How accurate is their interpretation of Islam? Would the Rightly Guided Caliphs be appalled by their actions...

>Extremely, they justify all their actions with the Koran

As does every other Muslim, including those who condemn ISIS. So clearly there's got to be more to it than that.

Again, you're still labouring under the implication the Nazis never tortured people like ISIS do.

They did.

If you think that that's the only fucked up shit that happened in the war (on all sides) you should seriously consider euthanasia.

They literally declared ramadan a month of terror thats pretty fucking unislamic.

This is...a complex question.

They (generally) self describe as Salafists, which are a modernist movement influenced by Wahab and Qutb. This is a more or less modernist traditionalist movement justifying itself on modernist philosophy but they hate modernity, paradoxically.

That said, the flavor of their extremity in terms of shit like takfir and fiqh appear to put off a LOT of other Salafists and Wahabis, which is why The House of Saud is so concerned about the war (which has died down?) in Yemen. The House of Saud is a state sponsor of Wahabi movements, but not Wahabi movements that want to implode their own rulership.

>Rightly Guided Caliphs
I'd say mostly, desu. Most non-batshit Muslim leaders today draw parallels between Da'esh and the Khawariji, a sect that was known for labeling EVERYONE not a part of the sect ripe for takfir. Historically, who fought against the Khariji? The Caliph (Ali in this case). Who assassinated Ali? A Khariji. For hundreds of years the Khawarij continued to be a source of insurrection against the Caliphate. and they aroused condemnation by mainstream scholars such as 14th-century Muslim Ismail ibn Kathir who wrote, "If they ever gained strength, they would surely corrupt the whole of the Earth, Iraq and Shaam – they would not leave a baby, male or female, neither a man or a woman, because as far as they are concerned the people have caused corruption, a corruption that cannot be rectified except by mass killing."In a similar vein, the 10th century Islamic scholar Abu Bakr al-Ajurri said, "None of the scholars, in either past or recent times, ever disagreed that the Khawarij are an evil group, disobedient to Allah Almighty and to His Messenger - Peace Be Upon Him. Even if they pray, fast, or strive in worship, it does not benefit them, and even if they openly enjoin good and forbid evil it does not benefit them, as they are a people who interpret the Quran according to their desire."

You assume it's possible to have an accurate interpretation of Islam, or of any religion.

Clue's right there in the word "interpretation".

Islam interprets itself though, loudly and often, resulting in five modern schools of jurisprudential fiqh, plus many more in history. Accurately relaying information is possible because we have thinkers speaking out against Da'esh as Khawarij plus historical records of who the Khawarij are and what their deal is.

There isn't an impenetrable veil of Oriental mystery surrounding Islam, you just gotta put in the effort to learn about it.

This is what kills me about the retards who thumbed through some blog by a highschool dropout about how there's "no interpretation in Islam" and then spout off that they know the FACTS in threads like these.

All you're really saying here is that are a lot of people, who doubtlessly take themselves very seriously, interpreting Islam.

So what? Ultimately there's nothing making their interpretations any more valid then anyone else's. Being rational and logical is all well and good, but being rational and logical about the fundamentally irrational and illogical can only go so far.

Ultimately the one and only measure when discussing interpretations of any religion is what one, personally, feels is "right".

>"Iraq and Shaam"
d-did he predict ISIS?

>How accurate is their interpretation of Islam?
Very literal in regards to cherry picked passages.
>Would the Rightly Guided Caliphs be appalled by their actions?
They'd be tolerated but even then, I doubt any of the Caliphs wouldn't be scathingly critical of their practices.

The Khawariji were wiped out and despised back in the days of Abu Bakr; so no, they'd still be hated.

>Ultimately there's nothing making their interpretations any more valid then anyone else's.
Well, community consent is a thing.

>being rational and logical about the fundamentally irrational and illogical can only go so far.
Literally the entire fields of comparative religion and anthropology beg to differ.

>feels is "right".
I don't necessarily disagree but it's also not impossible to check what community majority feels are most diffuse.

I wouldn't call it prophecy exactly but dude absolutely knew the score here.

>Well, community consent is a thing.

If one believes in an all-powerful God, and if one believes that god is trying to communicate to its creation then what does it matter what the majority opinion is? Especially if you believe that your interpretation is inspired by that God itself?

Dogma isn't a matter for discussion.

>Literally the entire fields of comparative religion and anthropology beg to differ.

How on earth so?

> also not impossible to check what community majority feels are most diffuse.

See the first point.

>Dogma isn't a matter for discussion.
You're an idiot dude. This is exactly what the Rabbinic tradition is Judaism is about, and also why there are so many competing schools of fiqh

DO IT AGAIN BOMBER HARRIS

>For the purpose of determining what is history, please do not start threads about events taking place less than 25 years ago. Historical discussions should be focused on past events, and not their contemporary consequences. Discussion of modern politics, current events, popular culture, or other non-historical topics should be posted elsewhere.

>why there are so many competing schools of fiqh
I guess they just don't exist. Who cares that all those Islamic scholars are discussing how to implement points of dogma as Sharia? Who cares that this process has been going on for centuries? Who cares that discussion has developed new schools of jurisprudence and de-emphasized others?

You're just saying there are a lot of self-important people in the interpretation game again.

Literally not an argument.

What?? It doesn't matter if you think they're "self important," it still exists. You said dogma isn't for discussion but that's literally what they do. You're arguing against a caricature of religion and it's obvious you dont actually know anything about how it's practiced.

Precisely. Because some random farmer can come up and say "ALLAH TOLD ME YOU'RE ALL WRONG!" and all the logic and reason cannot prove him wrong.

That is pretty much exactly what happened with the Mormons, after all.

>philosophy, religion, law, classical artwork, archeology, anthropology, ancient languages, etc.

This thread comprises the first three in terms of the historicity of Khawarij, the praxis of Islam, and schools of fiqh, with the last two being sorta sidelined into general Arab anthropology and the language that fiqh is codified into (but I'm certainly no scholar on Arab language).

Meta.

So what if it exists?

There is absolutely nothing to demonstrate that their interpretations are even remotely correct.

Because it is a matter of faith. Faith will go where it will go. As such, just about any interpretation is as valid as any other.

What the fuck is your point. You're trying to say that religious people should follow their religion in this particular way that fits what YOU think religion is, while you're ignoring what the people who actually follow the religion actually do. You said "dogma isn't a matter of discussion" and you're wrong, just accept it instead of digging yourself into an even stupider hole.

>Because some random farmer can come up and say "ALLAH TOLD ME YOU'RE ALL WRONG!" and all the logic and reason cannot prove him wrong.
Except that very fiqh is there, from syncretic discussion on Islamic law, to provide logical reasons why wild and unrooted transmissions are wrong.

Sorry that you don't personally like the fact that Islamic dogma is a matter of discussion in Islamic dogma, but that doesn't change that it's still there.

May I recommend Abdassamad's "Shari'ah: Islamic Law" or maybe Agostino's "Fiqh, History of", in Muhammad in History, Thought, and Culture: An Encyclopedia of the Prophet of God.

>Abdassamad's "Shari'ah: Islamic Law" or maybe Agostino's "Fiqh, History of"

Are these people debating what should be Sharia, or are they more an academic analysis of what Sharia is overall and how Islamic jurisprudence works?

>what Sharia is overall and how Islamic jurisprudence works?
^These.

>What the fuck is your point.

That in matters of faith the only factor that determines whether an interpretation is "accurate" or "inaccurate" is one's faith.

As such, it is an entirely subjective matter.

It really isn't that difficult to understand.

>Except that very fiqh is there, from syncretic discussion on Islamic law, to provide logical reasons why wild and unrooted transmissions are wrong.

Except "wild and unrooted transmissions" are never wild and unrooted to those dreaming up those transmissions.

To many, many people believing in a God at all is a wild and unrooted interpretation of reality.

And that's the problem.

One cannot bring logic and reason into a belief system that is, by definition, illogical and unreasonable.

>Except "wild and unrooted transmissions" are never wild and unrooted to those dreaming up those transmissions.
But they often are when those transmissions conflict with community, scholarly, and ecclesiastical consensus.

>To many, many people believing in a God at all is a wild and unrooted interpretation of reality.
K. Not sure what this has to do with the reality of fiqh as an emergent phenomenon of doctrinal and dogmatic debate, discussion, and synthesis, but k.

>One cannot bring logic and reason into a belief system that is, by definition, illogical and unreasonable.
Shit, guess I better go write a thesis about how Islamic logic as it relates to the development of fiqh isn't actually there and the Islamics and the academics were all hallucinating they systems they use to argue and judge jurisprudential protocol.

I think the point is that these people are often really, really fucking stupid and to them, all the Fatwa in the world won't stop them from claiming dumb shit that others will believe. The Ulama can only reign in the retards so much.

>all the Fatwa in the world won't stop them from claiming dumb shit that others will believe. The Ulama can only reign in the retards so much.
I would agree to this at least.

My only point here is that the consensus of dissenting opinions on Da'esh is that they're violating every school of fiqh in the degree of intemperance in accusations of takfir, limit for combat, application of Hudud penalties, in a manner that's incredibly reminiscent of the Khawarij.

That's not going to stop Da'esh. Only thermobaric weapons do that. It does however establish that there's a community consensus of fiqh derived through community discussion and methods of formal logic applied to jurisprudence as it relates to 'proper' action.

>But they often are when those transmissions conflict with community, scholarly, and ecclesiastical consensus.

Circular logic. It's the community, scholarly and ecclesiastical consensus itself that defines what is commonly considered "wild and unrooted".

When God brought the Great Flood, He didn't smite Noah and protect those who held the consensus.

>fiqh as an emergent phenomenon of doctrinal and dogmatic debate, discussion, and synthesis, but k.

Because the whole point of doctrinal and dogmatic debate starts from the assumption of doctrine and dogma. In which case it can all be rendered moot by the simple question "What if you are wrong in your assumption?"

>the Islamics and the academics were all hallucinating they systems they use to argue and judge jurisprudential protocol.

If they self identify as "Muslim" then they, by definition, make the assumption that a) God exists and b) that Islam has the correct interpretation of that God, which in turn leads to assumptions heaped upon assumptions.

When were they written?

They take many areas of the Quran that are so obviously meant for a different time and use it to their advantage as a means of justifying their actions in the name of Islam.

And they also use the Hadiths as a means of justification. But any real Muslim should know that the Hadiths are a load of bullshit told by Muhammad's followers.

Their interpretation is accurate, because their actions are that of tactics meant for 6th century Arabia. Although at its core Islam does actually heavily promote the idea of peace and mercy to the enemy and non-believers. And that's something that groups such as ISIS do not do. So if God did exist, and if Islam is the correct religion, then the members of ISIS would certainly not be granted access to heaven. Not immediately, that is.

...

I have never heard Muslims say that the Hadiths are full of shit, though they do say that certain Hadiths have more validity than others. Hell, I've been told that the Quran doesn't make sense unless you know the Hadiths. Also, I've heard Quranist are widely despised in the Muslim world.

>Hell, I've been told that the Quran doesn't make sense unless you know the Hadiths

The Shia branch of Islam considers the Quran to not truly be the word of God, and instead turn to the Hadiths. That's a big no-no for Sunni Muslims. That's why Sunni Muslims mainly follow only what is in the Quran, as they follow only the word of God, and the Quran is considered the word of God transmitted by Muhammad to the people during his lifetime. The Hadiths are mainly tales and rumors of what Muhammad said and did. Sure, some may have a degree of validity to them, but none are as certain to come from Muhammad as the Quran is.

>That's why Sunni Muslims mainly follow only what is in the Quran
Sunni Muslims accept the hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim as the most authentic (sahih, or correct), and while accepting all hadiths verified as authentic, grant a slightly lesser status to the collections of other recorders. There are, however, four other collections of hadith that are also held in particular reverence by Sunni Muslims, making a total of six:

Sahih al-Bukhari of Muhammad al-Bukhari
Sahih Muslim of Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj
Sunan al-Sughra of Al-Nasa'i
Sunan Abu Dawud of Abu Dawood
Jami' at-Tirmidhi of Al-Tirmidhi
Sunan Ibn Majah of Ibn Majah
There are also other collections of hadith which also contain many authentic hadith and are frequently used by scholars and specialists. Examples of these collections include:

Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq of ‘Abd ar-Razzaq as-San‘ani
Musnad of Ahmad ibn Hanbal
Mustadrak of Al Haakim
Muwatta of Imam Malik
Sahih Ibn Hibbaan
Sahih Ibn Khuzaymah of Ibn Khuzaymah
Sunan al-Darimi of Al-Darimi

All Sufis (as Sunni practitioners) obey the Holy Qur’an implicitly and also follow the Prophet's traditions (Hadith) rigidly.

>they're just poorly educated farmers

Ahaha, yeah bro. They're totally farmers. Not NEETS and students from urban backgrounds.

depends on which hadiths you consider to be true

The ones out in Iraq?

No, they are barely literate farmers.

The ones over in the US who go set off a bomb might be, but only because they're basically the same as Elliot Rogers.

>ISIS aren't that special, they're just poorly educated farmers in a power vacuum
This meme. Studies have clearly disproven this. People who join Isis from the west are systematically more educated than their peers. Except instead of offering memes and nihilism, they are offering paradise and a role in the grand universal drama.

t. Someone who's never looked into it even the littlest bit.

They're spot on. That's what Mohammad and his raiders looked like 1400 years ago, slaughtering all who would not convert to Islam.

>They take many areas of the Quran that are so obviously meant for a different time and use it to their advantage as a means of justifying their actions in the name of Islam.

That's not what they're actually doing. They may quote Quranic verse or excerpts of the Hadith, but that's standard practice for Muslim theology. Actual ideology, however, is taken from the Sirat and Sunnah, which are basically the biographical collections that attempt to link the Quran and Hadith together into some form of coherent narrative.

The problem with that is how much more violent these extra-Quranic sources can be, and how they recontextualize their reading of the Quran and Hadith to fit the narrative.

>People who join Isis from the west
>from the west

And there's the massive gaping hole in your argument.

Much like the massive gaping hole many studies have proven your mum has :^)

I'm just waiting for the day when the DEUS VULT screeching keyboard crusaders actually get off their doughy asses and get in on that action too.

Yes yes goy, with all their Toyota cars and twitter accounts and SFX experts

>People who join Isis from the west are systematically more educated than their peers.

I thought studies showed they tended to be second/third generation minority deadbeats from 'socially deprived' areas or struggling with mental health issues.

>The problem with that is how much more violent these extra-Quranic sources can be, and how they recontextualize their reading of the Quran and Hadith to fit the narrative.
Hence my calls for a return to now dormant systems of fiqh (Jariri comes to mind) that were incredibly liberal in comparison to some modern schools.

Certainly I can think of a fair few instances off the top of my head where they've been fifteen year old girls.

So, yeah, struggling with mental health issues.

I don't think he's fundamentally wrong though. Foreign fighters are a different breed, sure, but the majority of ISIS fighters are not dropouts from Western society at all. And that's not something unique to them either. Revolutionary movements for a long time are manned by a lot of lower class folk with a small layer of educated ideologues as leaders or auxiliary forces.

It's the same effect, retard

>Extremely, they justify all their actions with the Koran.
So does ever Muslim ever.

>No, ISIS is a carbon copy of the early Caliphate
You're an illiterate who can't tell the difference between LARPing and real life.

The tools change; murder remains constant.

>because their actions are that of tactics meant for 6th century Arabia.

Only ignorant people really believe this - they use modern tactics used by guerrillas (whether political like the IRA or religious like the Taliban) and developed and overseen by what were former remnants of the Iraqi Baathists military.

Then neither is ISIS.

Mental health issues are most in play when it comes to suicide bomber candidates. For foreign fighters however, it comes down to those who want to be part of a heroic vanguard because they feel superior to everyone else, feel entitled to recognition, but can't get it in their current lot in life.

An ISIS fighter from the West tends to be someone who is educated and Westernized to a fair degree, but has hit a wall when it comes to social and financial mobility.

>No, ISIS is a carbon copy of the early Caliphate

Yeah, that's why ISIS wants to destroy Mecca

Aren't the hadiths apocryphal and are falsehoods?

This. I don't think people realize that when they say Islamic radicals are coming straight out of the 7th century, they are also implying modern technology and tactics are unable to cope with 7th century tactics.

The hadiths are no more than sayings of the Prophet or recorded accounts of his.

The people who collected the hadiths and those who study them recognised the inherent problem of historicity and falsehoods in the hadith. Hence there is a very strong scholarly basis which tries to trace the hadiths lineage of being passed down, supporting evidence from other corroborating sources, and 'strength' or weakness of the hadith i.e. likelihood/validity.

Refer to where highly acclaimed scholars have collected hadiths together.

More like it's difficult to tell which ones are apocryphal and which ones are as old as they claim, and even then it's impossible to tell if the details they relay are strictly accurate or if they've been fudged or made up or recontextualized in order to make more narrative or argumentative sense.

It wasn't that big an issue originally because the hadith were not meant to be a source of history and dogma in of themselves, but that's changed in the past century with mass printing and popularization of hadiths and fatwas among average Muslims.

Its the 7th century expansionist ideology that is the problem

I'm talking about beheadings and shit you idiots. Not literal military tactics.

Except the expansionist ideology is more 9th century and 15th century.

Theoretically, most of the hadiths were written under Ummayad rule, where it was an totalitarian state. They needed justification for their brutality to unite the populace. So could the Hadiths been written as a legitmizer of the Ummayads?

Except when was public beheading and announcement/display of said beheading to the enemy and everyone around them ever 6th century Arabian tactics?

>that's changed in the past century with mass printing and popularization of hadiths and fatwas among average Muslims.
While I agree with the idea that it's been damaging for everyone to become their own little amateur Caliph Ali due to the mass spread of rulings and interpretations, but I do think we cannot underestimate the undue influence of ideologues like Wahab and Qutb poisoning the twin wellsprings of accurate historicity and non-reactionary legal rulings.

>Its the 7th century expansionist ideology

You could say that of any era and its notable empires e..g Mongols, Alexanders, Romans

>just X century expansionist ideology!

Theoretically, the hadiths were written as a legitimizer of judicial disputes between various teacher-student legal circles in late 8th century Iraq and Syria. If they were, in fact, handed down orally before then, then they'd have legitimized, lionized, or demonized any number of subjects whether they were Umayyads, Abbasids, Shias, even individual tribes or women as a species.

I could, but mongols havent been running around claiming a divine mandate to kill gays lately,have they?

>I'm talking about beheadings and shit you idiots.

Again you're greatly mistaken. Beheadings, torture, rape etc and the associated intimidation tactics all predate Islam and occurred in places sans Islam and even occur well into the modern era e.g. Mexico drug cartels

'Moderate' Islam is the seedbed for the nasty militant variety. Always has been, always will be, until they pull something so monumentally stupid that we wipe it off the earth in self defense like we did Naziism and Communism.

You said it was the '7th century expansionist ideology' that was the problem.

Unless you specifically want to link expansionism with a date and peoples you did a poor way of going about it.

What ISIS is doing is nothing exceptional and to try and draw a popular comparison between them and 7th century Islam is quite retarded because Islam was still very nascent and different in interpretation with much of the social and judicial workings still being worked out and crystallized.

But that 7th century expansionist ideology was comparatively bloodless for how much territory was conquered, involved lots of alliances and intermarriage with local non-Arab elements, and basically left no religious footprint either in the form of religious suppression, forcible civilian conversions, or the building or razing of religious sites.

If ISIS was following 7th century strategy, they'd be a colonial empire of aristocratic families leading mercenary tribes, building garrison towns to segregate themselves from the locals and only interacting with chosen agents in the form of tax collectors and auxiliary soldiers, and the leading question that follows when you ask the people they conquer about their religion would be "Wait, they have a religion?"

So theyre not doing what Mohammed did in the 7th century?Raiding, beheading, enslaving etc?

Gee, I wonder how much of those statistics have to do with hardline fiqh and complimentary ideology ala Wahab in the 18th C and Qutb afterward being endorsed by nationstates which thereby indoctrinate the citizenry, and how much of this would change if we gently persuaded various nation states to take a peek at older metrics of fiqh from before these two particular rhetoricians that don't conflict with the global consensus of humanitarian values.

I've heard rumors of them wanting to destroy the Kabba, but nothing confirmed. And why the hell would they want to destroy Mecca? It's literally one of the five pillars of Islam.

>If ISIS was following 7th century strategy, they'd be a colonial empire of aristocratic families leading mercenary tribes, building garrison towns to segregate themselves from the locals and only interacting with chosen agents in the form of tax collectors and auxiliary soldiers, and the leading question that follows when you ask the people they conquer about their religion would be "Wait, they have a religion?"
^Fuckin' this. And moreover this state of affairs continued almost to the 11th C., with some roadbumps, but that started to sharply decline around the early-middle Fatimids.

>the expansionist ideology

I don't know, this seems pretty expansionist to me.

In their attempts to establish a caliphate, restore Sharia, and expunge disbelieving or heretic rulers, they are certainly among the most properly Islamic groups around. However, in practice, they are very much extremists. While Islam certainly does advocate war and plunder, it is nothing akin to the Bataclan and Florida mass shootings, Islam knows nothing of this. When the early caliphs went to war, they did it with good old fashioned infantry. Suicide bombings are pretty controversial, and I would say is unislamic, even though some prominent Muslim scholars disagree. They also kill people in some really cruddy ways, which is prohibited (barring crucifixion, stoning, and cutting off the hands and feet). They have frequently killed with fire, something which is prohibited by Islamic law, even though there is evidence of the caliph Ali violating this prohibition.

Expansionist, yes, but not ideologically so. These were loosely confederate armies gathering friends, family, and mercenaries to settle in new boomtowns to raid and collect tribute for the express purpose of acquiring personal wealth and prestige while recognizing a peacemaker and booty redistribution official - the Rashidun commander of the faithful - as the overall leader of the campaigns.

The Kharijites were always popular in western Iraq and ash-Sham (modern day Syria, Lebanon, etc), since the time they swore loyalty to Muawiyah.

It must be something in the water.

>popular
Wrong word. I meant to say it was their home, historically speaking. But the meme did die off for a time

While I think there is controversy as to how blasphemy by dhimmis should be handled, none of the rest is any different from the fiqh of Ahle Sunnah wa Jammat. Wahabis are certainly takfiri, they are not baseless in their fiqh.

>which is prohibited (barring crucifixion, stoning, and cutting off the hands and feet)
Exactly,the a culture of intolerance which characterises Islam

The majority of Muslim countries have the death sentence for blasphemy/ apostasy. FACT

I think it would be 'great' if Muslims were willing to reflect on, and vocally confront such religious intolerance - because it is this religious intolerance is the breeding ground of extremism.

Really that is the correct interpretation. If one is following the book literally there is a lot of rules about warfare and when to wage warefare and how.. They're doing it by the book.

Abu-Bakr put down Khawarij, Ottomans put down Wahhabis. So probably not.