The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is it fair to blame Muslims for terror attacks?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Mona-S
Quran 5:33 - That's for the people who start a war or with Muslims or who cause corruption in earth = Justifiable.
In America death penalty still exists, and that includes lethal injection, electrocution, or firing squad.


Do you not see that you sound exactly like ISIS when you say it is justifiable for people to be crucified and have their limbs cut off on opposite sides? What a revolting and despicable point of view that is, and then many Muslims wonder why they are often accused of harbouring barbaric and medieval beliefs?

And so what if the USA enforces capital punishment? How on Earth do two wrongs make a right?

Quran 98:6 - If you don't believe in Islam, you will go to hell. I think if you're a person who knows that Islam is not a true a religion, then you shouldn't really care about this quote.

Quran 3:91 - Same as top, if you're a non-Muslim, why do you care about going to hell for not being a Muslim


With all due respect, the points I was making have gone completely over your head. I know Islam isn't true and I am not worried about the punishments they describe at all, but that wasn't what I was saying. The OP implied I was lying about the Quran containing violent and unpleasant verses and I proved her wrong by providing examples. You don't need to believe in a holy book to recognise that some of its verses are of this nature.

Quran 4:56 - 'These are the verses of Allah which We recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?' - what's wrong with this verse?


It appears you are quoting the wrong verse, here is 4:56

http://quran.com/4/56

Quran 8:39 - Verse 8:39 is in the context of those non-Muslims who were hostile to the Muslims back then. The verse before it, 8:38 (if you did read it) says 'if they cease, what has previously occurred will be forgiven for them' and if they don't stop then fight them back. Do you expect people to get killed and God telling them to sit down.


Context is irrelevant as that wasn't the claim I was making. My claim was that there are violent verses in the Quran and there are. Screaming "context" doesn't make them go away, it just allows you to justify them, which is exactly what groups like ISIS are doing.
Original post by rhia9
Islam is a religion of peace. Is ISIS really "Islamic" or are they just using this as a mask and the real reason for the attacks is the urge to have power? Why do people say "Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or the Paris bombings?" Were they really?


Posted from TSR Mobile
penal responsibility is individual. The responsibility for the terror attacks lies squarely on those who organised them and carried them out. It is absurd to put the responsibility on people who had nothing to do with them

So: of course that Muslims as such are not responsible for the attacks

On the other hand, from a moral point of view, Islam's responsibility cannot be excluded.

Islam (as most ideologies) comes in many shapes and sizes, and it is quite clear that one particular brand of Islam has inspired the terror attacks : Islamic texts are routinely quoted by the attackers as their main inspiration and incitement to act

as to whether the terrorists' Islam is the real Islam or not, this is not something for non-Muslims to decide upon : as we are so often being told, we have no clue, we are just ignorant kuffar etc etc

in fact, Muslims themselves diverge considerably over what is Islam and what isn't... two Muslims, three opinions : so, in my view, the elusive "real Islam" does not even exist, and is impossible to define precisely

best
Original post by dexterminate
The KKK were a white supremacy group. A CHRISTIAN terror group. ISIS is an ISLAMIC terror group. Nobody seems to emphasise the religion in the KKK as much as they do with ISIS. Wonder why.

And this is a very stupid question. Of course all Muslims are not to blame.

And people don’t ask Muslims to apologise? Are you being serious?

“You know your people killed thousands”
“Sorry”

— a conversation my friend had in NY the first time she visited, followed by many others.

The fact we are expected to apologise is sickening, and if you’re not Muslim, please do not speak for them.



Posted from TSR Mobile
i think the oft used kkk example can be refuted quite simply - the kkk were a small racially not religiously motivated group - as someone has already pointed out murdered black christians during their fears of slavery and segregated rights laws being removed. whereas IS ( and all islamist groups) attach the significance of islamic jihad to all their campaigns- and draw the parralels to all the early islamic caliphates that went to war with both shia sectarian muslims and their non-muslim neighbours that refused to convert. Rather than condemn this ideology- muslims today tend to apologise for it. hence the stark difference where the kkk can be almost universally attacked form within its own white christian society to reduce it to an insignifcant band of racists today ( i would argue other more politically motivated far right groups are more dnagerous terrorists today in the west than kkk)- whereas all islamic terrorist groups operate almost with impunity within islamic society- can openly recruit in mosques and islamic centres and can even attract billions of funding from general muslim populace or major islamic governments
Reply 143
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by dexterminate
And so does every other holy book.
Whataboutery. Two wrongs do not make a right.

We do not follow every exact thing the Qu’ran states if we believe it is not right.
To claim that parts of the Quran are "not right" and need not be followed, is an act of kufr. You cannot believe this and be a Muslim (under current Islamic ideology).
However, I applaud your forward looking approach. The more Muslims take this attitude, the sooner Islamist violence will be a thing of the past.

Islam is a religion of peace – I would know. All the Muslims I have met are the most humble, kind and beautiful people I have ever met. They hear all the **** that people like you say, and yet, they would still treat you with utmost kindness.
You are making the mistake of confusing "Islamic ideology" with "the behaviour of individual Muslims".
I have never met a Muslim who had sex with their female slaves, yet Islam gives them permission to do this.

• They have to pay to charity, it’s an obligation. It is one of the main pillars of Islam.
If it is an obligation, it is a tax, not charity.

• They call each other brothers, sisters.
Communists and socialists do this. As do some christians.

My friends have to call their elders aunties, uncles.
So? some non-Muslims call non relatives aunty or uncle. I'm not sure what your point is?

• “Heaven lies under your mothers feet” this means that you have to treat your mother with U T M O S T respect. Like U T M O S T. The way my friends treat their mothers make me look bad.
Shame that doesn't extent to their wives...
"As for those wives from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, then abandon them in their beds, then beat them"

• They respect every religion.
Muhammad said, "I have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they declare that Allah is the one true god and I am his messenger, then their lives and property will be spared" - sahih Bukhari.

Media had manipulated us into believing that Islam is an extreme religion in which they practise acts of terrorism.
No it hasn't. The mainstream media goes out of its way to promote the "Religion of peace" and "not true Muslims" tropes.
The source of the evidence for the violence, oppression and intolerance in Islam is the Quran and sunnah, not the Mail and Sun!
[QUOTE="QE2;66274896"]
Original post by Shiby_123
ImageUploadedByStudent Room1467707216.536589.jpg

ImageUploadedByStudent Room1467707317.899083.jpg

Hope people understand, can't blame the majority for the acts of the minority, this is not the teaching of Islam or the Quran:
How does WW1 not being caused by Muslims mean that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam?
The argument is just meaningless, and for people to claim it is a "great comeback" just shows the levels of objective criticism employed by some!

And this had been demonstrated, time and time again, to be highly disingenuous. Anyone who has read this verse (and the next one) in context knows that they specifically give permission to kill people for committing the crime of "fasad".
Now, look up "fasad". I'll give you a start.
http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=436
In his Tafsir, As-Suddi said that Ibn `Abbas and Ibn Mas`ud commented,
("Do not make mischief on the earth''), that is disbelief and acts of disobedience.'

So, according to at least one classical scholar, "fasad" includes "disbelief".
Now, as I have said before, you do not have to accept this scholar's interpretation. There are probably others. However, there are many millions who do accept it.
So it is clear that the ambiguous nature of the Quran leads to varying interpretations, some of which clearly permit killing people for refusal to submit to (their interpretation of) Islam. Which is exactly what ISIS do.




If they were Muslim, they would not be bombing fellow human beings, let alone fellow Muslims in the holy city of Madina- why would anyone commit suicide attacks in the beloved city of the prophet, knowing no killer/suicide killer would ever enter heaven.

The argument is valid, as very few extremists who don't share the same views as the majority of Muslims can't represent all the other Muslims who live in peace- Islam is the religion of peace and I can defo say the Quran promotes peace, love and affection for people, animals, environment etc.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 145
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by dexterminate
Read my post above.
How about you actually address the points raised instead of repeating the usual disinformation and propaganda, which has been refuted time and again.
Original post by QE2
Whataboutery. Two wrongs do not make a right.

To claim that parts of the Quran are "not right" and need not be followed, is an act of kufr. You cannot believe this and be a Muslim (under current Islamic ideology).
However, I applaud your forward looking approach. The more Muslims take this attitude, the sooner Islamist violence will be a thing of the past.

You are making the mistake of confusing "Islamic ideology" with "the behaviour of individual Muslims".
I have never met a Muslim who had sex with their female slaves, yet Islam gives them permission to do this.

If it is an obligation, it is a tax, not charity.

Communists and socialists do this. As do some christians.

So? some non-Muslims call non relatives aunty or uncle. I'm not sure what your point is?

Shame that doesn't extent to their wives...
"As for those wives from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them, then abandon them in their beds, then beat them"

Muhammad said, "I have been commanded to fight the disbelievers until they declare that Allah is the one true god and I am his messenger, then their lives and property will be spared" - sahih Bukhari.

No it hasn't. The mainstream media goes out of its way to promote the "Religion of peace" and "not true Muslims" tropes.
The source of the evidence for the violence, oppression and intolerance in Islam is the Quran and sunnah, not the Mail and Sun!




Well done for misquoting the Quran on numerous occasions, taking things out of context and manipulating what others have said- ur proving nothing


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by tamanna___
Okay so in the Quran they read a passage and interpreted it as that your allowed to kill, however one of the most clearest commands or rules if you like, is the one that tells us killing any human is forbidden, and doing so will be as if we have not killed one person, but the whole of mankind. Why would you interpret when the meaning is clearly there? Surely they want to twist words now, dont you think?


Actually, the verse about killing all of mankind does not say that killing is forbidden, merely that killing for reasons not approved of by Allah, is inappropriate.

Original post by emdyerx
My real problem is, why does there religion connote marrying young girls, as either the prophet Muhammad or Allah raped a girl? That is what I have read and want to know if it's true?


It is true. Authentic Hadeeth state that Muhammad married Aisha when she was 6 and first had sex with her when she was 9.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Shiby_123
Well done for misquoting the Quran on numerous occasions, taking things out of context and manipulating what others have said- ur proving nothing


Posted from TSR Mobile


Are you going to respond to my quotation of the Koran in which I exposed your wrong claim about Islam forbidding the killing of anyone at all? Or are you just going to ignore it?
Reply 149
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Shiby_123
If they were Muslim, they would not be bombing fellow human beings, let alone fellow Muslims in the holy city of Madina-
First, the Quran and sunnah are full of examples of Muslims killing fellow human beings, in battles, in raids on caravans, as punishments, as revenge. Killing people is not forbidden by Islam.

Second, and I know this has been mentioned before, ISIS follow a fundamentalist, literalist, retentionist interpretation of Islam, which is at complete odds with the modernised, corporate Islam of Saudi religious tourism. If someone claims to be a Muslim but do not follow the original Islam of Allah and Muhammad (as they see it), they are considered worse than a disbeliever, they are a munafiq, and there are plenty of passages that can be interpretaed as giving permission for their punishment.

why would anyone commit suicide attacks in the beloved city of the prophet, knowing no killer/suicide killer would ever enter heaven.
The Quran says that those who die fighting in the way of Allah will gain the greatest reward.
If a lone horseman charges one hundred enemy, knowing that it means certain death but determined to take as many with him as he can, is that suicide? Or is it martyrdom?
The verse condemning to suicide in the Quran refers to simply ending one's own life in isolation, not welcoming certain death as part of physical jihad.

The argument is valid, as very few extremists who don't share the same views as the majority of Muslims can't represent all the other Muslims who live in peace- Islam is the religion of peace and
The only real difference between ISIS and a large proportion of Muslims is the willingness to accept and act upon the ideology. They both believe that same things.

I can defo say the Quran promotes peace, love and affection for people, animals, environment etc.
Yes, there are passages like this.
And there are other passages that call for killing, flogging, amputations, discrimination and oppression.
Reply 150
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Shiby_123
Well done for misquoting the Quran on numerous occasions, taking things out of context and manipulating what others have said- ur proving nothing
OK.
Which verses have I misquoted?
What has been taken out of context?
Which statements of otehrs have I manipulated?

Spoiler

Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Yes, ISIS may indeed be using the No True Scotsman fallacy and twisting verses to suit their agenda. Whereas most Muslims cherry pick the peaceful verses, they pick the violent ones.

No, that quote does not say that it stops them from being Muslim, merely that they'll go to hell. And again, ISIS could merely say that that verse doesn't apply to them as they believe that those who they kill aren't Muslim.

I didn't say they'll stop being Muslim. I said it's unislamic.
Original post by champ_mc99
I didn't say they'll stop being Muslim. I said it's unislamic.


You said:

So technically after they kill another muslim they aren't "true" or they are unislamic.


By definition, if someone's not a "true" Muslim, then they aren't Muslim.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
You said:
By definition, if someone's not a "true" Muslim, then they aren't Muslim.


By true I meant practising. But if not then I mean the actions are unislamic.
Original post by champ_mc99
By true I meant practising. But if not then I mean the actions are unislamic.


Only by your interpretation. If ISIS don't consider those who they kill as Muslims then to them their actions are not unislamic.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
Only by your interpretation. If ISIS don't consider those who they kill as Muslims then to them their actions are not unislamic.


Which verse do they use for justification they the victims aren't Muslims?
Original post by champ_mc99
Which verse do they use for justification they the victims aren't Muslims?


I have no idea which verse, if any, they use. But it's clear that they wouldn't be slaughtering Muslims by the hundreds or thousands if they genuinely believed they were God's chosen people.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
I have no idea which verse, if any, they use. But it's clear that they wouldn't be slaughtering Muslims by the hundreds or thousands if they genuinely believed they were God's chosen people.


It's not really an interpretation then. Without a verse to justify their acts they would not be able to abrogate the verse I just quoted.
Original post by Kutta
Oh that is a interesting point, thanks for letting me know :smile:

If someone were to raise that point I would probably point to their hypocrisy as ISIS slaughter more Muslims than anyone else :colonhash: Not for one second would I call Hitler an exemplar Christian, but that is the point, none of these hateful people should be seen as flag bearers for their religion/society/country/culture :smile:

Thanks for your point though :smile:


Although IS cant be assumed as 'exemplar muslims, they cant be disregarded as 'not being muslims either' they are quite obviously muslims following a doctrine they beleive is more islamic than yours. none of the billion or so muslims you refer act or interpret in exactly the same way- doesnt mean they arnt muslims or islamic. the fact they have killed more muslims than not im sure is simply due to a reality of geography and population. the people they kill in terms of their ideology do not conform to the requirements of islam - that is where their hatred stems from. the spread of IS accross the globe is dwn to the inaction and appeasement shown by the rest of the worlds muslim population. There has been islamsit terrorists for many many decades, but it seems the acceleration of this phenomenan ahs really taken off in last couple of decades andso the blame for that can directly be laid at your generations ie its the muslims of your age group accross the globe that have either encouraged or condoned the rise fo groups liek this or in more extreme cases joined them
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by champ_mc99
It's not really an interpretation then. Without a verse to justify their acts they would not be able to abrogate the verse I just quoted.


But I didn't say they don't have a verse, just that I don't know. I'm not a member of ISIS, they may well have one. I imagine they could also claim other Muslims aren't Muslims because they don't implement a lot of the Qur'an, even though it's meant to be 100% the word of God.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you