Dude, how can you get this conclusion from what I said? Or is this a strawman or what?
As I said, the definition of “muslim” differs by interpretation because like any other religion, people interpret the text differently. Shia muslims say that they are right. Sunnis think they are right, and within each there is more and more denominations that think they are right and none but them. There is so much infighting between them it makes leftist-infighting look like child’s play.
So yes. One of the interpretations, adopted by ISIS, says that these muslims are considered kuffar (people who have rejected god), because they did not seek to learn about their religion and establish the rules that Allah commanded. Even if they were ignorant about their religion, it doesnt matter, they should have learned as it’s their duty as muslims. Thus, it is okay to kill them (Cuz yes, the quran is okay with killing and enslaving non-muslims, in fact it explicitly encourages it.) So this is how they justify killing them.
Obviously this is the niche explanation of ISIS. Not mainstream islamic interpretations.
You said everything ISIS did is mentioned in quran and is valid interpretation of it. Yes?
Quran defines muslims as people who believe in oness of Allah and Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah.
Quran is very explicit about this terminology. The part of the quran revealed in Madinah (first islamic state), tackles this question of people who say they are muslim but do not act like it. They are called munafiqs (not kuffar), in fact this is the biggest topic of madni quran.
So when you say that actions of ISIS are from quran, that is categorically wrong.
That’s my whole point. Which is very very apparent if a non-muslim were to read it without an anti-muslim agenda.
I don’t even wanna go into your other false claims cuz the internet is literally filled of their refutations if anyone want to look into that those topics.
So quran says, in order to be a muslim, you have to kill other muslims?
Dude, how can you get this conclusion from what I said? Or is this a strawman or what?
As I said, the definition of “muslim” differs by interpretation because like any other religion, people interpret the text differently. Shia muslims say that they are right. Sunnis think they are right, and within each there is more and more denominations that think they are right and none but them. There is so much infighting between them it makes leftist-infighting look like child’s play.
So yes. One of the interpretations, adopted by ISIS, says that these muslims are considered kuffar (people who have rejected god), because they did not seek to learn about their religion and establish the rules that Allah commanded. Even if they were ignorant about their religion, it doesnt matter, they should have learned as it’s their duty as muslims. Thus, it is okay to kill them (Cuz yes, the quran is okay with killing and enslaving non-muslims, in fact it explicitly encourages it.) So this is how they justify killing them.
Obviously this is the niche explanation of ISIS. Not mainstream islamic interpretations.
You said everything ISIS did is mentioned in quran and is valid interpretation of it. Yes?
Quran defines muslims as people who believe in oness of Allah and Prophet Muhammad as the final messenger of Allah.
Quran is very explicit about this terminology. The part of the quran revealed in Madinah (first islamic state), tackles this question of people who say they are muslim but do not act like it. They are called munafiqs (not kuffar), in fact this is the biggest topic of madni quran.
So when you say that actions of ISIS are from quran, that is categorically wrong.
That’s my whole point. Which is very very apparent if a non-muslim were to read it without an anti-muslim agenda.
I don’t even wanna go into your other false claims cuz the internet is literally filled of their refutations if anyone want to look into that those topics.