Author Topic: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist  (Read 6655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Introvert98

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« on: April 20, 2016, 09:18:45 PM »
The Islamic State of Iraq and al Sham (ISIS), or The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), has officially declared the creation of an Islamic Caliphate – a state that will be ruled by Shariah (Islamic law).[1] Along with this declaration, ISIS has renamed itself to “The Islamic State” (IS). They have named their leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi, to be the first caliph in 90 years.

The statement released by IS says of al-Baghdadi, “He is the imam and khalifah (Caliph) for the Muslims everywhere…It is incumbent upon all Muslims to pledge allegiance to (him) and support him…The legality of all emirates [principality or political territory], groups, states, and organizations, becomes null by the expansion of the khalifah’s authority and arrival of its troops to their areas.”

The world has been very interested in this news. But most people do not know exactly what a caliphate is, or what it could mean for the future of the world. The “caliph” is the leader of Islam. The word “caliph” (Arabic Khalifah) means “successor,” that is, the successor to Muhammad. A good way for a Westerner to think about him is that the Caliph is basically a Muslim pope, general, and president all wrapped up into one position. He is the religious, military, and political leader of all Muslims worldwide.

There have been four major caliphates since Muhammad died in 632 AD. The first was the Rashidun Caliphate, which included the first four Caliphs and lasted from 632-661 (only 29 years). They were named Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. Notice that the first caliph is named Abu Bakr. It is no coincidence that the current caliph has named himself after Abu Bakr, who was the father-in-law of Muhammad.

The next three Caliphates included the Umayyad (661-750), the Abbasid (750-1258 and 1261-1517), and the Ottoman (1517-1924). The Ottoman Empire collapsed in the aftermath of World War I, and the new nation of Turkey abolished the Caliphate. The fact that ISIS has declared a caliphate goes right in line with what al-Qaeda has intended to do for years.

The last Caliph of Islam, Abdülmecid II. Wikipedia.org

Why does all of this matter?

Charles Lister, Visiting Fellow at the Brookings Doha Center, noted the significance of what IS did:

“Whatever judgments are made in terms of its legitimacy, (the) announcement that it has restored the Caliphate is likely the most significant development in international jihadism since 9/11. The impact of this announcement will be global as al-Qaeda affiliates and independent jihadist groups must now definitively choose to support and join the Islamic State or to oppose it.”

Middle East and prophecy expert Joel Richardson says:

“The potential implications for the world are absolutely profound. First, according to Islamic jurisprudence, once a caliph has been declared, it is mandatory upon all Muslims to make a pledge of allegiance to the sitting caliph, known in Arabic as the bay’ah. The bay’ah [is] translated as follows:

‘I pledge my allegiance to the Commander of the Faithful [the Caliph], to hear and obey, in hardship and in blessings, to establish the religion of Allah, and to enforce Allah’s Shariah, and to expand the order of Allah, to establish the global Islamic state.’”

According to various hadith (which are Islamic traditions found outside of the Quran), if someone does not make the pledge of allegiance to the Caliph, he will be treated as a non-Muslim, and will die as one:

“[W]hen he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahillyya [Non-Muslim].” (Abu Muslim 20: 4562)

We already have numerous jihadi groups that have pledged their allegiance to the new caliph. What will happen when groups such as Boko Haram in Nigeria, al-Shabab in Somalia and Kenya, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank (there is already signs that ISIS is in Gaza and the Golan Heights – see here and here), and others begin to pledge their allegiance to Abu Bakr? ISIS has also claimed responsibility for a suicide bomber in Lebanon and is telling the people of that country that more is coming.

A map released by ISIS. It is their plan to conquer everything in black within the next five years. I’m not saying that they will accomplish this goal, but they will at least try to. The legitimacy of the map has been questioned by some.

Richardson notes, “The dangers of a snowballing trend [are] profound. Rather than having an Islamic State spanning segments of Syria and Iraq, there could be smaller segments of the Islamic State in numerous other nations.” Muslims from other nations are already supporting ISIS, even in America and Britain.

Now that a Caliphate has been proclaimed, it is actually mandatory for them to engage in “jihad until there are literally no non-Muslims left throughout the world, or they submit to being subjected peoples:

’Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.’ (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

According to the Islamic State media, one of the obligations of the caliph is stated as follows:

‘He must strive in jihad against those who stubbornly reject Islam after being called to it, until they become Muslim or agree to live under Muslim protection and pay jizyah, so that the rights of Allah will be fulfilled and His religion will prevail over all others.’

Even beyond the official state jihad, it is also incumbent upon all Muslims everywhere to expand the rule of Islam through individual jihad. One of the significant debates that many Muslim jurists had with Osama bin Laden is that jihad is not technically legal according to Islamic Shariah unless there is a sitting caliph. Well, now there is one. As such, the potential for various lone-wolf terrorism attacks throughout the world has just absolutely ballooned.

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2016, 12:35:24 AM »
I think this article is at-least a few years old. Daesh is not as big of a threat as it used to be, it has lost a lot of land recently and apparently, because of being cut-off from Turkey they couldn't sell "their" oil to the international market which has caused them huge financial problems which in-turn led to wage cuts. According to reports a number of these so-called "Jihadists" fighting for Allah's deen have left the fight after these wage cuts. The reason Daesh restarted slavery seems more obvious after this revelation.

Importance of Caliphate

The creation of a Caliphate has, unfortunately or fortunately, become somewhat of an infatuation for a lot of Muslims. This is literally the objective of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir movement. Almost all Muslims also share this goal, but most Muslims, probably more than 95%, don't know of one extremely relevant objective that, according to the interpretation of a number of Muslim scholars, a Khilafah is supposed to have. That goal is the forceful enforcement of Sharia' in the whole world, even on peaceful non-Muslims. These people believe that it is the responsibility put on the Muslims by Allah to spread the Sharia' everywhere. Non-Muslims can live peacefully, but it has to be under Muslim rule and under Islamic law. They believe that this is the only method of spreading the message of Islam and they even believe that there is no Jihad other than violent Jihad. They claim the other Jihad types are just creation of the disbelievers and their Muslim supporters in order to keep Muslims from attaining their lost "glory".

These people use the so-called violent Hadiths and Qur'an verses, which I suppose everyone here would know about, the ones used by anti-Islamists to claim that Islam is a violent religion. But the most significant factor for this particular violent interpretation of theirs, is the fact regarding how Muslims soon after the Prophet's death came out of Arabia and conquered so many non-Muslim domains.

There are basically three different ways in which these early conquests are interpreted.

1) To fulfil the responsibility of spreading the message of Islam, put on Muslims by God, which is only possible through the means of violent Jihad.

2) These conquests were done, keeping in mind strategic interests. Unlike today's times when nations are usually at peace with each other and they have to declare war, during the early centuries of Islam, these were the times when various world empires used to remain in a state of perpetual war and the uncommon state was to declare peace (completely in contradiction to today's times). Empires used to continuously expand and contract as their power grew or waned. Caliph Abu Bakr, in order to keep the Islamic lands safe from the two surrounding empires captured some areas to create a kind of buffer zones. The Romans were already at war with the Muslims. Regarding the Persians, some traditions tell us that Khosrou of Persia had ordered to arrest Prophet Muhammad, but for some reason it did not happen. In any case, open fighting with the Persians had not started, but it is extremely likely that they would have started it when their internal political disputes got resolved and Muslims became a threat. After all, they had been fighting with the Romans for decades, they had no reason to spare the Muslims (whom they in their arrogance did not believe worthy) and every reason to attack to gain power and wealth (the objectives of those times). After Abu Bakr's action, the Persians started raiding those lands. This led one thing to another and resulted in all-out war between the Muslims, Romans and Persians.

3) This is a fringe group, who believe in the concept of Qanoon-e-Ihtamam-e-Hujjat, which basically means that the message of Islam was spread in such an absolute clear manner by the Prophet Muhammad to those people who had direct contact with him (because any doubt the people would have had, would have been answered by Prophet Muhammad), therefore there was no reason for these people to not accept Islam. During the times of previous Prophets, such Prophet rejecters were destroyed by God's punishment; but in the case of Prophet Muhammad polytheists had to leave the Arabian peninsula and the people of the book had to live under Muslim rule and pay Jizya. Now, only those lands were conquered by Muslims to which letters of invitation to Islam had been sent by the Prophet and this was only for the people of a particular geographical area and after the Prophet's death such conquests have no religious validity.

As far as I have read, in my opinion the second opinion holds the most ground. The conquests were primarily strategic battles. If the Wikipedia articles are reliable, there were numerous occasions when Caliph Umar and Caliph Uthman were in position to conquer more lands but they chose not to do so. Additionally, aside from strategic benefits, these conquests also allowed the people safety from persecution (Roman emperor Heraclius had previously been guilty of forceful conversions of Jews and minority sect Christians in Egypt), allow the people to safely convert to Islam. Such conditions in most cases do not exist anymore, therefore, as far as the objective of spreading the message of Islam is concerned, violent Jihad is not the only, or the best, method for doing so (if it can even be argued to be a viable method).

Anti-Islamist Points

Unfortunately, one of the things that many Muslims have come to realise, is that the only people in the world who are sure about what Islam is are either "Muslim" extremists or anti-Islamists. These people regard all others of being ignorant or stupid about Islam. Anti-Islamists spread their propaganda while "Muslim" extremists kill whoever disagrees with them. A very significant similarity with the Khwarijites.

* “The potential implications for the world are absolutely profound. First, according to Islamic jurisprudence, once a caliph has been declared, it is mandatory upon all Muslims to make a pledge of allegiance to the sitting caliph..."

Extremely misleading. According to Islamic scripture Muslims are obliged to pledge their allegiance to the current Muslim ruler. It can be a President, a Prime Minister etc. Because the title of Caliphs has been around for 13 centuries, the term Muslim ruler and Caliph became synonymous. In short, there is essentially no difference now as compared to before. Al Baghdadi is like any other modern Muslim ruler.

Although, according to my understanding, this belief has no explicit theological support, unfortunately, this belief is kept by the "enforcement of Sharia' on all non-Muslims" group.

* The pledging allegiance Hadith

In Islam huge importance is given to being loyal to the ruler of the time. According to some scholars, it would be incorrect to rebel against the ruler even if he is oppressive because the rebellion would cause even greater corruption in the land than the ruler's own oppression, for this reason this loyalty is important. But, as has been mentioned in the previous point, there is no reason for that ruler to be Al Baghdadi.

* Terrorist groups allegiance to Al Baghdadi

This is because of the narrative I mentioned before about forcing Sharia' law on even peaceful non-Muslims.

* Richardson notes, “The dangers of a snowballing trend [are] profound. Rather than having an Islamic State spanning segments of Syria and Iraq, there could be smaller segments of the Islamic State in numerous other nations.” Muslims from other nations are already supporting ISIS, even in America and Britain.

The same terrorist mentality groups that were supporting Daesh-like groups before, are supporting them now. Not much has changed.

* Now that a Caliphate has been proclaimed, it is actually mandatory for them to engage in “jihad until there are literally no non-Muslims left throughout the world, or they submit to being subjected peoples...

The same narrative, I alluded to before. This is what most, if not all, terrorists have believed before, nothing much has changed. From my experience most Muslims don't even know of such narratives, let alone believing or rejecting them.

* Hadith: ’Allah’s Apostle [Muhammad] said: “I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah’s Apostle.’ (Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 24)

This is kind of a co-incidence, I just, two days ago, came upon this narration.
This is an incomplete narration. Complete narration:

And the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "I have been ordered to fight the people until they testify that there is no deity worthy of worship other than Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, establish the prayer, and pay Zakah, and if they do this, then their blood and money shall be protected from me, except by an Islamic right, and their account will be with Allah."

Quote
When I read this narration, I almost missed the most obvious problem with using it to conclude that Muslims are religiously obligated to fight in order to spread Allah’s message “to the whole of mankind”. It is being alleged that Prophet Muhammad is saying that he has been ordered to fight the disbelievers until they “establish the prayer and pay the Zakat”. But Muslims understand the accepted Islamic principle of “no compulsion in religion” and in addition, they also accept that the disbelievers cannot be forced to pray or pay the Zakat. Therefore, it is argued that this fighting could not possibly be talking about fighting with the disbelievers, at-least not because of their disbelief.

According to aboutjihad.com, the “fighting being ordained here refers to the enforcement of laws and regulations within an Islamic state.” Even Sheikh Ahmed Ibn Taymiyah, apparently the person who is most famous for spreading the concept of violent Jihad to spread the message of Islam, said about this narration:

“It refers to fighting those who are waging war, whom Allah has permitted us to fight. It does not refer to those who have a covenant with us with whom Allah commands us to fulfil our covenant.” [Majmu` al-Fatawa 19/20]

The narration becomes more clear when we remember that the first Caliph Abu Bakr fought the hypocrites in the Riddah wars for exactly this reason, i.e. not paying the Zakat. Additionally, a similar (quite possibly the same) narration is recounted by ‘Umar to Abu Bakr on the matter of those who did not pay Zakat. Interestingly, this Hadith is recorded by Imam Bukhari in his chapter “Killing those who refuse to fulfil the duties enjoined by Allah, and considering them as apostates”, pointing towards the idea that hypocrite Muslims are being talked about and not the disbelievers.

Mufti Shafi Usmani in his commentary of Qur’an verses 8:39-40 recounts a very similar narration, claimed to be also from Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim, so possibly the same narration, but the words “the people” have been replaced by “the enemies of Islam”

* Regarding "...lone-wolf terrorism attacks throughout the world has just absolutely ballooned".

The writer unfortunately was correct on this account, as we have observed in recent months. However, how "Islamic" were these lone-wolves, take a look at this story by Al-Jazeera's Mehdi Hasan:
https://www.facebook.com/DeStilleWaarheid/videos/1249044585109066/

It was found that these lone-wolves were alcohol drinkers (one of the few prohibitions most Muslims actually stay away from in today's age) and a couple of them had even sold their pub just a week before committing the terrorist attack. The best description of these terrorists is that they are Khwarijites who do not understand religion and yet regard everyone else as either apostates or hypocrites.

Offline AhmadFarooq

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2016, 12:49:44 AM »
Regarding Daesh being the antichrist, first of all this "antichrist" title is tossed around like a football. If I remember correctly, during the cold war era it was used for Communism. As far as I know, there definitely is not enough scriptural evidence to call Daesh or any other organization as antichrist. The Bible appears to be pretty clear about calling a single person as the antichrist and not organizations.

In any case, Daesh most likely will not exist for long (Insha'Allah).
(Unless some foreign govt. starts supporting them, or more than how much they have already been doing till now. Hope that doesn't happen).

Offline Saudi Salafi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2016, 01:11:23 AM »
ISIS PROPHECY IN ISLAM:


It was narrated in Kitaab Al-Fitan (the Book of Trials), written by Al-Mirwazi (Al-Bukhari's teacher), that Ali bin Abi Taalib (ra) said:
"If you see the black flags, then hold the ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the state (literally says "the people of Al-Dawla"), they do not keep a promise or treaty. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their first names are كنى Kunaa (nicknames like Abu Muhammed), and their last names are قرى Quraa (names of towns and cities, like Al-Halabi), and their hair is loose like women's hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then God will bring the truth from from whoever He wills."



black flags, check.
weak with no capabilities [compared to proper todays military standards], check
hearts are like blocks of iron, check [check their execution vids, they don't fear death..etc..]
people of the state, check.
first names are kunaa and last names are quraa, check
loose hair like women, check

some pics of ISIS members to confirm the long hair part

http://i.imgur.com/YtqJaSN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8Drv1Z4.png

http://i.imgur.com/ySewwsQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/w0HXvR4.png

Offline Saudi Salafi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2016, 01:30:40 AM »
 The anti-christ according to both, Christianity and Islam, is JEWISH. http://biblehub.com/library/pink/the_antichrist/i_the_antichrist_will_be.htm

SO NO MUSLIM CAN BE THE ANTI-CHRIST!

But Islam said that the Dajjal is also one eyed. LOOK AT THIS:

http://emancipationfromslavery.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/freemason-porn-power-new-world-order-sex-porn-power-might-dollar-bill-symbolism-symbols-sacred-star-of-david-five-pointed-star-pentagram-idolotry-idols-bible-n.jpg





NOTE: I am unsure if Islam said that the Anti-Christ will be a jew, but it did say this however Anas said: The Prophet of Allah said: “The Dajjal will come forth from a Jewish woman of Esfahan (Iran), followed by seventy thousand Jews wearing Persian shawls.”

Offline submit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2016, 09:16:23 AM »
ours is false christ which refer to Impostor Messiah who will claim to bring salvation for Jews.

while their definition of antichrist is person/group fighting christ.

~~
past thread on isis http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=1863.0

Offline Shabeer1

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #6 on: April 27, 2016, 10:18:54 AM »
ISIS ,TALIBAN,BOKO HARAM NOT AN ISLAMIC ORGANISATION ,THEY R NOT REPRESENTING ANY ISLAMIC VALUE ,THEY R CREATED BY WEST FOR FEAR OF ''' ISLAM PHOBIA ''''',BEC'S MASS CONVERSION TO ISLAM GOING ON ACROSS THE EUROPE AND US

PLZ READ MY POST ISLAM VS THESE TERRORIST ORGANISATION

http://www.answering-christianity.com/blog/index.php?topic=1714.msg6843#msg6843   

Offline submit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #7 on: April 27, 2016, 10:34:37 AM »
ISIS ,TALIBAN,BOKO HARAM are fighting West, as retaliation to West invoking bloodshed to their nation.
The thing about deceitful war, once one have taste the action of taking lives of other human. Then it will be a casual act for them. And they cant stop.

Offline IndonesianStranger

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2016, 12:42:45 PM »
ISIS PROPHECY IN ISLAM:


It was narrated in Kitaab Al-Fitan (the Book of Trials), written by Al-Mirwazi (Al-Bukhari's teacher), that Ali bin Abi Taalib (ra) said:
"If you see the black flags, then hold the ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the state (literally says "the people of Al-Dawla"), they do not keep a promise or treaty. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their first names are كنى Kunaa (nicknames like Abu Muhammed), and their last names are قرى Quraa (names of towns and cities, like Al-Halabi), and their hair is loose like women's hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then God will bring the truth from from whoever He wills."



black flags, check.
weak with no capabilities [compared to proper todays military standards], check
hearts are like blocks of iron, check [check their execution vids, they don't fear death..etc..]
people of the state, check.
first names are kunaa and last names are quraa, check
loose hair like women, check

some pics of ISIS members to confirm the long hair part

http://i.imgur.com/YtqJaSN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8Drv1Z4.png

http://i.imgur.com/ySewwsQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/w0HXvR4.png


This hadith was transmitted by two chains of narrators.
-First chain of narrators: Narrated by Ibn Majah from Khalid al-Hadza' from Abu Qilabah, from Abu Asma from Tsauban.
-Second chain of narrators: Narrated by Imam Ahmad from Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jadza'an from Abu Qilabah.

The hadith is deemed weak by by the ulamas. One of the reasons are:
-Al-Munawi in his book Faidhul Qodir said: One of the narrators is Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jadza'an. It has been mentioned in al-Mizan from Ahmad and the others who labelled him as a weak narrator. Ad-Dzhahabi said, "I think this hadits is munkar". (Faidhul Qodir, 1/363)

- Abu Qilabah was a mudallis (as-Silsilah ad-Dhaifah, hadith explaination no. 85)

Source: https://konsultasisyariah.com/23247-hadis-tentang-isis.html (not written in English)

-sorry for bad english-
 

Offline IndonesianStranger

  • Full Member
  • ***
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2016, 12:57:21 PM »
ISIS PROPHECY IN ISLAM:


It was narrated in Kitaab Al-Fitan (the Book of Trials), written by Al-Mirwazi (Al-Bukhari's teacher), that Ali bin Abi Taalib (ra) said:
"If you see the black flags, then hold the ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the state (literally says "the people of Al-Dawla"), they do not keep a promise or treaty. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their first names are كنى Kunaa (nicknames like Abu Muhammed), and their last names are قرى Quraa (names of towns and cities, like Al-Halabi), and their hair is loose like women's hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then God will bring the truth from from whoever He wills."



black flags, check.
weak with no capabilities [compared to proper todays military standards], check
hearts are like blocks of iron, check [check their execution vids, they don't fear death..etc..]
people of the state, check.
first names are kunaa and last names are quraa, check
loose hair like women, check

some pics of ISIS members to confirm the long hair part

http://i.imgur.com/YtqJaSN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8Drv1Z4.png

http://i.imgur.com/ySewwsQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/w0HXvR4.png


This hadith was transmitted by two chains of narrators.
-First chain of narrators: Narrated by Ibn Majah from Khalid al-Hadza' from Abu Qilabah, from Abu Asma from Tsauban.
-Second chain of narrators: Narrated by Imam Ahmad from Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jadza'an from Abu Qilabah.

The hadith is deemed weak by by the ulamas. One of the reasons are:
-Al-Munawi in his book Faidhul Qodir said: One of the narrators is Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jadza'an. It has been mentioned in al-Mizan from Ahmad and the others who labelled him as a weak narrator. Ad-Dzhahabi said, "I think this hadits is munkar". (Faidhul Qodir, 1/363)

- Abu Qilabah was a mudallis (as-Silsilah ad-Dhaifah, hadith explaination no. 85)

Source: https://konsultasisyariah.com/23247-hadis-tentang-isis.html (not written in English)

-sorry for bad english-
 


Erghm, I'm sorry, I think I posted a wrong answer. I asked to a sheikh in Jakarta about another similar hadith, but not this one. As for the hadith that you quote, it had been explained in here: https://konsultasisyariah.com/23247-hadis-tentang-isis.html.

"If you see the black flags, then hold the ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the state (literally says "the people of Al-Dawla"), they do not keep a promise or treaty. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their first names are كنى Kunaa (nicknames like Abu Muhammed), and their last names are قرى Quraa (names of towns and cities, like Al-Halabi), and their hair is loose like women's hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then God will bring the truth from from whoever He wills."

The hadith is viewed weak by the ulamas, because:
1. 'An'anah from al-Walid
2. Risydin ibn Sa'd was a weak narrator (dhaif)
3. Ibn Lahaiah was a weak narrator
4. Abu Ruman was a majhul (unknown) narrator.

(al-Silsilah ad-Dhaifah, 1/440)

Despite the status of the hadith, if we pay attention to the hadith, the hadith is mocking them.

And also, just because the hadith is deemed weak (I don't know if there are any ulamas who view this hadith as authentic, if there are any let me know), it doesn't mean that ISIS is Islamic right? 

Offline Saudi Salafi

  • Hero Member
  • *****
    • View Profile
Re: Help, Christian source claims caliphate is the antichrist
« Reply #10 on: May 25, 2016, 06:57:05 AM »
ISIS PROPHECY IN ISLAM:


It was narrated in Kitaab Al-Fitan (the Book of Trials), written by Al-Mirwazi (Al-Bukhari's teacher), that Ali bin Abi Taalib (ra) said:
"If you see the black flags, then hold the ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the state (literally says "the people of Al-Dawla"), they do not keep a promise or treaty. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their first names are كنى Kunaa (nicknames like Abu Muhammed), and their last names are قرى Quraa (names of towns and cities, like Al-Halabi), and their hair is loose like women's hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then God will bring the truth from from whoever He wills."



black flags, check.
weak with no capabilities [compared to proper todays military standards], check
hearts are like blocks of iron, check [check their execution vids, they don't fear death..etc..]
people of the state, check.
first names are kunaa and last names are quraa, check
loose hair like women, check

some pics of ISIS members to confirm the long hair part

http://i.imgur.com/YtqJaSN.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/8Drv1Z4.png

http://i.imgur.com/ySewwsQ.png

http://i.imgur.com/w0HXvR4.png


This hadith was transmitted by two chains of narrators.
-First chain of narrators: Narrated by Ibn Majah from Khalid al-Hadza' from Abu Qilabah, from Abu Asma from Tsauban.
-Second chain of narrators: Narrated by Imam Ahmad from Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jadza'an from Abu Qilabah.

The hadith is deemed weak by by the ulamas. One of the reasons are:
-Al-Munawi in his book Faidhul Qodir said: One of the narrators is Ali ibn Zaid ibn Jadza'an. It has been mentioned in al-Mizan from Ahmad and the others who labelled him as a weak narrator. Ad-Dzhahabi said, "I think this hadits is munkar". (Faidhul Qodir, 1/363)

- Abu Qilabah was a mudallis (as-Silsilah ad-Dhaifah, hadith explaination no. 85)

Source: https://konsultasisyariah.com/23247-hadis-tentang-isis.html (not written in English)

-sorry for bad english-
 


Erghm, I'm sorry, I think I posted a wrong answer. I asked to a sheikh in Jakarta about another similar hadith, but not this one. As for the hadith that you quote, it had been explained in here: https://konsultasisyariah.com/23247-hadis-tentang-isis.html.

"If you see the black flags, then hold the ground and do not move your hands or your feet. A people will come forth who are weak and have no capability, their hearts are like blocks of iron. They are the people of the state (literally says "the people of Al-Dawla"), they do not keep a promise or treaty. They call to the truth, but they are not its people. Their first names are كنى Kunaa (nicknames like Abu Muhammed), and their last names are قرى Quraa (names of towns and cities, like Al-Halabi), and their hair is loose like women's hair. (Leave them) until they fight among themselves, then God will bring the truth from from whoever He wills."

The hadith is viewed weak by the ulamas, because:
1. 'An'anah from al-Walid
2. Risydin ibn Sa'd was a weak narrator (dhaif)
3. Ibn Lahaiah was a weak narrator
4. Abu Ruman was a majhul (unknown) narrator.

(al-Silsilah ad-Dhaifah, 1/440)

Despite the status of the hadith, if we pay attention to the hadith, the hadith is mocking them.

And also, just because the hadith is deemed weak (I don't know if there are any ulamas who view this hadith as authentic, if there are any let me know), it doesn't mean that ISIS is Islamic right? 


Assalamu aleikum brother,

  Wassim Yousef,who is a known scholar over here in the Arabian Gulf, used this hadith against ISIS. He himself had stated that the hadith is weak, but it's meaning is sound and it has the knowledge of ghayb (unknown) so it is permissible to use it. Because of course, no hadith forger would be able to make such a prophecy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFispA8Ug9k (You might not understand anything because it is in Arabic).

 

What's new | A-Z | Discuss & Blog | Youtube