Is it conceivable that ISIL are created by West?
Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Politics
Forum Name: Current Events
Forum Description: Current Events
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32673
Printed Date: 21 November 2024 at 1:30pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is it conceivable that ISIL are created by West?
Posted By: Abu Loren
Subject: Is it conceivable that ISIL are created by West?
Date Posted: 24 December 2014 at 4:10am
|
I find it hard to believe that the Western powers will not engage ISIL, ISIS, IS. My conspiracy theorist mind goes to overdrive and think they are in fact Western Intelligence agents masquerading as Islamist Militants.
For thing, even the most brutal of Islamists will never kill their fellow Muslim brothers and sisters. However these ISIL, ISIS, IL members relish in killing Muslims both Shia'a adn Sunni. The mind boggles. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Replies:
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 24 December 2014 at 5:21am
|
They do seem to be the worst possible advert for Islam. Then again idiocy is not in short supply amongst humans. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 24 December 2014 at 6:39am
For what purpose?
Islamists have a very narrow definition of "fellow Muslims". I'm betting that not even you would qualify. Mere opposition to their "caliphate" would probably make you an infidel. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Abu Loren wrote:Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 December 2014 at 9:24am
I agree with you that human beings are st**id, most of all me. I see it every day man, I think st**idity stems from lack of use of the brain. LOL ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 24 December 2014 at 9:31am
For discrediting Islam and Muslims and turning the world against Islam. For this purpose I think Israel has more of a claim than Europe or America but I find it astonishing that they will not engage with ISIL,ISIS,IS. They are trying to send poor Kurdish Peshmurga fighters who are poorly trained part-time soldiers to fight instead. This is a win win situation for the West as only Muslims will die.
Actually Muslims do stand up for each other because Muslims are the only true brotherhood left. This is another reason why it is very difficult to fathom the intentions of ISIL,ISIS,IS. Like I keep saying no true Muslim would do what they are doing. I agree with you that mere opposition to their Caliphate would make any Muslim an infidel according to them. Another reason why their Islam is skewed to say the least. They are not practicing anything from the Qur'an and Sunnah so once again I ask the Question if they are Zionists? ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 25 December 2014 at 4:36am
In Sudan it was the west which attempted to help the Muslims in Darfur. http://www.internationalmedicalcorps.org.uk/darfur-a-decade-of-crisis/?gclid=CMmcrKaa4cICFcrLtAod5z8AjA The West is still there trying to help. Feeding people. Giving medical care. Where is the Islamic brotherhood? |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 25 December 2014 at 10:13am
I see so when you hear the news reports in your comfy armchair you think that is all that is happening in the world? Actually there are Islamic charities that are working all over the world but unfortunately your news mediums do not report it. So keep watching the BBC, CNN and FOX news an done day you may hear about things like that. :) ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 25 December 2014 at 1:18pm
Definite overdrive, revving your engine to destruction. Western powers ARE engaging ISIS in Iraq, where they have been invited to do so by the government. The idea of adding ground troops to the fight (in combat.. training cadres are already present) has been thought not a good idea for a range of reasons, some painful, some just sensible. Not least, the presence of Western troops would give ISIS the opportunity to gain recruits by painting this as "The West attacking Islam" (and covering the fact that the people they are fighting currently are nearly all Muslins.) For another there is some recognition of how poorly justified (to put it mildly) earlier military interventions have been. And, less nobly, there is the recognition that another military expedition in the region would be political suicide, as the voting public, UK and USA, is dead against it. In respect of Syria there were indeed public and political calls for Western intervention on the side of the rebels fighting Assad, but two factors were critical (I could find more.) Firstly was the solid support Russia gave to the Assad regime, and the fear that Western intervention would lead to escalation and Russia vs Europe war by proxy, which might easily spread from Syria. Secondly was the emergence of more extreme anti-Assad groups who were as much anti-west as they were anti-Assad. "Aid the Syrian rebels" started to have the possibility of handing weapons, ammunition and equipment to groups just as likely to use such against those who had supplied it, as against Assad's forces. And as was seen the rebel groupings also started fighting for territory and for ideology amongst themselves. Messy impasse
Here I would wish to charge you with rose-tinted vision, or some related selective eyesight or memory. Mosques bombed by Muslims? Shia on Sunni and Sunni on Shia in Iraq, Boko Hram on mosques in Nigeria. Hamas and the Jund Ansar Allah (Soldiers of the Followers of God)shooting it out in a mosque in Rafah. The leader of Jund Ansar Allah had accused Hamas of being "insufficiently Islamic". And then there's Pakistan, again with Shia vs Sunni violence, but the most numerous attacks on mosques coming "claimed by" the Pakistan Taliban. You consider these people non-Islamic? You'd have to convince them of that, not me. They are all confident that they are Islamic, often regarding themselves as the best, most whole-hearted, most uncompromised of Muslims But here it gets decidedly odd. If these people are so far from Islam that they are not Muslims in the eyes of peaceful Muslims, then for them to do these acts *and declare they are done to further the Islamic cause* must be the biggest offence that can be committed against the faith. But where are the Saudi tank battalions that could be cutting ISIS to shreds? Why isn't the *West* intervening? A bigger question might be: why aren't the forces of Islamic countries intervening? Or is this the view of united Islam, the Ummah, working the wrong way: a reluctance to condemn or attack other Muslims as however bad they might be they are still Muslims? I wouldn't understand? I might. I'm familiar with the tangled and deadly webs and hierarchies of loyalty that could be found making "the troubles" in Northern Ireland so intractable for so long. Enough to make Protestant Loyalists, Unionists, bomb and shoot members of the Northern Ireland police force, representatives of the British crown with which they wanted to stay united... Chris |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 26 December 2014 at 2:41am
|
The purpose of this thread is "Is it conceivable that ISIL was created by the West". The answer is yes of course. The guys behind the mask could be Mossad agents as much as they could be any Muslim. What I'm trying to say is that if the Western Powers are really concerned about ISIL then they not doing enough to stop them. Another conspiracy. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 26 December 2014 at 4:22am
I am aware of organizations such as the Red Crescent and other charities. I know that they do similar things to Western charities. My point is that it was the Western nations at the UN and on the ground with the support for the people of Darfur. It was not political pressure from the Islamic nations which stopped the Sudanese government from killing all the Black Muslims it was the Western powers. You cannot blame the West for being behind every act of evil in the world when clearly all cultures have their evil ones. |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 26 December 2014 at 5:20am
The answer is yes, barely. They are so far from prime suspects that it's not worth worrying about. I'd consider Russian agents before Mossad or Shin Bet. And neither could reveal themselves or give orders significantly different than those their "created group" of fanatics would be expecting and would consider (from their viewpoint only) properly Islamic. The supposed creators and funders would have created a monster that they could neither stop nor steer. The simpler hypothesis seems far more likely: they are what they proclaim themselves to be, even if the lower orders of ISIS know little more than a set of conditioning slogans to shout.
Conspiracy is not a good bet unless things really don't add up. Western powers can't really *afford* more war, simply financially. They are aware of the propaganda backlash should they send troops *again* into the Middle East. having got things so badly wrong over Iraq and Afghanistan... ..and anyway, where are Arab and other Islamic forces who should be seeing ISIS etc. as an extraordinary and intolerable insult to Islam? If we are looking for things conspicuous by their absence, US, British and European ground groups are hardly the most glaring lack of presence. Turkey, I admit is caught. Making military moves which would be likely to promote the formation of an independent Kurdish state in Syria would be hard to stomach. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 26 December 2014 at 10:13am
I agree with you that wherever and whenever there are crisis' in Muslim countries the so called Muslim countries are silent and it is true that the West are the first ones to speak out and possible do something about it. It is also true that we should not blame the West for everything that happens, however at the present moment in time nobody trusts the West and the USA in particular. The CIA are capable of this and more. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 26 December 2014 at 10:17am
I agree with what you have written. I too scratch my head when the so called Muslim countries are silent when it concerns their own borders more than anybody elses. May be they think that by being silent the problems will be sorted by somebody else whilst they sit in their air conditioned palaces and counting how many barrels of oil they have just produced. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 26 December 2014 at 8:41pm
Salaam Alaikum, Abu Loren. I don't think that ISIL/ISIS are true Muslims, but I also don't believe the West "created" them either. I think they are a bunch of people who misunderstood and/or willingly chose to abuse the teachings of their religion. "Western Intelligence" is as responsible for forming ISIS as Muslims are for creating the Crusaders. There are very good and very bad people claiming to be Muslims, just as there are very good and very bad people claiming to be Christians. No reason to bring conspiracy theories into this. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 27 December 2014 at 2:35am
|
But is it conceivable that the West created ISIL?
------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 27 December 2014 at 7:41am
Sure, it's conceivable. Anything is possible. It's possible that the West created ISIS to divide the Muslim world. It's also possible that Al Qaeda hired cartoonists in Western Europe to draw insulting pictures of Muhammad so they could inflame the Muslim world and drive young Muslims into their ranks. It's possible that Hamas and Israel and Fatah are the best of friends and they perpetuate the conflict and send people off to die so that Abbas and Haniyeh and Netanyahu can keep receiving money from their donors. All three of these scenarios are certainly possible. I think they are very unlikely. However, none of them are inconceivable. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 27 December 2014 at 8:59am
ISIS is killing lots of westerners too.
ISIS quotes the Quran and the hadith all the time to justify their crimes. Verse 5:33 is a particular favourite of theirs. As for killing Muslims, they quote the following hadith: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: I expect you're going to tell me that this a weak or false hadith. Hence my earlier question in Islam for non-Muslims, " http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=32674 - list of authentic hadith ". It seems to me that Muslims pick and choose among the hadith to suit their purposes. ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 27 December 2014 at 9:30am
|
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) Said: The blood of a Muslim man who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle should not lawfully be shed except only for one of three reasons: a man who committed fornication after marriage, in which case he should be stoned; one who goes forth to fight with Allah and His Apostle, in which case he should be killed or crucified or exiled from the land; or one who commits murder for which he is killed. http://www.usc.edu/org/cmje/religious-texts/hadith/abudawud/038-sat.php - Abu-Dawud, Book 38, Number 4339 Seems fairly clear to me. Kill any Muslim who fights against you if you are an army of Islam. Of course your version of that army of Islam is obviously superior to his, why else would he have lost? Or it's bananas. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 27 December 2014 at 10:18am
NO. Not lots. So far they've only killed a handful.
It is not a weak or a false Hadith. I don't understand why ISIL would use that particular verse and that Hadith. It says to kill those who fight against Allah and the Prophet (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) and I don't know any modern Muslim fighting Allah and His Prophet. The ones who are causing corruption in the land are ISIL and if they are Muslims then should cut off their hands and feet from opposite sides. They have no right to use that verse and the Hadith. This tells me that they don't know much about Islam and further puts suspicion on them. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Emettman
Date Posted: 27 December 2014 at 11:59am
Nah. The West's other opponents, especially China and Russia, would be screaming it out if they thought they could make a case, given how universally ISIL is regarded as vile. Of all the charges Putin's levelled at the USA, Britain and Europe, not a hint of this. Chris. |
Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 27 December 2014 at 2:04pm
As I said, if you're fighting them, then in their view you are fighting Allah. It is the nature of extremism to believe with such certainty that God is on their side.
In other words, if they disagree with you, then they disagree with Allah. Be careful, Abu. You may be right, but you don't speak for God any more than they do.  (Edited to correct the last sentence: "you don't speak for God", rather than "don't speak for God".) ------------- Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect. |
Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 28 December 2014 at 10:53am
|
The thing is I fail to understand how these *****s can't be defeated. The Syrian and Iraqi armies and various other local factions are fighting them and I don't believe that they are invincible. Something is seriously wrong. ------------- La Ilaha IllAllah |
Posted By: Tim the plumber
Date Posted: 29 December 2014 at 3:49am
Assad's forces are happy to let the extremists become the only opposition faction. They are deliberately not attacking them. The focus of the Assad forces is on the other opposition groups. It's the same as the Egyptian model; Give the people the choice between a government by a dictator or by a nuts theocracy. Most will choose the not the theocracy path. For very good reasons. Assad will hold power as long as there is no easy choice of a modern inclusive democracy. |