This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- strike on iran consulate in Damascus
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Working at an aiport?
- My review of BCU - Birmingham City University
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Is Liverpool Muslim friendly?
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- “It’s culture” but people from Islam are from all different cultures
- Am I suffering from PTSD?
- Is Israel winning
- US launches retaliatory strikes in response to Jordan attack
- Best city in England for non religious and single guy?
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- I feel very depressed and Lonely?
- My date showed up on a bicycle in central London
- At least six killed and several in critical condition after Westfield shopping centre
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
Is it fair to blame Muslims for terror attacks?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by tazarooni89
You're just making the same argument over and over again, and I've refuted it several times already.*The problem is, you want to take the obvious, established, majority interpretation when it suits you (i.e. violent films are just works of fiction), and the forced, fringe, minority interpretation when it suits you (i.e. attackers interpret such violence to be promoted in Islam, therefore it is a violent ideology).In every other situation you'll say "No, it's not a problem with the material that influenced them, everybody else manages to absorb that material without being violent, it's just that the person had issues of their own, the problem is with them, the material clearly doesn't aim to encourage violence in real life and the vast majority of people would see it that way).But when it's to do with Islam, all that goes out the window, and it's the ideology that's flawed. The minority interpretation that promotes killing civilians is now suddenly the right one.Double standards if I ever saw them.*
Original post by Good bloke
Islam, though, is uniquely burdened with source material that claims itself to be produced by a deity that must be obeyed, and that ordains death to be the punishment for those that fight against the deity (those that are against Islam). Islam itself cannot claim perfection and that the god's law is paramount and then absolve itself of blame when people do as their god has commanded - that would be a double standard.
The Qur'an does not endorse killing people simply for not being Muslims, and people who do this are actually going against what Islam has commanded. That is both a matter of fact, and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.
As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
Original post by Reformed
again you arnt reading my rely - you cant resort to your usual copy paste prepared pedantry answer. i never made the distinction that 'movies are fiction' . Thats not relevant. movies are simply entertainment- islam is ( supposedly) the ultimate template for governing how a muslim is supposed to think act and live. Mohammed was suppossed to be the best example for a muslim. Mohammed had civilians killed, when it suited his islamic agenda ( ie to conquer non muslim lands etc). relying on this level of morality is problematic. thats why there are problems in the islamic world and stemming from it - because it is problematic. We all see that, why cant you- its not rocket science
There is nothing that Muhammad said or did that necessarily indicates that killing people just for being non-Muslims is acceptable. However there are verses of the Qur'an (always accepted as a higher authority than Hadith) that unequivocally condemn such actions.*
So regardless of what you may say about Islam and/or what Muhammad did, the fact remains that such attacks are unacceptable, and the vast majority of Muslims would agree with me.
Now it may be possible for some insane or malicious individual to read the Qur'an and then think it's a good idea to start committing such attacks, but that is true of anything.
Original post by tazarooni89
The Qur'an does not endorse killing people simply for not being Muslims, and people who do this are actually going against what Islam has commanded. That is both a matter of fact, and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.
As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
I didn't say it did. It says:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment 5:33
I am waging war against Allah, merely by pointing out the nastiness of Islam and advocating that educated Moslems abandon it in the twenty-first century..
Original post by Good bloke
I didn't say it did. It says:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment 5:33
I am waging war against Allah, merely by pointing out the nastiness of Islam and advocating that educated Moslems abandon it in the twenty-first century..
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment 5:33
I am waging war against Allah, merely by pointing out the nastiness of Islam and advocating that educated Moslems abandon it in the twenty-first century..
Apparently you're now the one who gets to decide what "wage war against Allah" entails? Whilst most Muslims would take it to mean that it involves physical violence against Muslims in an attempt to kill off Islam, you think that simply criticising Islam is a type of "war" now?
I refer you again, back to my previous statement: "if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you."
Original post by tazarooni89
Apparently you're now the one who gets to decide what "wage war against Allah" entails? Whilst most Muslims would take it to mean that it involves physical violence against Muslims in an attempt to kill off Islam, you think that simply criticising Islam is a type of "war" now?
War against Allah is obviously not a physical war as Allah has no earthly substance. It can only mean an ideological war.
Original post by tazarooni89
I refer you again, back to my previous statement: "if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you."
I refer you again, back to my previous statement: "if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you."
Why not? You seem to be able to pick which bits of the Koran have meaning now, and which bits can be ignored.
Original post by Good bloke
Well there's the cause of the problem then. You can turn anything into a violent ideology if your interpretation is the one that counts and everybody else's, (though they outnumber you by the hundreds of millions and though their understanding of it is by far the more obvious), is wrong.
The established, mainstream understanding is that it involves physical warfare against Muslims for the purpose of reducing the prevalence of Islam.
Why not? You seem to be able to pick which bits of the Koran have meaning now, and which bits can be ignored.
I don't need to. I'm saying that no matter what the Qur'an (or anything else) says, if 99.9% of people can look at it without feeling the need to attack anyone afterwards, it cannot be the root cause of attacks.
You're the one whose argument relies on interpreting it a specific way, choosing obvious, mainstream interpretations when it suits you or fringe interpretations when it suits you.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
There is nothing that Muhammad said or did that necessarily indicates that killing people just for being non-Muslims is acceptable. However there are verses of the Qur'an (always accepted as a higher authority than Hadith) that unequivocally condemn such actions.*
So regardless of what you may say about Islam and/or what Muhammad did, the fact remains that such attacks are unacceptable, and the vast majority of Muslims would agree with me.
Now it may be possible for some insane or malicious individual to read the Qur'an and then think it's a good idea to start committing such attacks, but that is true of anything.
So regardless of what you may say about Islam and/or what Muhammad did, the fact remains that such attacks are unacceptable, and the vast majority of Muslims would agree with me.
Now it may be possible for some insane or malicious individual to read the Qur'an and then think it's a good idea to start committing such attacks, but that is true of anything.
any thing is possible - but there seems to be a far stronger correlation between malicious individuals you refer and islamist doctrine. far far more than any other faith, or comic book character, or social media site. and in far more wider circumstances and geographical area. you still havent offered an explanation for this.
im terms of mohammed, idont expect you to aknowledge any of his violent actions and motives as indeed you dont aknowledge the issues regariding islamsit doctrine either. however to the rest of the logically thinking world- its too obvious to ignore the records written in islamic chronicles themselves quoting where mohammed had enemies executed, allowed their families to be killed or captured into slavery and indeed the murder of those who mocked or satirised him personally. This is undeniable im afraid - what we can glean form this is theres enough 'islamic evidence' for a terrorists to form an 'islamic inspiration' to murder - as long as they can justify within themselves they are doing so on behalf of islamic agendas. isIamists generally accept attacking the west and western culture as viable targets as they are often in direct contrast to islamic culture- and islam proclaims itself as superior to all others. the point as to whetehr in your opinion ( or mine) that they are 100% accurate is irrelevant to the fact that islamist ideology has put into their heads that somewhow islamic culture is superior to everyone elses and those places that dont accept this should be attacked. its a dangerous mentality ot foster and indeed allow to go unchallenged - which it is within islamic communities especially here.
Original post by tazarooni89
The established, mainstream understanding is that it involves physical warfare against Muslims for the purpose of reducing the prevalence of Islam.
The established, mainstream understanding is that it involves physical warfare against Muslims for the purpose of reducing the prevalence of Islam.
At least we can agree that Moslems are commanded to fight to keep Islamic beliefs dominant.
My point is that a perfect book from a deity should (a) not be capable of misinterpretation (as the Koran is), and (b) be read literally and not interpreted if it tells you to do so (as the Koran does).
Original post by Reformed
any thing is possible - but there seems to be a far stronger correlation between malicious individuals you refer and islamist doctrine. far far more than any other faith, or comic book character, or social media site. and in far more wider circumstances and geographical area. you still havent offered an explanation for this.
I have actually. I've mentioned that people from (or with links to) war afflicted countries, whose state is likely to be perceived as primarily the fault of Western countries, are in this day and age most likely to be Muslim (or assumed to be Muslim) based on the demographics of those countries.
**
im terms of mohammed, idont expect you to aknowledge any of his violent actions and motives as indeed you dont aknowledge the issues regariding islamsit doctrine either. however to the rest of the logically thinking world- its too obvious to ignore the records written in islamic chronicles themselves quoting where mohammed had enemies executed, allowed their families to be killed or captured into slavery and indeed the murder of those who mocked or satirised him personally. This is undeniable im afraid - what we can glean form this is theres enough 'islamic evidence' for a terrorists to form an 'islamic inspiration' to murder - as long as they can justify within themselves they are doing so on behalf of islamic agendas. isIamists generally accept attacking the west and western culture as viable targets as they are often in direct contrast to islamic culture- and islam proclaims itself as superior to all others. the point as to whetehr in your opinion ( or mine) that they are 100% accurate is irrelevant to the fact that islamist ideology has put into their heads that somewhow islamic culture is superior to everyone elses and those places that dont accept this should be attacked. its a dangerous mentality ot foster and indeed allow to go unchallenged - which it is within islamic communities especially here.
Again, the same argument as before, and I've already responded to it. Whatever the contents of Islam may be and however you or terrorists may choose to interpret it, the vast majority of Muslims consider it not to be such that it endorses this sort of violence.
Your point that people could still, in their own minds, use it to justify an attack is true. But this is true of anything.*
1.
the non muslim world doesnt fall for this rhetoric only muslims do. Why? becuase thats how islamic society was structured. We go back to the failure of the system so now a simple border dispute between two tribes, or two countries, can become a 'jihad' on behalf of the people who want to seize their neighbours land. and all of a sudden that war becomes eligible for finance from the 'islamic war fund' of gulf arabia and indeed zakat contributions of the islamic world. as well m sure a few thousand gullible sacrificial lambs form the muslim communities aroud the globe . create a false loyalty that al muslims must feel to any other muslim and their cause ( even if it seem that muslim is a mass murderer - saddam hussein anyone?) a
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by tazarooni89
The Qur'an does not endorse killing people simply for not being Muslims, and people who do this are actually going against what Islam has commanded. That is both a matter of fact, and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.
As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
Islamic doctrine asserts that it is authored by the one true God, that prophets are infallible, that its own set of laws must be adhered, and that people who don't must be purged/killed. It doesn't matter if there are verses that preach peace, as long as it cannot be questioned, it remains an ideology that sets society back by centuries.
To further that point, I don't think it matters whether it is a fringe minority interpretation or not - ultimately as long as the ideology satisfies three criteria, that is a) reason must not be used, and b) certain kinds of thought are non-permissible, and c) the ideology must be deemed the ultimate authority, then we have a fertile breeding ground for hostility.
A petri-dish, or a catalyst of sorts.
If it stands in the way of social/economic/political progress, then the ideology is questionable at best and causes absolute destruction at worst, at which point it needs to be critically opposed - but not with bigotry or hatred.
(edited 7 years ago)
1.
Original post by tazarooni89I have actually. I've mentioned that people from (or with links to) war afflicted countries, whose state is likely to be perceived as primarily the fault of Western countries, are in this day and age most likely to be Muslim (or assumed to be Muslim) based on the demographics of those countries.
**
doesnt explain the pakistani terrorist, the indonesian terrorist, the nigerian terrorist, the american terrorist .... etc etc the list goes on and on. war is not the common factor in these cases - their exposure to islamist ideology is. if your thesis was correct - we'd have terrorist attacks a plenty in europe from those immigrants from sierra leone, congo, sri lanka, israel, Christian syrians and jordainians etc. But we do not. their ommission from the terrorism statistics is glaring as the repeated appearance of a variety of ethnicities that share one faith. Heck we had mass immigration after two of the biggest wars of all time 60 years ago and not the associated ' ptsd terrorism ' you are trying to claim. you are running out of straws to clutch.Again, the same argument as before, and I've already responded to it. Whatever the contents of Islam may be and however you or terrorists may choose to interpret it, the vast majority of Muslims consider it not to be such that it endorses this sort of violence.Original post by tazarooni89
but the fact remains that murder and killing to an end was acceptble practice of mohammed - and he is a more relevant spokesman of islam than you or i
(edited 7 years ago)
Running over innocents in France on Friday, military coup in Turkey on Saturday, "honour" killing his own sister for wearing western clothing in Pakistan, axing up people on a train on Monday. Stabbing a mother and her daughters for wearing western clothes i.e. something that shows skin today. All done by Muslims, in the past 5 days. Something has fundamentally gone wrong with their religion.
This video says it all: [video="youtube;rhqneAhyJkI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhqneAhyJkI[/video]
Original post by Good bloke
At least we can agree that Moslems are commanded to fight to keep Islamic beliefs dominant.
Well it would be rather silly for any group of people to be pacifistic even when their self-preservation is at stake.
*
My point is that a perfect book from a deity should (a) not be capable of misinterpretation (as the Koran is), and (b) be read literally and not interpreted if it tells you to do so (as the Koran does).
Any book is capable of misinterpretation. Even when the "correct" meaning is blindly obvious, anyone can just come along and say "yeah but I think it means X, not Y'.
I agree, the Qur'an has to be read in accordance with its own instructions on how to interpret it - that is, literally unless stated otherwise, and with no insistence on any interpretation that is merely implicit.*That would mean that the term "wage war" must involve an actual war being waged, and not some kind of metaphorical "war with words". *
Original post by tazarooni89
.*That would mean that the term "wage war" must involve an actual war being waged, and not some kind of metaphorical "war with words". *
Well, not when the war is against a deity that has no earthly presence (except in Mohammed's mind).
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
Posted from TSR Mobile
In my opinion absolutely YES
Original post by Good bloke
Well, not when the war is against a deity that has no earthly presence (except in Mohammed's mind).
That's not for you to decide; the Qur'an gives its own instructions on how to interpret its meaning.
Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- strike on iran consulate in Damascus
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Working at an aiport?
- My review of BCU - Birmingham City University
- the reign of terror france 1790s
- Is Liverpool Muslim friendly?
- Shooting in Brussels. Shooter still at large.
- “It’s culture” but people from Islam are from all different cultures
- Am I suffering from PTSD?
- Is Israel winning
- US launches retaliatory strikes in response to Jordan attack
- Best city in England for non religious and single guy?
- Three ideas for my latest book. Which one should I go with
- I feel very depressed and Lonely?
- My date showed up on a bicycle in central London
- At least six killed and several in critical condition after Westfield shopping centre
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
Latest
Last reply 4 minutes ago
Speech therapy pre registration masters and student finance - help!Last reply 7 minutes ago
Which of these A-Level combinations would be the best to study a law degree?Posted 7 minutes ago
Studying while being stressed!? Participants wanted! :)Last reply 9 minutes ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 17 minutes ago
Official UCL Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 21 minutes ago
Durham vs Exeter Finance/AccountingTrending
Last reply 1 hour ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 8 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 hour ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 8 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 4 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
