Excerpt from gmanetwork.com:
An ISIS relayed message for a unified attacks on specific people, the rejectionists and apostates. As clearly said, ISIS is admonishing Muslims at these particular countries to respond for a unified effort as submission to the new caliphate. Is it justified to attack rejectionists (Shiite) and apostates, if the caliphate, ordered such an order?
Yes! The caliph is the commanding officer and jury as muhammad was. Accordfing to the sunnah apostates were already condemned. They are liable for death penalty and Shiites are opposition of faith, much so, an enemy of war.
I’m not to tackle on the details of those issues. I would just input why ISIS attacks and killing and bombing during holy months are Islamic in nature. Firstly, it say, killing is prohibited during holy months.
That includes fighting.
Ibn Kathir says:
Ibn Kathir commentary though have presented exemption to the prohibition. Muslims must not kill during holy months except when necessary such as in cases when Muslims were prevented from entering the sacred mosque, expelled from it, and hindered from practice of religion, are valid reasons, as exemption, in order to fight during the holy months.
How about ISIS terrorism during these forbidden months, like bombing, attacks on their targets, etc… what relevance have it entailed to the ruling of disengaging in any atrocities and killing during the sacred months?
It is an exemption to the ruling of no-killing during holy months. I would give a logical reason,
- TRUE ISLAM is a caliph-injunction-right to make personal judgment or ruling, even, if it contradicts Quranic sanction, to declare who are guilty or innocent even by presumption such as how Muhammad contradicted Allah yet still he is the pattern of good work. He contradicted Allah’s ruling that Muhammad should only follow the revelations, implying, universal laws in Quran. He contradicted it by making personal judgment by declaring who among warriors are guilty and innocent by the presence of pubic hair, which Allah never claimed as a ruling to kill warriors with pubic hair and spare those that don’t have it. Muhammad therefore have judged by presumption, and personal decision and not by Allah’s revelation.
- Secondly, he likewise contradicted Allah by employing a non-muslim’s verdict as basis to kill people. Allah likewise has no revelation like that to use a non-muslim to make any verdict as an Islamic injunction.
- TRUE ISLAM is a caliph-laden right to make judgment even if it contradicts Quranic ruling. Read here for proofs, this one is about muhammad making judgment by massacre of Jews through a non-muslim’s verdict without Allah’s permission➡ https://christianwatchdog.wordpress.com/2017/05/03/refuting-muhammads-unrecited-revelation-justifying-his-massacre-of-jews/
- More proof, this one is about muhammad’s massacre of boys by presumtion of guilt through the presence of pubic hair, even without Allah’s order to kill pubic haired boys and spare those without➡ https://christianwatchdog.wordpress.com/2017/05/04/logical-analysis-on-the-massacre-of-banu-quraisha-children-2/
- Those actions contradicts what Allah said, which is for Muhammad to only follow his revelation. Muhammad directly disobeyed and made personal judgments–as ruling for Muslims to follow.such as I presented in the links.
- Muhammad dissenting from Allah’s order which is to follow nothing but his revelation and making his own ruling which is absent from the universal law of Quran is a pattern of conduct for leaders, the caliphs! Muhammad being the model.
- Therefore, caliphs as Baghdadi was authorized to make personal injunction even to the point of contradicting Quran, if so that it is desired.
- This is the core of Islam. The leader has every god given right to make personal decision or ruling, even if it is against Quranic ruling. He can make adjustments of Islamic law even to the point of contradicting Islamic jurisprudence. Muhammad was the example.
- What possible reason could have initiated an adjustment of an Islamic law: the prohibition to kill during sacred months?
- This one⬇
As you can see, a prophesy about Islam being dominant over all religion, implying, a sharia-ruled world so as Muslims been claiming around the world yet at one point it was in contrast to the second verse which say, MOST of mankind won’t believe Islam. It implied, most countries would detest sharia and yet it would be dominant worldwide. It cannot be possible having majority of people as dissents to be fulfilled through peaceful means. Logically, it would be by force, violence and atrocity, for Islam to dominate the world. ISIS bec of this reality must go beyond peaceful means, given the right to make personal decisions to adjust certain part of Quran for the possibility of that goal–global caliphate!–to be realized. Thus any force employed is an instrument for that vision. It is Allah’s will!
So, is ISIS not true Islam? Or in reality, the one in correct aspect to be the most fitting replica of muhammedan principles?
Consider the logic!
Note: my sources are screenshots from various sites. You can validate the authenticity of these by typing portions of it in your browser.