Reddit reviews Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations
We found 10 Reddit comments about Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
May I also add the book, Refuting ISIS?
Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations https://www.amazon.com/dp/1908224126/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_NarywbCVEYD8B
Dude you always say that yet I've never seen you once offer a criticism or refutation that you always talk about. Meanwhile people like Sh. Al-Yaqubi are risking their lives by publishing long refutations of extremist ideology, and you're doing a massive disrespect to him, who has been placed on ISIS hit list, by completely ignoring it.
This has already been happening, and has been going on for some time. I don't think it has had much effect on individuals who are already radicalized/ing. They simply dismiss these leaders as munafiqeen (hypocrites) and sellouts.
See:
http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Refuting-ISIS-Religious-Ideological-Foundations/dp/1908224126
There's a book by Sheikh Muhammad Al Yaqoubi which tackles this very question from the theological view!
Refuting ISIS by Sheikh Al Yaqoubi
There is so much for you to learn about the modern 'social geography' of Islam. Maybe, if you have the time, the following video can help to alleviate your fear that Muslims are inherently led to violence or terrorism by the Qur'an.
Read this as well OP. It was posted by /u/n3wu53r a while back. I will paste the text below:
---
Excerpt taken from "Legal Rulings Regarding Non-Muslims in Muslim Countries", Chapter XI of Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations by Shaykh Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi.
------------------------------------------------
Amongst the rulings of non-Muslim citizens and those under contractual protection are that they are not to be exposed to any harm and it is impermissible to destroy any wine or swine a non-Muslim owns. Imam Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Humam went further and said, "Backbiting him is unlawful just as backbiting a Muslim is unlawful."^97 Ibn 'Abidin adopted this opinion in his sub-commentary known as Radd al-Muhtar, explaining that oppression against a non-Muslim citizen is worse, saying that it is "because with the contractual dhimma (pact) everything obligatory towards [one of] us is obligatory towards him, so if backbiting a Muslim is impermissible then backbiting him is [also] impermissible. In fact, they [scholars] said that oppression against a non-Muslim citizen is worse."^98 Ibn Hajar al-Haytami mentioned the same in his book entitled Deterrents from Committing Enormities.^99 The Prophetic statements prohibiting oppression against non-Muslim citizens are mass-transmitted and beyond doubt (mutawatir).^100
Insulting a non-Muslim citizen is a sin requiring punishment less than the prescribed penalties. it is related in the original text of Ibn 'Abidin's sub-commentary that 'Alā' al-Din al-Haskafi said, "If a Muslim swears at a non-Muslim citizen, he should be punished since he has committed a sin". By non-Muslim citizen (dhimmi), every non-Muslim is included whether in our lands or theirs.
The jurists went a step further by deeming it impermissible to even say to a Jew, Christian, or Zoroastrian, "O infidel (kafir)!" or "you are an infidel" if it hurts them. A Muslim should be punished for this as he has committed a sin.^101 This is only due to the fact that Islam aspires to a life of co-existence based upon respecting others in their faith, feelings, and rights. Islam was a pioneer in this before there were calls for dialogue between faiths to diffuse tension, or before the call to give religious minorities their rights.
In the book al-Iqna', which is a reliable book for fatwa in the Hanbali legal school, it states, "Whoever curses a non-Muslim citizen should receive a light punishment." The commentator Imam Mansur al-Bahuti explains this, "It is because a non-Muslim citizen is under protection and [tainting] his honor is impermissible." He goes further to say that cursing a specific individual is impermissible even if he is a non-Muslim citizen (dhimmi), stating that, "As for specifically cursing a person, its impermissibility is apparent even if he is a non-Muslim citizen who has committed a crime."^102
------------------------------------------------
97 Kamal al-Din Ibn al-Humam, Fath al-Qadir Sharh al-Hidaya (vol. 6 p.24)
98 Ibn 'Abidin, Radd Al-Muhtar 'ala al-Durr al-Mukhtar (vol. 4 p.171).
99 Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, al-Zawajir 'an Iqtiraf al-Kaba'ir (vol. 2 p.27)
100 Sayyid Muhammad b. Ja'far al-Kittani, Nazm al-Mutanathir min al-Hadith al-Mutawatir (Fez: al-Matba'a al-Mawlawiyya, 1328 AH) (p.107), in which he said regarding the narrations prohibiting the oppression of non-Muslim citizens, that "Al-Mawwaq mentioned them of being of an unquestionable veracity (tawatur) in the commentary of Mukhtasar Khalil... relating from Sahnun."
101 Ibn 'Abidin, al-Durr al-Mukhtar Ma'a Aslihi Tanwir al-Absar (vol. 3 p.188). See these words, as well as the words of al-Haskafi which precede it, and Ibn 'Abidin's agreement to it.
102 Shaykh Mansur b. Yunus al-Bahuti al-Hanbali, Kashshaf al-Qana' 'an Matn al-Iqna' (vol.6 pp. 125-126), in the chapter of "Honoring".
Muslims condemn violence all the time. All the time.
70,000 Indian Muslim clerics issue fatwa against Isis, the Taliban, al-Qaeda and other terror groups
Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism
Muslim Voices Promoting Islamic Non Violent Solutions
Muslim Voices Against Extremism and Terrorism
Think Muslims Haven’t Condemned ISIS? Think Again
The Royal Islamic Strategic Studies Centre
Fatwa on Terrorism and Suicide Bombings
Refuting ISIS: A Rebuttal Of Its Religious And Ideological Foundations
Qaradawi et al. fatwa against 9/11
Islamic Statements Against Terrorism
I recommend you read this book.
Edit: Or at least watch this video.
What I talk about comes here.
> I study Islam academically and I think I can answer this for you.
Lol appeal to authority and everyone is just sucking it up because it conforms to what they think. Meaning he can say things usually we would question but is now flying above our radar.
> My tutor actually has spoken on
How can you study academically (with any authority <-- the important part) and have a tutor?
> They fit within a framework that is Islamic (albeit a distinct brand of fundamental Islam) and their justifications are entirely theological.
This should have been a red flag on our radar except he appealed to authority so our radar is damaged a bit. If anyone is interested you can check out Islamic scholars refuting Isis theologically.
> Once you do that, (and it requires a basic understanding of fundamental Islam that I don't have time to write here), then it all makes sense.
Is not the first nor the last instance he has not had time to make sense.
> If I believed that the world was going to end and I had to obey the law of the all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful deity in order to reach eternal paradise, I'd do whatever the hell was needed to get on his good side. If that means killing people, why wouldn't I? This world is just a temporary, physical one. It's worth it for infinity in paradise. And they are non-believers anyway, they know nothing.
No one is misunderstanding the concept of paradise.
> If that means killing people, why wouldn't I?
This is where another flag should have gone off. This is simply playing into the biases redditors have and /u/hdah24 knows this very well.
> Western Islam has to reinterpret and abstract the scripture so much in order to remodel the religion as acceptable to post-Enlightenment ideals, that it no longer makes sense to a lot of Muslims.
Appealing to authority with no evidence. So we can simply say the religion has not been remodeled and still makes sense to a lot of Muslims.
> So many of them would read the Qur'an and the Hadith collections and realise how far removed they were from the fundamentals of the religion.
Again appealing to authority. The Quran and Hadith are the fundamentals of religion. How can they be far removed from it? How does that make any sense.
Also, I find it interesting where we say we want a discussion but downvote anyone who disagrees with us
I don't see any proof, considering the majority of these fighters are lacking basic concepts of faith.
Now the question becomes, if you violate several sacred laws of Islam, yet still adhere to the five pillars (ironic, as killing and bettering your community don't go hand in hand) does that still make you a Muslim?
Am I God to answer that question? No. I'm simply pointing out the factual inaccuracies that some "credited" people on here love to copy/paste.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1908224126?pc_redir=T1