IS threatens Israel- "Palestine will be Israelis graveyard"

[Melech 9,900]

27 minutes ago, Dolev said:

You know damn well Israel helps almost each and every of the injured Syrians coming at its border, no matter what side they're from.

It's not our fault Arabs are tragic enough to mass-kill each other.

Israel helps people -> is wrong

Israel doesn't help people -> also wrong.

That country will never do something right. 

[lego 44,165]

Just now, Didymus said:

That's not true. IS' ideological dimension is widely studied, but I wasn't talking about IS alone. Qur'an scholarship is inextricably linked with Salafism and the rise of Islamism. IS has a very specific, extremely elaborate religious philosophy that it uses non-stop in verbal and visual propaganda and evidence of religious activity in Islamist groups, even on the battlefield, is abundant.

The article/interview doesn't sway me. I've spent 12 weeks just now studying groups like IS in university and it's absolutely clear to me that not taking IS' religious activity/background seriously is a willful act of covering up important parts of the picture.

 

I studied about them too  for 10 years and not from the Western sources. They have khariji ideology and it's wrong to blame it on 'salafism', because being salafi means to follow the footsteps of first three generations of muslims, of those who preceeded. It is obvious that they use parts of the texts from some scholars of the past and ignoring and going against the other. Like when they burned that Jordanian pilot, they had to dig deep in the past to find ONE scholar who thought it's allowed but there were no evidences to back him up.

They might have salafi aqidah( even that is questionable), but their methodology is of the kharijites. All their self learned scholars like Awlaki were inspired by Sayyid Qutb who hated the West and who was calling for rebellion against all muslim governments, cause in his view they were all apostates and mosques were not real mosques. He is also major influence on egyptian "muslim brotherhood" movement. The salafi scholars of modern era have been refuting groups like al qaeda before they became a threat to the West.

I wouldn't dismiss an ex hostage's words like that, if they don't care about religion it's also wrong to say that the religion is a main cause of terrorism.

I also have a great article about the various groups like Saddam's baathists who joined to IS only as a revenge to the shi'a militias. I just need to find it.

 

[lego 44,165]

23 minutes ago, Dolev said:

Yes ofc Israel also did 9/11

Not even related, but Iraq or Afghanistan weren't behind 9/11 either. So why were they invaded?

 

8 minutes ago, Simon said:

It's always the Jews fault, am i right

it's never the Israel's fault, am I right?

 

[lego 44,165]

6 minutes ago, Simon said:

Israel helps people -> is wrong

Israel doesn't help people -> also wrong.

That country will never do something right. 

 

People...  

Israel claims that Hamas and Daesh are the same thing, they are fighting against "islamic terror"; yet they treat wounded terrorists but then kill Palestinians on the spot. If you don't see anything wrong with that, then...  

[Didymus 34,380]

Just now, SubRosa said:

I studied about them too  for 10 years and not from the Western sources. They have khariji ideology and it's wrong to blame it on 'salafism', because being salafi means to follow the footsteps of first three generations of muslims, of those who preceeded. It is obvious that they use parts of the texts from some scholars of the past and ignoring and going against the other. Like when they burned that Jordanian pilot, they had to dig deep in the past to find ONE scholar who thought it's allowed but there were no evidences to back him up.

They might have salafi aqidah( even that is questionable), but their methodology is of the kharijites. All their self learned scholars like Awlaki were inspired by Sayyid Qutb who hated the West and who was calling for rebellion against all muslim governments, cause in his view they were all apostates and mosques were not real mosques. He is also major influence on egyptian "muslim brotherhood" movement. The salafi scholars of modern era have been refuting groups like al qaeda before they became a threat to the West.

I wouldn't dismiss an ex hostage's words like that, if they don't care about religion it's also wrong to say that the religion is a main cause of terrorism.

I also have a great article about the various groups like Saddam's baathists who joined to IS only as a revenge to the shi'a militias. I just need to find it.

Salafism is not traditional. It just pretends to be.

It's true that IS (probably consciously) pushes against absolutely forbidden Islamic rules, but this does not magically erase their entire religious framework.

Your references to Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood are also confusing to me. Are you denying their religious framework as well? Also, what's the point of pretending that "Salafi scholars" (are you implying it's one basket?) are unified in their rejection of al-Qaeda etc.? All scholars agree that there's at least a non-violent current (the smallest and it's losing ground every year) and a political current (ex. Muslim Brotherhood). I prefer a three-current model where there's also a jihadi stream (ex. IS, al-Nusra). All three groups however are Salafist because their framework is EXACTLY the same: it's only their (practical/political) methods that differ. That's pretty basic stuff.

I never said that religion was the main cause of terrorism.

And I'm very aware about how closely IS and the Baath regime are connected, so don't bother sending me that. I'd much rather have you just summarize what exactly your point is, because I don't even know how any of this is a response to what I was saying.

[lego 44,165]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

Salafism is not traditional. It just pretends to be.

And the evidence for that is what? Western sources often quote sufi scholars who were heavily influenced by christianity and greek philosophy, they often use fabricated or weak hadiths to justify their practises. They claim to be the "traditional" ones but I don't think that's true. 

 

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

It's true that IS (probably consciously) pushes against absolutely forbidden Islamic rules, but this does not magically erase their entire religious framework.

I didn't say it does. Maybe we just don't get each other.

 

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

Your references to Qutb and the Muslim Brotherhood are also confusing to me. Are you denying their religious framework as well?

 

No, but they were never salafis. They had different aqidah. Qutb is important because every jihadi will give you reference to him and his books.

 

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

Also, what's the point of pretending that "Salafi scholars" (are you implying it's one basket?) are unified in their rejection of al-Qaeda etc.? All scholars agree that there's at least a non-violent current (the smallest and it's losing ground every year) and a political current (ex. Muslim Brotherhood). I prefer a three-current model where there's also a jihadi stream (ex. IS, al-Nusra). All three groups however are Salafist because their framework is EXACTLY the same: it's only their (practical/political) methods that differ. That's pretty basic stuff.

because I don't consider kharijites as salafis. Bin Laden's brother is a Sufi, BL had mixture of salafi/sufi aqidah and kharijite methodology. Methodology is what I think it's important. Muslim brotherhood accepts all different aqidas as long as their political goal is the same.

 

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

I never said that religion was the main cause of terrorism.

And I'm very aware about how closely IS and the Baath regime are connected, so don't bother sending me that. I'd much rather have you just summarize what exactly your point is, because I don't even know how any of this is a response to what I was saying.

Well don't read it then, I will post it anyway when I find it:)

[MelbHawker 6,583]

There's no place in this world for such evil, it needs to be destroyed.

[Didymus 34,380]

19 minutes ago, SubRosa said:

And the evidence for that is what? Western sources often quote sufi scholars who were heavily influenced by christianity and greek philosophy, they often use fabricated or weak hadiths to justify their practises. They claim to be the "traditional" ones but I don't think that's true.

The evidence is in the writings themselves All Salafists reject religious innovation and human reason/bias. This in itself is a paradox since there is no Islamic precedent for Salafism, ever, in the history of Islam (most definitely not in the time of Muhammad and the first caliphs) and because human reason is most definitely used to prove the veracity of their own point of view (example: the selection of hadith).

I don't know what the hell Sufis have to do with this, so..

19 minutes ago, SubRosa said:

No, but they were never salafis. They had different aqidah. Qutb is important because every jihadi will give you reference to him and his books.

They're Salafists. Educate yourself. The Muslim Brotherhood even calls itself Salafist. Qutbism is also placed within Salafism if the three-current model is used, which I proposed (Salafi jihadism). Scholars use the three-current model because the religious framework (excluding practical/political aims) is identical to non-violent purist Salafism. That Salafists of different currents oppose each other is common knowledge. Salafi jihadists even oppose political Salafists because they're too weak, despite their political aims.

19 minutes ago, SubRosa said:

because I don't consider kharijites as salafis. Bin Laden's brother is a Sufi, BL had mixture of salafi/sufi aqidah and kharijite methodology. Methodology is what I think it's important. Muslim brotherhood accepts all different aqidas as long as their political goal is the same.

What's the point of considering them to be Kharijites? They don't exist anymore. Sure, they show similarities with groups like IS, but there is not a single political connection possible because of the distance in time. Islamism is a modern phenomenon, to push it back into older times is a theological aim (and indeed, the only people I know that wish to paint anyone as Kharijite are Muslim theologians - why would anyone read them to understand what's going on) that has no place in an objective discussion about these groups.

But even IF they're Kharijites (which they're not), the Kharijites obviously are fuelled by their religious framework, while I understood that your whole argument was based on the assumption that IS is a political movement and never cared about religion at all?

"Salafi/Sufi" aqidah though are you kidding Why ignore all the variety within those two streams? And Bin Laden and IS don't have much to do with each other. What a mess.

[brizoda 4,203]

poor Palestinians

and ISIS are a farce. a group of mercenàries, not all of them islamic

[Melech 9,900]

14 minutes ago, brizoda said:

poor Palestinians

and ISIS are a farce. a group of mercenàries, not all of them islamic

Inb4 you say its The Jews 

[brizoda 4,203]

2 minutes ago, Simon said:

Inb4 you say its The Jews 

i have my doubts

[lego 44,165]

2 minutes ago, Didymus said:

The evidence is in the writings themselves All Salafists reject religious innovation and human reason/bias. This in itself is a paradox since there is no Islamic precedent for Salafism, ever, in the history of Islam (most definitely not in the time of Muhammad and the first caliphs) and because human reason is most definitely used to prove the veracity of their own point of view (example: the selection of hadith).

I don't know what the hell Sufis have to do with this, so..

They're Salafists. Educate yourself. The Muslim Brotherhood even calls itself Salafist. Qutbism is also placed within Salafism if the three-current model is used, which I proposed (Salafi jihadism). Scholars use the three-current model because the religious framework (excluding practical/political aims) is identical to non-violent purist Salafism. That Salafists of different currents oppose each other is common knowledge. Salafi jihadists even oppose political Salafists because they're too weak, despite their political aims.

What's the point of considering them to be Kharijites? They don't exist anymore. Sure, they show similarities with groups like IS, but there is not a single political connection possible because of the distance in time. Islamism is a modern phenomenon, to push it back into older times is a theological aim (and indeed, the only people I know that wish to paint anyone as Kharijite are Muslim theologians - why would anyone read them to understand what's going on) is just absurd.

But even IF they're Kharijites (which they're not), the Kharijites obviously are fuelled by their religious framework, while I understood that your whole argument was based on the assumption that IS is a political movement and never cared about religion at all?

"Salafi/Sufi" aqidah though are you kidding Why ignore all the variety within those two streams? And Bin Laden and IS don't have much to do with each other. What a mess.

 

Don't tell me to educate myself, that will just end this silly convo in a very ugly way.

You either don't want to understand what I'm saying or just want to appear as more knowledgeable. Sufi scholars are main sources of Western orientalists. And sufi scholars blame present day jihadis on wahhabism/salafism only because they oppose their aqidas and innovated practices of worship. That is why they are relevant in this discussion.

IS and al Qaeda are modern day kharijites and takfiris, and they have more in common with them than with the salafis. Mainly because they call for rebellion against muslim governments and takfir anyone who disagrees with them. I never said that they don't care about the religion at all (but they don't care as much as people want to believe, according to ex hostages) I'm saying they have mixture of people with all different types of beliefs, but same political aim. There is no way that a baathist would call himself a salafi. Muslim brotherhood are not calling themselves like that, don't know where you heard that. All those -ism/ -ist titles are Western invention.

The difference between them and old time kharijites is that the old ones were a lot more religious. They were constantly reciting Quran while killing other muslims. Also for example, they considered lying as a major sin which takes person out of the fold of islam, but the modern day jihadis don't care about any of that. 

Anyway, I don't bother to continue this cause we obviously won't agree. So whatever. 

[River 128,842]

Israel is saving IS members to question them and to get information about IS..... it's kinda smart tbh..

The intelligent of Israel is taking advantage of every scenario to get information about IS..

 

[Melech 9,900]

5 minutes ago, River said:

Israel is saving IS members to question them and to get information about IS..... it's kinda smart tbh..

The intelligent of Israel is taking advantage of every scenario to get information about IS..

 

Rightfully. Too many people want Jews dead, so I can't blame.

[Didymus 34,380]

25 minutes ago, River said:

Israel is saving IS members to question them and to get information about IS..... it's kinda smart tbh..

The intelligent of Israel is taking advantage of every scenario to get information about IS..

Source?