ISIS publicly flogged two men who were
accused of secretly breaking the Ramadan
fast and lying about their 'crime'.
Photographs released by ISIS' Information
Office show the men being punished in a
desert clearing.
A young terror commander is seen reading
out the charges against the two prisoners,
while a huge crowd of bloodthirsty locals
struggle to get a better view of the brutal
punishment.
This comes just days after ISIS savages tied
two young boys to a pole by their wrists
and left them hanging in the air for several
hours after accusing them of breaking the
Ramadan fast.
The shocking incident took place in the
village of Mayadeen in Deir Ezzor province
and involved boys 'aged under 18',
according to the Syrian Observatory of
Human Rights.

This isn't news, even the Muslim states like Morroco, Iran and Egypt have been reported to flog persons for breaking their fast. Why treat ISIS case differently when they do the same? I find it unjust. My friend, ISIS is the last of our concern since the so called moderate Muslim states are doing the same.

The question should be - what does Islamic jurisprudence teach on this subject. Whether it be Morocco or ISIS; why should anyone be flogged for breaking fast?

slyfox5555:
The question should be - what does Islamic jurisprudence teach on this subject.

As the Qur'an 2:256 clearly states, there isn't compulsion in matters of faith. Hence punishing people for not fasting, not paying zakat, not wearing hijab or for drinking is compelling them in matters of faith, a gross violation of Qur'an.

But our mainstream Muslim community supplement, expand, helm and annull Qur'anic law with their traditions(Hadith) and teachings of their 'sages'(Fiqh). The Hadith and Fiqh rules death for Muslims who refuse Salat and zakat, with fasting generally attached as much significance as salat and zakat, you can't help but admit penalizing Muslims who refuse to fast is at least justifiable under mainstream Islam.

And this boil down to the root of the problem; mainstream Islam. See, ISIS isn't making the rules here, but merely keeping with what Muslims made up in the past.

usermane

As the Qur'an 2:256 clearly states, there isn't compulsion in matters of faith. Hence punishing people for not fasting, not paying zakat, not wearing hijab or for drinking is compelling them in matters of faith, a gross violation of Qur'an.

Quran 9:29 = The same Quran commands that muslims should fight others that do not believe in Islam and compel them to pay the Jizya. This is not from the Hadith, this is from the Quran

And this boil down to the root of the problem; mainstream Islam. See, ISIS isn't making the rules here, but merely keeping with what Muslims made up in the past.

What do you mean by mainstream Islam? Is it is a different Islam than what you have in the Quran?

slyfox5555:

Quran 9:29 = The same Quran commands that muslims should fight others that do not believe in Islam and compel them to pay the Jizya. This is not from the Hadith, this is from the Quran

You know, i 've been through this before;

The Puzzled 's Guide To Jizya

What do you mean by mainstream Islam? Is it is a different Islam than what you have in the Quran?

My first reply to you and the above link answers the question.

usermane

You know, i 've been through this before;

[url=https://www.nairaland.com/1880974/puzzled-guide-jizya]The Puzzled 's Guide To Jizya[/url

]

Nice write up. However, Jizya is not in the context of war alone. You are trying to re-write the Quran . The author made it very clear what the text meant and the textual context is very clear no matter how you want to shake it up. The reason for the Jizya is because of "non belief in Islam". Surah 9:29 can't get any clearer than that. Fight non-muslims because they don't believe in Allah. It never said fight to defend yourselves or because you were being attacked but it clearly said fight because of belief. SO, trying to white-wash it or call into question the Islamic jurisprudence interpretation is a very cheap attempt and some of us can see through it

Also, the historical context is clear as well:

1. There are many places in the hadith where Muhammad tells his followers to demand the jizya of non-believers. Here he lays down the rule that it is to be extorted by force if his opponents refuse to accept Islam (I am not quoting the entire text but lifting the portion for reference):

Muslim 19: 4294 = If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them"

One begins to wonder to what happened to the verse = "no compulsion in religion" when you are fighting people solely based on their belief

My first reply to you and the above link answers the question

Okay, understood

usermane:
This isn't news, even the Muslim states like Morroco, Iran and Egypt have been reported to flog persons for breaking their fast. Why treat ISIS case differently when they do the same? I find it unjust. My friend, ISIS is the last of our concern since the so called moderate Muslim states are doing the same.

inferiors are slaves to the superior ones. Why? This is a religion of force.