Innocent Muslim attacked in NYC

Scroll to see replies

Hating a religion can be justified, just not because of the actions of terrorists who evidently purport a different version of Islam to which 1.6 billion people follow. A failure to acknowledge this is reckless.

You can look up definitions yourself.

Extreme versions of Sharia Law are the ones put into practice by ISIL, almost all other forms of Sharia Law are moderate and not "throwing gays off roofs and limb-chopping" - there's no set list of things that Sharia Law practices.

My point about culture is that these people have lived their entire lives under Islam. Coming in and criticising it, however right or wrong you think it is, is obviously going to offend them - and is a part of the problem.

ISIS nitpick parts of the Quran that satisfy their political needs, I'm pretty sure they ignored the parts where you're supposed to be welcoming to guests, where you can't kill female hostages, where you can't use terror for political gain, where aggressive warfare is forbidden.

And I question that they actually believe these things. Yelling allahu ackbar before killing 30 people does not instantaneously mean that they are devout Muslims, its a trap they set to maximise the impact of their attack, and many people fall for it. If they really care about Muslims, they wouldn't do these attacks.

ISIL isn't even following Sharia law to be fair. They are just sad people who want to commit horrendous crimes in the name of religion :/

Reply 161

QE2

Original post by alevelstresss

So? The woman persecuted

"Persecuted"? :rofl:

A woman - on holiday in New York! - had her sleeve singed.
Hardly persecution.
The Jews in 30's Germany were persecuted. The natives in the Americas were persecuted. Aborigines in Australia were persecuted. A woman on an expensive holiday in America with a 1" burn mark on her clothes is not persecuted!

is very very unlikely to have been personally involved in Islamic extremism -

It is "very very unlikely" that someone wins the lottery, but someone usually does. As per usual, you are making unsupported assumption based on your own personal agenda and bias.

why is she suddenly deprived of basic human rights?

I just looked through the UNDHR, and there is no mention of not having a singed sleeve.

Just because some extremist members of the religion, who have very specific political goals, use parts of the religion to justify violence - it doesn't warrant the persecution of Muslims who have the decency to follow Islam in complete compatibility with western culture.

Of course not - but interesting that you are now admitting that Islamist terrorists use Islam to justify their actions.

Reply 162

KingBradly

In equally important news, Man cut free after foot trapped in banister

Reply 163

MrsSheldonCooper

Original post by alevelstresss

As I explained, its not from a link. Its an estimate from me trawling through every single specific case of Islamic terrorism carried out in Western countries since and including the Sydney Siege.

I am yet to find a single one where their lives didn't go to **** beforehand. Meaning that blaming Islam as the main cause is dumb, given that these things wouldn't happen in the first place if these peoples' lives didn't go bad. This suggests that extremist parts of Islam are only actually exploited when there is a demand for violence to be carried out, not the other way around.

Since 2014? Why don't you look at Islamic terror attacks before that?

If blaming the religion is dumb then why is it that the terrorists/hate crime perpetrators lean towards that religion than say, Hinduism? Your logic is sickening and so is your reasoning behind it. It says in Islam that those who mock the Prophet should be punished does it not? The terrorists for Charlie Hebdo did just that.

Reply 164

HAnwar

Original post by QE2

I didn't see them, so I apologise for any unwitting errors made (feel free to post a link), although I have been on ISOC after attacks on Shia, atheists, etc and seen nothing from anyone. However, I have never seen your glorious leaders, Ideas and Ash, condemn attacks by Syrian rebels for example, yet barely a day goes by without asking Allah to punish pro-Assadists for their attacks.
Surely all violence against civilians is bad?

I didn't realise quite a few people spoke out in support, read from this post onward
http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?p=66262035

I remember there was another time some of us condemned a shia attack but I can't find the link.

Well that's something you can bring up with them.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 165

QE2

Original post by alevelstresss

ISIS nitpick parts of the Quran that satisfy their political needs, I'm pretty sure they ignored the parts where you're supposed to be welcoming to guests,

If you actually read the Quran with a classical tafsir, you will see that most of such passages only apply to people who have submitted to Islam - and not to those who oppose it.

where you can't kill female hostages,

But Muhammad executed at least one female prisoner, and had others assassinated.

where you can't use terror for political gain,

The Quran and sunnah explicitly condone the use of terror.

where aggressive warfare is forbidden.

No it isn't.

And I question that they actually believe these things.

I would suggest, on the balance of the evidence and their explicit statements, that they do.

Yelling allahu ackbar before killing 30 people does not instantaneously mean that they are devout Muslims, its a trap they set to maximise the impact of their attack, and many people fall for it.

Perhaps not, but all the other stuff, the proclamations of belief, the Quran quotations, the statements, plus the Five Pillars, would suggest that they are.

Anyway, you have already admitted that it is the violence in the Quran and sunnah that they use as justification, so I'm not sure why you are questioning their motives.

If they really care about Muslims, they wouldn't do these attacks.

The only Muslims they care about are the ones who follow the true (in their eyes) Islam. And it is not other Muslims that they care about. It is the establishment of a worldwide caliphate and, more importantly, ensuring their own place in Jannah. It is all about doing Allah's work and getting closer to him. The number of deaths amongst the kuffar, mushriq and munafiq is irrelevant.

You really should do some research on this subject. It might help to stop you repeatedly making a fool of yourself.

Reply 166

Betelgeuse-

Original post by alevelstresss

Imagine if the Muslim had done it

It wouldnt have hit the news ..? (Unless there was a relatively recent terrorist attack)

Reply 167

Emperor Trajan

Original post by alevelstresss

But just to confirm, "hating" and opposing a religion (like Islam or certain interpretations of it) that contributes to much discrimination, persecution, violence and human suffering, is fine? Do remember, there are Muslim critics/haters of rival interpretations, such as that advocated by ISIS.

You can look up definitions yourself.

Well I thought you'd be kind enough to provide such definitions, given it appears you seem to know what constitutes as "extreme Islam".

Extreme versions of Sharia Law are the ones put into practice by ISIL, almost all other forms of Sharia Law are moderate and not "throwing gays off roofs and limb-chopping" - there's no set list of things that Sharia Law practices.

Well I'm going to have ask you again I'm afraid, but what constitutes as "extreme Sharia/Islam"? You seem to allude that -

...throwing gays off roofs and limb-chopping

is somehow not justifiable via Islamic scripture, but such practices are...

In relation to "throwing gays off roofs"...

"The Sahaabah (companions of Muhammad) were unanimously agreed on the execution of homosexuals, but they differed as to how they were to be executed. Some of them were of the view that they should be burned with fire, which was the view of ‘Ali (may Allaah be pleased with him) and also of Abu Bakr (may Allaah be pleased with him), as we shall see below. And some of them thought that they should be thrown down from a high place then have stones thrown at them. This was the view of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him)..."

https://islamqa.info/en/38622

In relation to "limb-chopping"...

"...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," (Quran 5:33, Sahih international).

https://quran.com/5/33

My point about culture is that these people have lived their entire lives under Islam.

These "people", presumably Muslims are not a monolithic group, with the same culture, religiosity and interpretation of Islam.

Coming in and criticising it, however right or wrong you think it is, is obviously going to offend them - and is a part of the problem.

Obviously offend who? Violent Islamists? Muslim apologists for persecution of apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals, slavery etc ? Muslim critics against Islamism?

Offence is subjective and Muslims vary in their culture, religiosity and interpretation of Islam - often debating and criticising Muslims of rival sects and interpretations.

Why is valuing human life and abhorring human suffering, leading to criticism and opposition of those who are inhumane, "part of the problem"? Do you think 19th century slavery abolitionists should have avoided offending most of the world who approved of slavery? Do you think we should avoid stating why ISIS and their implicit and explicit apologists/supporters, are wrong, due to fear of offending them?

ISIS nitpick parts of the Quran that satisfy their political needs,

Is that political need to establish an "Islamic state"? You are aware Muhammad and the Sahaba helped to established an "Islamic state", also known as the caliphate, where Islam was the guide to rule.

I'm pretty sure they ignored the parts where you're supposed to be welcoming to guests, where you can't kill female hostages, where you can't use terror for political gain, where aggressive warfare is forbidden.

You don't seem to be that well versed in Islamic scripture. Female captives can often be subjected to slavery, where as the male captives can be executed. (See https://islamqa.info/en/20085) That's not to say females can't be executed say for blasphemy or apostasy.

As for using terror and aggressive warfare, looking at Islamic scripture...

"The Messenger of Allah said, (I was commanded to fight against the people until they proclaim, `There is no deity worthy of worship except Allah.' If and when they say it, they will preserve their blood and wealth from me, except for its right (Islamic penal code), and their reckoning is with Allah, the Exalted and Most Honored.)"

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1543&Itemid=63

"...This is some of the evidence from the Qur’aan and Sunnah. The evidence clearly indicates that the sword is one of the most important means that led to the spread of Islam. "

https://islamqa.info/en/43087

And I question that they actually believe these things. Yelling allahu ackbar before killing 30 people does not instantaneously mean that they are devout Muslims, its a trap they set to maximise the impact of their attack, and many people fall for it. If they really care about Muslims, they wouldn't do these attacks.

Well in relation to ISIS, they tend to provide their justifications from Islamic scripture.

Moreover why do you take issue with ISIS, "It's their culture", why oppose them?

Are you not a Cultural/Moral relativist? (You've indicated this in your past post)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 168

medhelp

Original post by BaconandSauce

But have you even been to NYC? do you know how busy the streets actually are (more probable she bumped into a person holding a cigarette didn't notice but when she did turned and 'saw someone with a lighter' and decided to blame them in an act of simple discrimination (guilty while holding lighter))

there's CCTV footage of what's said to be this incident .

Reply 169

alevelstresss

Original post by MrsSheldonCooper

I could as well, but I assumed the average person on here wouldn't have a problem of me talking about terrorists committing acts in the name of ISIL by using 2014-2016, given that 2014 is the year when they hit the world stage with online beheadings and conquering parts of Iraq and Syria.

The reason this does not occur for other religions is because no other religions have an active terrorist group saying its OK to commit terrorist attacks. ISIL actively encourage angry Muslims to commit atrocities agains the west in their name, there aren't any prominent extremist groups belonging to other religions. And its noteworthy that the terrorists that attacked Charlie Hebdo had their mother commit suicide at an early age, they were orphaned, and they both became heavily involved in gang crime and petty theft from a young age - if they hadn't been so predisposed towards violence and crime, they would never have had the capacity to do what they did.

Reply 170

QE2

Original post by MeMoiLove

I am Muslim and I think it is sad that people won't just admit that he was not justified in hurting her.

Of course he wasn't justified. But if you read the replies to the OP, they are taking issue with certain assertions and assumptions he makes.
Why do some people find it so difficult to grasp simple concepts.

As Muslims we are the first to stand up and condemn hateful acts

Arguable. In fact, there was a recent post on TSR ISOC that explained that Muslims should not condemn Islamist attacks.

Also, as I have said before, condemning act x is meaningless if you also claim that god allows you to do act x. And pretty much everything that ISIS (for example) does is permitted by a literalist and unmodernised reading of the Quran or sunnah.

Reply 171

QE2

Original post by MeMoiLove

ISIL isn't even following Sharia law to be fair.

Sharia is just the rulings derived from the Quran and sunnah by fiqh scholars. There is not a universal list of "sharia laws".

What, in particular, do you think ISIS is doing that is unIslamic?

Reply 172

Plantagenet Crown

Why were the news articles exaggerating ridiculously? I saw "set on fire" in the headlines and then it turns out she only has a burn the size of a 2p coin. I sincerely hope the exaggeration wasn't due to her being part of a "persecuted minority"..

Reply 173

teenhorrorstory

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

That's your only issue with this incident?!

Reply 174

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by teenhorrorstory

That's your only issue with this incident?!

Did I say it was?

Reply 175

QE2

Original post by teenhorrorstory

That's your only issue with this incident?!

No! How the hell do Americans know how big a 2p piece is????

Reply 176

teenhorrorstory

Original post by Plantagenet Crown

Did I say it was?

I can only assume so, since the only thing you decided was worth commenting on was how the title is exaggerated.

Reply 177

Plantagenet Crown

Original post by teenhorrorstory

I can only assume so, since the only thing you decided was worth commenting on was how the title is exaggerated.

Well you assumed wrong. I'm under no obligation to write all my thoughts on a particular topic.

Reply 178

Danny the Geezer

Original post by alevelstresss

what about them? tragic things happen, but that doesn't warrant alienating and attacking Muslims

I never said it did.

Reply 179

Danny the Geezer

Original post by BaconandSauce

we've done this before

Did you not pay attention last time?

Hmm why would you need to go to a "Muslim country" when there are 3m Muslims in the UK, (I know I didn't quote him directly but cba to find original post).