British Muslims: 'You are lazy if you say extremism is not Islamic'

And because the wealthy places don't get affected people don't realise they don't exist.

If they were regular and reflected the teachings of the Bible to a significant sense it would be morally good of you to vocally condemn them and take steps to reduce their influence, so yes, to some degree.

The pope hasn't condemned christian extremists attacks

You cant condem what does not exist.

What about Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people in Norway who saw himself as a crusader Christian?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Surely Muslims are the ones most concerned with extremism? The ratio of Muslims to extremists is overwhelming and clearly shows 99% of Muslims are not nor do they support the actions done in the name of their religion.

Across the world, they have quickly stood up with everybody else to say that what is happening is not on them and they're equally upset and shocked by this.

Religion and terrorism are not linked. How many Christians have gone on killing sprees? The media calls that the single act of a madman rather than what it actually may be.

Just like feminism is an issue for everybody, so is this. You cannot blame an entire community for the actions of the minority.


Posted from TSR Mobile

He did it against Nowegian politicians for their crime of imposing mass immigration onto another group. Not for Jesus.

The pope hasn't condemned christian extremists attacks

When did I say that the Pope was morally good, and what evidence do you have that Christian terrorist attacks are sufficiently frequent and in keeping with biblical teachings to warrant vocal disassociation of them from the main body of Christians?

You never said he wasn't and simple its called Google

Right, so your argument was unjustified by evidence and unrelated to any claims I've actually made. Good one.

There are numerous articles its just I have exams so I don't have the time researching it but here are a few:http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men and http://www.commdiginews.com/world-news/in-tragic-twist-anti-balaka-christian-terror-groups-attack-african-muslims-9691/

Evidence is useless unless you've connected your argument to something I've said, but I've never claimed the Pope did or did not do anything, and a couple of Christian terrorist attacks is patently not equivalent to a murderous caliphate rampaging across the globe.

You asked me about where is the evidence and then I show you some and thats not relevant?

"What I do believe is that it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to vocally repudiate the extremism with their religion, or otherwise to challenge it."
Here is an article about christian terrorism: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/12/04/3599271/austin-shooter-christian-extremism/

Christian terrorists attacks are happening and moderate christians aren't vocally repudiate this extremism.

What exactly are your points?

It's not relevant because I never said that the Pope was morally good. Your argument is that it isn't fair for me to say that the Islamic community generally should be vocal in condemning ISIS, because the Pope doesn't do the same, but it's irrelevant if I never even said that he was good.

My point is that the Islamic community in general should vocally condemn the terrorist attacks which are now a significant consequence of their religion.

You've focused on the fact that I don't say the same for Christians, but I've never said I won't do so as a rule. I'm not sure whether I think the several acts you've presented, which are generally small or dubiously connected to religion, qualify as 'sufficiently regular', and therefore warrant the general condemnation of the community. However, I'm not saying I wouldn't draw that conclusion if presented with more compelling evidence. You're trying to suggest that I adopt a double standard, but I don't. It's just that I know more about Islamic terrorism than I do Christian terrorism so I'm better able to make a judgement.

So why do you keep throwing all this evidence at me? Christian extremists could kill thousands, or even millions more people than they do now, and this wouldn't change the fact that it would be good for Islamic communities to condemn this extremism.

First of all, even if it were true that their condemnation had no influence on the prevalence of such terrorism, it would be morally good for them to condemn it, particularly because, like it or not, they share a lot of ideology in common with the terrorists. It's just the same as it would be morally good of me to condemn those right-wingers who reject voluntary charity entirely, though I am not obliged to and though it most probably will not influence them.

Secondly, I'm not sure its true that it wouldn't influence them. We know that a considerable number of Muslims from Europe, and Britain in particular, have joined IS, attempted to, or otherwise engaged in terrorist activity. I don't know much about what goes on in Mosques, but even if they do, as I have no reason to believe they do, vocally and vigorously condemn Islamic extremism, there is no reason why they shouldn't do so publicly and there is a good reason why they should. It really isn't unreasonable at all to expect that if we created an atmosphere in which nobody doubted at all the lack of sympathy which anybody had with Islamic extremism, the likelihood of British youths sympathizing with it would be reduced.

Tell me, for what reason shouldn't they condemn it?

The reason is simplifying that they should not have to. Everybody's morals are different and mine are simply that by being a member of a religion you should not have to publicly condemn behaviour of a few extremists of the same religion