[sameera95]

(Original post by rocket0612)
I don't have that perception at all; I view it just as any other religion - it's people like yourself who come out with statements like this that make matters worse and do more damage.

You may not, but somebody once came up to me and asked me if 'my people bomb your people'.

(Original post by rocket0612)
I really don't think so.

It really, really does.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by supraman)
Because I've never seen the Muslim's of the world following the likes Osama, and that lot.
It does make sense to criticise, as they aren't accurate version of Islam, considering that the basis of which many people portray Islam is through those who commit atrocities which many media outlets like DM always relate back to Islam and Muslims as a whole, when it's a minority.

There are a lot of steps down from bin Laden before you get to anything remotely acceptable. Most Muslims may not support him, but most do support/listen to someone along the lines of Abdur Raheem Green or Zakir Naik. And if we listen to them, we find out that Islam is a religion of hate, war, oppression, etc., not to mention scientific illiteracy.

[sameera95]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
The view of Islam that you claim is a misunderstanding is the view of Islam promoted by the most vocal, influential, and numerous Muslims. If you disagree with that vision of it, your problem is with them, but it doesn't make any sense to criticise non-Muslims for accepting as accurate the version of Islam that is constantly presented to us by Muslims both in the UK and worldwide.

I do understand. I just don't understand why the 'proper' view of it isn't promoted as much for people to see.

[supraman]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
There are a lot of steps down from bin Laden before you get to anything remotely acceptable. Most Muslims may not support him, but most do support/listen to someone along the lines of Abdur Raheem Green or Zakir Naik. And if we listen to them, we find out that Islam is a religion of hate, war, oppression, etc., not to mention scientific illiteracy.

Firstly never ever even heard of the first one, isn't even a scholar.............nor is their anything wrong with Zakir Naik apart from the fact he isn't a scholar, on top of that he is only known around the Indian sub-continent. 2 people hardly "numerous" or "influential".

and is that why they are going around making war and hating people

[sameera95]

(Original post by Perseveranze)
Media



... and asking the wrong people for info.

True, it wasn't a nice situation when somebody once asked me 'do your people bomb our people?' I must say though, I haveseen your posts on other threads and it makes me proud to see somebody stand up for our religion with evidence You inspire me as I hope to be able to do that someday

[sameera95]

(Original post by miser)
It's going to be misunderstood insofar as the sources where people learn about it are biased. If your only knowledge of Islam comes from the Daily Mail then of course you're going to have a much poorer understanding of it than if you read the Qu'ran or books on Muslim culture. However, in order to determine whether forcing a lady to wear a hijab to protect her 'modesty' is oppression or not, you need more than just an understanding of Islam.

But as a girl I would rather wear something modest than have guys staring me up and down in the street.

[sameera95]

(Original post by lilahnurave)
Because some of you bombed people. Thats why

Negged for the truth? Are you people in like, denial or something?

And some other people have done worse things. Look at Hitler for example. Do we go around saying Germans are evil?

[rmpr97]

I'm an athiest and I don't have a problem with muslims, if you want to praise a god then by all means go for it.

What strikes me a bit with Islam though is some of the bits in Quran. i.e Bits about apostasy, infidels etc.

Then there's the point of a lot of muslims in this country advocating Sharia, where all I can think is just 'No, we live in a secular country and you must accept that, otherwise there are places with Sharia.'

Also the Burqa bugs me a little, the one where you can see the face fine, its essentially a headscarf, but I find the one which covers the eyes quite intimidating.

I also hate the hypocrisy that comes with the whole burqa/hijab in the sense that if I walk into a shopping centre with a hood one, the guards quick to tell me to take it off, but he wouldn't dare tell someone wearing a burqa (essentially the same) or a burqa which is even more covering.

And then there is the minority issue of the radicalism/extremist/jihad etc.

Although if you're a normal muslim, who follows your religion peacefully, as many say it is, then fine by me.

Oh and I hate people who say, well the Quran predicted many scientific findings, i.e sub atomic particles, no when the books vague enough you can find a prediction for everything.

[lilahnurave]

(Original post by sameera95)
And some other people have done worse things. Look at Hitler for example. Do we go around saying Germans are evil?

At the time, yeah - Im sure they did!!

[Carter78]

(Original post by DontJudge)
If you look at the Mods and Rockers situation. You'd find how it started off to be a harmless rift between two social groups. The media then spiralled this beef out of control making it out to be gang rivalry, and that is exactly how the groups acted as a result.

The people who do not know much about Islam, base their veiws on what they see on the TV.

The media has an effect sure. But the media are not responsible for the Koran.

Many Koranic teachings and the absolutist positions taken by an ever-growing number of Muslims in this world make me fear for the better parts of Western civilization including secularism, democracy and (hard fought for) equal rights.

- Although I'd take the same negative view of any dogma if it acted in the same manner, so I'm not singling out Islam here unjustly. Nevertheless Islam does seem to be uniquely dangerous at fostering a truly aggressive streak that can easily lead to violence.

Whilst fundamentalism will exist in every religion, a fundamentalist Muslim would represent a much bigger threat to society than a fundamentalist Jainist; where an absolute moratorium against any forms of violence would be advocated by the Jainist individual. The neuroscientist Sam Harris also makes the point that the tendency for suicide bombing is a unique trait of Islam that we have not seen advocated or practiced by Buddhists in Tibet - who have suffered just as terrible a literal and emotional repression from the Chinese occupation forces that Palestinian suicide bombers would argue they have suffered by Israeli forces.

It's these kind of "traits" of the Islamic faith that make secularists and democrats (in a descriptive sense, not party affiliation) worry about the growing force of Islam within politics and society.

[mel0n]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
Intellectually-vacuous whining: "Waaah! Massacres with a politico-religious motivation are called terrorism, and those without one are not! Waaah!

Although I do not agree that such crimes should have the 'oh if X was the case this would have been Y' twist on them, I think you've missed the point. Even if that individual had no politico-religious motive, him being an adherent to Islam would probably be enough justification for him to be deemed a terrorist regardless of his motivation.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by supraman)
Firstly never ever even heard of the first one, isn't even a scholar.............nor is their anything wrong with Zakir Naik apart from the fact he isn't a scholar, on top of that he is only known around the Indian sub-continent. 2 people hardly "numerous" or "influential".

and is that why they are going around making war and hating people

The first one is a regular and celebrated speaker on the university ISoc circuit, and the second is known-worldwide and is the producer of a large portion of the dawah literature that is given to non-Muslims in the UK. The fact that you don't see anything wrong with him is exactly my point: you have just confirmed that his extremist and hateful views are an accurate representation of Islam in your eyes. Therefore you can't complain when people see Islam as extremist and hateful. Note that I used them as examples, saying "or people like them;" we are talking about huge numbers of people worldwide, these are only the first two that came to mind.

[Elipsis]

(Original post by Carter78)
The media has an effect sure. But the media are not responsible for the Koran.

Many Koranic teachings and the absolutist positions taken by an ever-growing number of Muslims in this world make me fear for the better parts of Western civilization including secularism, democracy and (hard fought for) equal rights.

- Although I'd take the same negative view of any dogma if it acted in the same manner, so I'm not singling out Islam here unjustly. Nevertheless Islam does seem to be uniquely dangerous at fostering a truly aggressive streak that can easily lead to violence.

Whilst fundamentalism will exist in every religion, a fundamentalist Muslim would represent a much bigger threat to society than a fundamentalist Jainist; where an absolute moratorium against any forms of violence would be advocated by the Jainist individual. The neuroscientist Sam Harris also makes the point that the tendency for suicide bombing is a unique trait of Islam that we have not seen advocated or practiced by Buddhists in Tibet - who have suffered just as terrible a literal and emotional repression from the Chinese occupation forces that Palestinian suicide bombers would argue they have suffered by Israeli forces.

It's these kind of "traits" of the Islamic faith that make secularists and democrats (in a descriptive sense, not party affiliation) worry about the growing force of Islam within politics and society.

Finally someone with half a brain posts in this thread.

[sameera95]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
The media and the Quran.

The media amplifies the radical Muslims which make it seem like they're the majority when they really aren't. That doesn't help because it means people think they know a lot about Islam when really, they've just read a few news articles.

The Quran itself, in my opinion, furthers confusion too. It's unlike the bible where you can just read it and make sense of it. But the Quran is in Arabic and when reading it in English you always seem to hear the.shouts of 'that isn't the true Quran!' which is really tiring. No one is going to learn a whole new language just to read a book. Secondly, the way the verses are ordered don't make it simple context wise. Especially with the deal of abrogation (i think It's the fact that the later verses correct earlier ones) but it isn't ordered in chronological order (however, you can find it ordered like that). The useless 'miraculous claims' don't help anyone either.

Another thing that probably contributes to it is the fact that it isn't really taught in schools here as the religious curriculum is focused on Christianity. So lack of exposure in that sense is a problem.

But one thing I'm not sure about is why 'the religion of peace' is always said with Islam. I think It's an unnecessary addition. All main religions promote peace in one form or another.

I agree with you with why people misunderstand Islam. And yes, the Qur'an isn't simple to understand but there are many books out there to help and you can aways do your own research Well during my time at school, Islam was touched upon, but briefly and not like Christianity. Obviously Christianity is taught much more because England used to be a Christian country run by the Church, as I believe.

[AdvanceAndVanquish]

(Original post by mel0n)
Although I do not agree that such crimes should have the 'oh if X was the case this would have been Y' twist on them, I think you've missed the point. Even if that individual had no politico-religious motive, him being an adherent to Islam would probably be enough justification for him to be deemed a terrorist regardless of his motivation.

No I got that point, and it's a false one. If he was a Muslim there would probably be the initial assumption that he was a terrorist, just because that's overwhelmingly likely, but that's hardly the same thing.

[sameera95]

(Original post by Elipsis)
What makes you think we are incapable of picking up the Quaran and coming to the correct conclusions; That it is a false religion, spread by somebody for power and prestige? You aren't in a position to judge accurately because you have almost certainly been brainwashed from birth. Where are all the other terrorists from other religions? Sure there are some, but almost all the religious terrorism in the world is commited by Muslims, even though there are twice as many Christians. Why is that, if your religion is so peaceful?

Saying Islam is the religion of peace honestly makes me belly laugh. Your so called prophet went from one end of Arabia to the other fighting people to take over their land and make them submit to his cult. He made up excuses as to why he did this, apparently he took the whole place over because he was attacked first. Do you think that's likely? I don't... I also think the stories of him marrying children and brutally murdering every man in certain tribes help your cause either.

There is no point in arguing with people like you. This is exactly the misconception of Islam that I was talking about.

[supraman]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
The first one is a regular and celebrated speaker on the university ISoc circuit, and the second is known-worldwide and is the producer of a large portion of the dawah literature that is given to non-Muslims in the UK. The fact that you don't see anything wrong with him is exactly my point: you have just confirmed that his extremist and hateful views are an accurate representation of Islam in your eyes. Therefore you can't complain when people see Islam as extremist and hateful. Note that I used them as examples, saying "or people like them;" we are talking about huge numbers of people worldwide, these are only the first two that came to mind.

Haven't seen him around at all, show me the proof he is regular and celebrated?
Naik is mainly known in Indian subcontinent, outside of that he barely has influence as he isn't a scholar. Nor is the first one, all they can do is the basics.
At least provide some proof of these so called views?
So 2 people's views mean that it is all of a sudden an accurate representation of Islam, when the best example of Islam died more than a millenia ago
At least show me these so called "people like them"

[mel0n]

(Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
No I got that point, and it's a false one.

You clearly missed it.

[+ polarity -]

(Original post by sameera95)
The Qur'an? I'm pretty sure you can get an English version along with the translation

You'd think so, but English translations never seem to be good enough on here

[Elipsis]

(Original post by sameera95)
There is no point in arguing with people like you. This is exactly the misconception of Islam that I was talking about.

You have a totally closed mind. You will never accept your ridiculous cult is just that, a ridiculous cult. Even if you did you wouldn't admit it, because your family would outcast you and you'd be lucky to not get killed. That's how peaceful and loving your religion is. There is no point in arguing with people like you, you lack the ability to think independently. The thought that you have been following entirely the wrong 'religion' probably scares you half to death. Youre like most muslims, you project this image that you are certain you are right, but deep down you know it's a pack of lies. The amount of things you have to overlook to believe in Islam is laughable.

You're cool with following a fully fledged paedophile are you? Someone who systematically went through villages murdering people? Someone who went round his own rules that he wants you to follow, but just said "an angel told me so". Pfft. Yeah, i'm the one that's not worth arguing with