aggressive war, pedophilia and so on.

wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur'an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Female_Genital_Mutilation

Are you a Hadith rejector, or a shia?

I am a shia. Im the same guy (dunno ehy I had a swedish flag earlier).

Okay so the original Quranic text isn't as bad as these later made up Hadiths. But the fact that people follow these made up teachings is problematic. A corruption of the original texts seems to be mostly to blame. This type of issue is not present in the West. So the truth still stands that muslim territory is a place to be avoided and you should still be weary of such peoples. Also, muslim entry into western countries should be stopped.

They take the Koran literally word for word. They are the true Muslims which is why Islam is such a cancer to humanity.

Well, I don't know why you hadn't posted the other ahadith, they are far more incriminating and I have not encountered some of them. The first one is understood by scholars to refer to males, and if I am not incorrect, the original Arabic would have no indication of whom it is to applied to, not for ambiguous pronouns, but a lack thereof. The rest are very clear, and until I have seen evidence to the contrary, I concede are evidence for the permissability of female circumcision. Outside of East Africa and Dawoodi Bohras (a Shia sect mostly in India), this is not a common practice. Thank god, maybe Muslims are not following their religion in this regard.

looks like you've got something to answer to.

You do know there are far worse Sahih, Hasan, etc ahadith in al-kutub al-arba'a that are just as bad, if not worse, than what you regard as "doctored" in the Sunni books, right? I just have to thank God that most ithniyya 'ashari aren't akhbariyya, or else the world we be a great deal more skewed.

This thread is naking me have a sexual emergency

Name of girl?

Not really. Because these are all sunni hadith and sunni verdicts. All fake hadith. Even if their scholars "verify" them they will in most cases be fake because their method of verification is invalid. I will not defend fake sunni hadith as they are not part of uncorrupt true islam.

I don't have anything to answer for, as I am non-Muslim; I am just bigly interested in Islam. That guy is a Shia, he believes said hadith were doctored by the cooperation of some of the traitorous companions and the Ummayad caliphates after Muhammad's death. You won't be able to convince him of their authenticity.

source?=#

Never change, Sven.

Yes.
I've read the Quran myself and I put some quotes together.

>see pic

Thanks guy. Now I definitely kind of hate Islam.

Even a completely sahih (chain) hadith from any of the kutub al arbaah can be rejected on different grounds.

Dont be fooled by the literalist ignorant so called akhbariyya you see online. They dont even know their own method for hadith in most cases. The difference between the usuli and akhbari are not black and white but there are plenty of differences on a spectrum. Some of the scholars are a mix of the two.

Unfortunately the biggest problem with the muslims today is ignorance.

Also here is a Shia hadith which narrates female circumcision in Man la yahduruhu al-Faqih:

[ 25050 ] 3 ـ وعن عدة من أصحابنا ، عن أحمد بن محمد بن خالد ، عن نوح بن شعيب ، رفعه قال : قال أبو عبدالله ( عليه السلام ) : كان علي بن الحسين ( عليه السلام ) إذا أتاه ختنه على ابنته أو على اخته بسط له رداه ثم أجلسه ثم يقول : مرحبا بمن كفى المؤنة وستر العورة

[25050] 3- And from a group among our companions, from Ahmad b. Muhammad b. Khalid, from Noah b. Shuaib who lifted it (the chain of narration), said: Abu Abdullah (as) said: "When Ali b. al Hussain (as) would have to perform circumcision on his daughter or his sister, a cloth/cloak would be spread for him then he would sit on it then say: Welcome to that which suffices the subsistence and covers the private part."

The problem is, if you will throw out a hadith because it does not sit well with your preconceived notations of what the prophet and the ahl-ulbayt would say, then what business do you have to assert the validity of one's which you agree with, or which are theologically axiomatic to tashayyu? And what business do you, al-Khoei, or anyone else to throw out the ahadith that the four Muhammad's considered Sahih? You are aware that Koran Kafi was once called "Kafi" do a reason, right?

(A reminder before you read this that you are supposed to live like Muhammad did.)

Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes."

>And also why it states that the majority of people in hell are women.

Does that really need an explanation?

sourceeeeeeeeeeee???

You sir,deserve a thank you,as you are the only one to have spoken a rational sentence.

Honestly if I were to sit and discuss every single thing you find in blogs like "real tashayyu" and perhaps sunni polemicist sites this would develop into a massive time consuming affair. Suffice to say that if it was an established fact and accepted hadith/sunnah then shias would be doing it as well. I cannot think of a single instance where I have heard of it be done.

It is not a matter of throwing out hadith "because it does not sit well" with my preconceived notions of what they said. The only acceptable thing is to find out what they really said and did through a plethora of different criteria. Even if a book is called "Kafi" it does not mean that its entirety is correct. There are a lot of false hadith - even in al kafi and the rest of the kutub al arbaah.

see

Something can be an established sunnah and not be acted upon by the majority. And what have you to say when ahadith are partially accepted and partially denied? Consider the ahadith about walad zina being kafirs, najis, jinn, etc. It is not unreasonable to deny their authenticity on the outset; consider however, how that maraji partially accepted them, denying the walad zina inheritance and the positions of imam and mujtahid. Doesn't this reveal a deep hole in the Shia methodology regarding hadith?

And while you and others do not regard Kafi as kafi, the people of its time did. It was the Sahih Bukhari of the Shia. What right do the later generations have to scrutinize it, when you are further in ghaybah than they?

Why their fingertips?

I have to leave but it was interesting discussing with you. As you know it is not a matter of "not being acted upon by the majority" rather it is a case of not being acted upon at all. However this in itself is not a valid refutation of the hadith but if it was a problem within shia society I would definitely devote more time to it.

As for accepting parts of a hadith, other hadith can strengthen parts of other an hadith. When it comes to walad zina I hold a position contrary to most of the ulema regarding position of imam and mujtahid - and I dont believe any human is najis either. Al Kafi was never elevated to the position of not being open for scrutiny.

Unfortunately I have to leave so this thread will probably die before I can respond further.

All the same, friend. Barak Allah fik.

I could shed some light on the confusion but anything I say will be countered with "taqqiyya".

So I will just watch you guys shit on each other.