/islam/ - 8ch Masjid

The "Islamic State" has nothing to do with Islam or this board. Take it to >>>/islamicstate/ or >>>/pol/.

>>11440

their victims are muslim, specially women. So it's related to islam.

you don't agree with their interpretation of sharia? explain

>>11441

Their victims are anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of religion.

Nobody on the planet agrees with their interpretation of anything. They're not Muslim, they're not a legitimate Caliphate, and they should be systemically and rapidly wiped off the face of the planet for the good of all mankind.

>>11442

So what specifically do you say nullifies their Islam?

>>11443

We have had this conversation many times on this board and OP has actually participated in those conversations.

We're not going to keep repeating it just because Canada feels the need to make a new concern troll thread every couple of weeks.

ISIS is not Islam. It invalidates its own Islam with every single move it makes, from the enslavement and rape of women to the burning alive of prisoners of war. I am not saying this again and will perma-ban anyone who tries this stupid crap again.

If you want to talk about ISIS, then you are to go to /islamicstate/ or /pol/.

>>11444

Honestly I think some discussion about ISIS is needed on some level so we can learn from it, prevent it from spreading now, and prevent groups like it in the future.

I created this thread ( >>11216 ) as a means to edge toward that type of discussion but I think people mostly ignored it.

>>11445

Some discussion I don't mind, but we don't need obvious concern trolling.

The solution to ISIS and Al-Qaeda groups is educating young Muslims. Terrorist military groups feed on the ignorance of young Muslim men, telling them that they don't need to read Qur'an because the head guy has all the necessary answers. Sort of like the Taliban regime. Mullah Muhammad Rasul has all the necessary answers and nobody needs to listen to anyone or anything else.

>>11446

I think these groups gain traction more because of Muslims feeling like they're under attack, which is definitely true. So they resort to these groups because they present themselves as the only ones who are fighting the enemies of Islam.

Since there is no real uniting force for Muslims this leads to extreme beliefs because there is no central Islamic force to put a limit on them.

>>11447

There are 1.7 billion Muslims in the world, but there is a central, unifying force: Allah.

The problem is when groups like ISIS convince a few thousand people that they have the lock and key to Allah's will. Then you suddenly get a small army doing stupid crap all around some Middle East dirt and the inevitable ignorance of people in Europe and the US believing that ISIS is, in fact, true Islam.

End the ignorance and you end the extremism. It's no different than fringe Christian groups or fringe Racist groups or fringe anything.

Passion + Ignorance = $$$

>>11444

are you saying Islam does not condone/permit slavery?

>>11449

Islam does not condone nor permit the kind of slavery that ISIS is using.

>>11450

I'm not familiar with slavery as practiced by ISIS (or slavery in general, as it is illegal in most countries) so you're going to have to clarify what you mean by this. Under what conditions is slavery allowed by Islam, and how are ISIS in violation of these conditions?

>>11463

Slavery in Islam was primarily a method of paying off debt, very much like the indentured servitude or even share-croppers here in the US.

Prisoners of war can also be used as a source of labor, which can be considered slavery since they're not paid, but such workers must be taken care of and great care must be seen to their needs as a human.

Only children of slaves or non-Muslim prisoners of war can become a slave. This whole business of sex slaves is in the past. The term "ma malakat aymanukum" is past tense and no longer applies today.

ISIS using captured women as sex slaves is no longer permitted by Allah as it was a pre-Islamic Arabian custom that ended when Qur'an was pronounced. Hence, the use of the past tense in the term for slave in Qur'an.

Muhammad(صلى الله عليه و سلم) required that slaves be treated with kindness and be released as soon as humanly possible. In deference to that, sometimes freeing a slave is worse for the slave. If he has no money or no proper clothing or no home, then setting him out among the jackals is a bad idea and can be considered cruel.

The Prophet also encouraged that anyone with slaves set them free upon their death. No inheritance of slaves.

The Ottoman Empire abolished slavery in the 1900s and every Muslim nation followed suit. This recent reopening of the practice by salafi jihadists has no foundation in Islamic practice.

126 Islamic scholars from around the Muslim world, in late September 2014, signed an open letter to the Islamic State's leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, rejecting his group's interpretations of the Qur'an and hadith to justify its actions. [[But you never hear about that because "all dey mooslims are ebil and never say anything against ISIS"]]

>>11464

From what I know slavery was never fully abolished nor was the use of concubines "Except from their wives or those their right hands possess, for indeed, they are not to be blamed -70:31", it was just encouraged to free them instead. I'm also pretty sure there were quite a few Muslim countries which continued slavery such as Mauritania after the fall of the Ottomans(because not that many countries really took them as a legitimate caliphate).

I think there are probably much better things to attack ISIS on rather than the enslavement of devil worshipers taken from war.

>>11465

>From what I know

Study more because what you know is wrong.

>>11466

If Allah really prohibited the taking of concubines/slaves of war don't you thing it'd be a bit more explicit? It's past tense because there were Arabs who practiced enslavement like that during war, but there was no blame upon them, the Quran never states to never do it again, nor does the hadith.

The only reason why slavery was ever removed from the Muslim world was due to the pressure from western empires who had outlawed slavery and then decided to force everyone else to do it. Then a bunch of apologists jump on the bandwagon saying that it was always outlawed.

>>11467

It is very, very explicitly stated. Why are you concern trolling?

It IS in Qur'an. Maybe you should spend some time reading it instead of believing ISIS is doing it right.

>>11474

Why don't you provide the ayat or authentic hadith that provides the prohibition of taking the kaffir as slaves in war? This seems to be the only time it is permitted, and I have not seen anything prohibiting taking slaves after defeating the Kaffir in battle.

>>11476

The taking of slaves is one thing. We're talking about the taking of women as sex slaves.

Very different topic.

>>11476

The only people I know you can't enslave are murtads and Muslims if some sort of fitna arises. But everything points to taking kuffar as slaves being permissible during wartime.

>>11477

The phrase “and those (slaves) whom your right hand possesses — whom Allaah has given to you” [al-Ahzaab 33:50] means, it is permissible for you take concubines from among those whom you seized as war booty. He took possession of Safiyyah and Juwayriyah and he freed them and married them; he took possession of Rayhaanah bint Sham’oon al-Nadariyyah and Maariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of his son Ibraaheem (peace be upon them both), and they were among his concubines, may Allaah be pleased with them both. Tafseer Ibn Katheer, 3/500

If we know that wartime slavery is permissible then obviously it points towards those whom your right hand possess as being for both past and present.

>>11479

>>11477

Taking slaves was permitted but sex slaves were not. You were allowed to have sex with female slaves but it had to be consensual (harming slaves was not allowed and rape is both physical and emotional harm). Although none of this matters anymore because the Geneva conventions disallow taking slaves during war (the only time Muslims can take slaves) and since not taking slaves does not interfere with us practicing our religion we need to follow these rules.

>>11485

Well a terrorist organization isn't restricted by the Geneva convention(which pretty much no one follows completely anyways). Besides the Geneva convention is still a man-made set of rules, why should Muslims follow it when in the sharia it's permitted?

The group has also set rules for the treatment of slaves to prevent abuse, much of the whole "rapists taking sex slaves" thing is propaganda to slander and garner support against them. That's how America started it's whole bombing campaign in the first place, to go save the satanist Yazidis, also to make groups like the PKK look like heroes or something when they're terrorists all the same.

>>11487

The Geneva convention does not restrict a muslim's practice of Islam and a Muslim can do fine without owning slaves especially when the prophet preferred slaves be freed or ransomed.

>>11488

You're right but as I said the Geneva convention only applies to those who've signed it, so it doesn't really apply to the current enslavement of those Yazidis.

Furthermore when a Muslim signs a treaty they are required to follow it. Isis might not have signed the Geneva convention but no Muslim country recognizes isis as legitimate.

>>11490

Yeah I was never arguing for every Muslim country to start taking war slaves, I just wanted to say that they're is not in the wrong for taking slaves.

>>11490

Nor do I believe they're right about everything either, Just like Jews may be right about Tawhid at least to a degree doesn't mean they're right about everything else either, if you see what I'm getting at.

>>11491

>they are not in the wrong for taking slaves

I have to say that is at least half wrong. Islam treats slavery like a social illness, and some social illnesses can't be abolished outright. Take slavery here in America as an example, when it was suddenly abolished it caused social issues and resentment that still exist today (and I'm not saying slavery should still exist here in america, it never should have existed in the first place, raiding the coast of africa for slaves would have not been permissible under Islam.) Islam sought to fix the problem of slavery gradually so it imposed several restrictions on taking new slaves and gave out several opportunities and rewards for releasing slaves, along with rules and regulations on owning and taking care of slaves. I think it is safe to say that Islam recognized slavery as a bad thing and sought ways to get rid of it gradually.

>>11493

I do agree it's better to release a slave there are many rewards for that in the afterlife, but you can also see how slavery if practiced properly can allow for the opportunity to learn about and embrace Islam. If you look through history you can see how slaves who were captured in war by Muslims, turned around and became some of the biggest supporters of Islam. Such as the Mamluks who started as kaffir slaves from Turkic and Slavic tribes but then became Muslim and saved the Muslim world from the Mongol invasion.

>>11494

There were some benefits long ago, and that is why I don't think it was abolished outright like alcohol eventually was, but I don't think it applies today's world and society.

I do think there is a degree of arrogance in a man that desires to own another human being, especially when it is no longer common place. And as good Muslims we should avoid arrogant acts.