Why do people think Muslim's don't do enough against ISIS?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Farm_Ecology
You are not just trying to convince me, but everyone else who reads this thread.
"I don't believe you will accept it" is not evidence.
You never actually presented these sources.
The claim seems to be nothing more than random speculation and hindsight.
That's not what I asked you to provide evidence for.
I asked you to provide evidence that 1.6 billion Muslims are 'reasonable' and practice Islam in a way which is compatible with the modern world.
No I'm not. What I'm asking for is for sources which would suggest that near 100% of Muslims practice a form of their religion that is compatible with modern standards. This would make Muslim communities the most progressive, tolerant and adaptable religious communities in the world (and by a very large margin). This is a claim that requires evidence.
"I don't believe you will accept it" is not evidence.
You never actually presented these sources.
The claim seems to be nothing more than random speculation and hindsight.
That's not what I asked you to provide evidence for.
I asked you to provide evidence that 1.6 billion Muslims are 'reasonable' and practice Islam in a way which is compatible with the modern world.
No I'm not. What I'm asking for is for sources which would suggest that near 100% of Muslims practice a form of their religion that is compatible with modern standards. This would make Muslim communities the most progressive, tolerant and adaptable religious communities in the world (and by a very large margin). This is a claim that requires evidence.
I presented a source and you dismissed it without even reading it, the fact that you can't recall me posting a source reinforces my suggestion.
And you're doing the exact same thing as you always do, changing the question and avoiding what I was originally sharing.
Given that you ignore sources, I don't see why I should post one. In fact, you should post a source to suggest otherwise, because its obvious that billions of Muslims are peaceful, because very few of them actually go and join these terrorists groups. Many Muslims condemn them. But you'll probably deny this with your anti-Islam agenda.
Original post by mil88
Well if it's subjective then who are you to criticize someone else's morality.
Ah, so you can't explain why you believe something so bizarre, and can only restate your position. As I suspected.
Do you think that you are somehow in possession of 'objective' morality? As you can't explain why you think atheists' 'subjective' morality means they can't criticise anyone else's', can you at least explain why you think you have access to 'objective' morality and why I don't? I believe, for example, that the quran's permission for men to strike their wives if they fear disobedience from them (only as a third and final step, of course!) is immoral. Do you, on the contrary, believe that allowing men to hit women in certain circumstances is not only moral, but objectively moral, and superior to my alleged 'subjective' morality? Do you believe that quran verse 4.24, specifically the part "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess" -allowing Muslim men to have sex with married women they've captured in war - is objectively moral?
Original post by Frank Underwood
I presented a source and you dismissed it without even reading it, the fact that you can't recall me posting a source reinforces my suggestion.
I've just looked back at the thread, and no you did not. I can post all of your responses if you want?
Regardless, this is getting off topic.
Original post by Frank Underwood
Given that you ignore sources, I don't see why I should post one.
Because:
a) It's not just for me
b) You've made a claim
Original post by Frank Underwood
And you're doing the exact same thing as you always do, changing the question and avoiding what I was originally sharing.
You're exact quote was ".6 billion of them are reasonable people and follow Islam while exercising its compatibility with the modern world.". This is what I am disputing.
Original post by Frank Underwood
because very few of them actually go and join these terrorists groups. Many Muslims condemn them.
because very few of them actually go and join these terrorists groups. Many Muslims condemn them.
But this isn't what you said, nor what I was disagreeing with.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
I've just looked back at the thread, and no you did not. I can post all of your responses if you want?
Regardless, this is getting off topic.
Because:
a) It's not just for me
b) You've made a claim
You're exact quote was ".6 billion of them are reasonable people and follow Islam while exercising its compatibility with the modern world.". This is what I am disputing.
But this isn't what you said, nor what I was disagreeing with.
Regardless, this is getting off topic.
Because:
a) It's not just for me
b) You've made a claim
You're exact quote was ".6 billion of them are reasonable people and follow Islam while exercising its compatibility with the modern world.". This is what I am disputing.
But this isn't what you said, nor what I was disagreeing with.
You didn't look hard enough, this was my source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks
This man was held hostage by ISIS, he confirms that our unity and our welcoming tone to the refugees is a defeat them - therefore it is implicit that ISIL's aim is for us to reject and hate the Muslim refugees.
And you made up some BS argument about how he doesn't have an accurate view - come on, he was in an ISIS prison for months.
You've proven yourself to be a liar and unconditional anti-Islam, so goodbye. I don't expect a response unless you want to apologise
Original post by Frank Underwood
You didn't look hard enough, this was my source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/16/isis-bombs-hostage-syria-islamic-state-paris-attacks
I found the post. You were right, I never responded. Apologies.
Original post by Frank Underwood
And you made up some BS argument about how he doesn't have an accurate view - come on, he was in an ISIS prison for months.
Original post by Frank Underwood
I don't expect a response unless you want to apologise
An ad hominem is not evidence.
Original post by Hydeman
Is this also true of those thousands of Muslims the world over who have, repeatedly, turned out to riot in the streets, set fire to embassies, and murder people for drawing a cartoon or making a film that offends their religious sensibilities?
They sure can kick off and express their opposition to things when they want to, can't they? It's just that on these occasions - when it's to stand with us - they choose not to.
Hell, even a fraction of the amount of noise they make about Israel and how everything in the world is the West's fault would be a start but they can't even do that.....
Original post by Good bloke
Islam's misogyny, support for capturing slaves, waging war on unbelievers and so on are all clearly described in the Koran and hadiths.
Thank you for not actually answering my questions, this gives me great belief that would you said is correct.
They do, but that doesn't make for clickbait headlines.
Original post by Achaea
Ah, so you can't explain why you believe something so bizarre, and can only restate your position. As I suspected.
Do you think that you are somehow in possession of 'objective' morality? As you can't explain why you think atheists' 'subjective' morality means they can't criticise anyone else's', can you at least explain why you think you have access to 'objective' morality and why I don't? I believe, for example, that the quran's permission for men to strike their wives if they fear disobedience from them (only as a third and final step, of course!) is immoral. Do you, on the contrary, believe that allowing men to hit women in certain circumstances is not only moral, but objectively moral, and superior to my alleged 'subjective' morality? Do you believe that quran verse 4.24, specifically the part "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess" -allowing Muslim men to have sex with married women they've captured in war - is objectively moral?
Do you think that you are somehow in possession of 'objective' morality? As you can't explain why you think atheists' 'subjective' morality means they can't criticise anyone else's', can you at least explain why you think you have access to 'objective' morality and why I don't? I believe, for example, that the quran's permission for men to strike their wives if they fear disobedience from them (only as a third and final step, of course!) is immoral. Do you, on the contrary, believe that allowing men to hit women in certain circumstances is not only moral, but objectively moral, and superior to my alleged 'subjective' morality? Do you believe that quran verse 4.24, specifically the part "And [also prohibited to you are all] married women except those your right hands possess" -allowing Muslim men to have sex with married women they've captured in war - is objectively moral?
I'm not sure something so simple would require further explanation.
To your answer to my post was just to accuse me of things that I have never claimed and bring quotes from the Quran.
Anyway, I have never claimed to have 'objective morality', it is you who has incorrectly inferred that.
I'll try to clarify to point. If morality is deemed subjective and thus down to opinions, as an individual with my own opinions, I may not care about your opinions regarding mine or someone else's morality, because at the end of the day, it's up to me not you or anyone else. If there were laws with objective morality, then it would be fair to criticize my morality against those laws, but as you believe that it's subjective, to me, your opinion is worthless.
I believe that the verse regarding the 'striking' has conditions and boundaries (to define what it means by striking here). But however, I would have to research them up.
For your final point, the verse doesn't mention what you're trying to say it is.
Original post by mil88
Thank you for not actually answering my questions, this gives me great belief that would you said is correct.
Are you seriously denying that the Koran contains passages where the Moslems were commanded to kill unbelievers?
Original post by Good bloke
Are you seriously denying that the Koran contains passages where the Moslems were commanded to kill unbelievers?
1.5 millennia ago, which is justifiable since Muslim was core to society in the Middle East, an opposer of Islam was an opposer of what many people considered society back then
kind of like Socrates, but it wasn't Islam who killed him so "its okay"
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by mkap
what do you propose we do?
How about start by refusing to have radical preachers in your mosques? That would constitute a start.
Original post by Frank Underwood
1.5 millennia ago, which is justifiable since Muslim was core to society in the Middle East, an opposer of Islam was an opposer of what many people considered society back then
kind of like Socrates, but it wasn't Islam who killed him so "its okay"
kind of like Socrates, but it wasn't Islam who killed him so "its okay"
Islam is key to the society in the Middle East now, just like it is in places like Tower Hamlets. Presumably you are happy for the same rules to apply in those places.
Original post by Good bloke
Islam is key to the society in the Middle East now, just like it is in places like Tower Hamlets. Presumably you are happy for the same rules to apply in those places.
Tower Hamlets? Damn, did you let the Daily Mail brainwash you again?
And Islam is much less important for societies in the Middle East, just take a look at all the democratic measures being put in place with the Iran elections, look also at the Tunisian election (I know its not the Middle East but it is predominantly Muslim).
The dailymail may 'big up' things as at the end of the day, they're journalist and are constantly wanting to make a mountain out of a mole but I live in east London... I can say that things are a bit difficult if you're a non-Muslim living here. Sometimes it's just different to what other people would experience growing up which is okay, but most of the time for me it's been some struggle.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Frank Underwood
Tower Hamlets? Damn, did you let the Daily Mail brainwash you again?
And Islam is much less important for societies in the Middle East, just take a look at all the democratic measures being put in place with the Iran elections, look also at the Tunisian election (I know its not the Middle East but it is predominantly Muslim).
And Islam is much less important for societies in the Middle East, just take a look at all the democratic measures being put in place with the Iran elections, look also at the Tunisian election (I know its not the Middle East but it is predominantly Muslim).
No. About 35% of the Tower Hamlets population is Moslem. It is the most politically corrupt borough in the UK.
Why didn't you use Saudi Arabia as an example of a wonderful Islamic democracy, I wonder? Or the Emirates, or Bahrain. Or Yemen. If we are looking outside the Middle East, and let's face it you have to if you want to find anything approaching democracy in an Islamic country that isn't subject to heavy Islamic intervention, perhaps you should consider Pakistan, that paragon of secular democracy?
Original post by Good bloke
No. About 35% of the Tower Hamlets population is Moslem. It is the most politically corrupt borough in the UK.
Why didn't you use Saudi Arabia as an example of a wonderful Islamic democracy, I wonder? Or the Emirates, or Bahrain. Or Yemen. If we are looking outside the Middle East, and let's face it you have to if you want to find anything approaching democracy in an Islamic country that isn't subject to heavy Islamic intervention, perhaps you should consider Pakistan, that paragon of secular democracy?
Why didn't you use Saudi Arabia as an example of a wonderful Islamic democracy, I wonder? Or the Emirates, or Bahrain. Or Yemen. If we are looking outside the Middle East, and let's face it you have to if you want to find anything approaching democracy in an Islamic country that isn't subject to heavy Islamic intervention, perhaps you should consider Pakistan, that paragon of secular democracy?
"It's the most politically corrupt borough in the UK" yeah of course it is, duh, 38% Muslim that sounds like a caliphate to me
I didn't use Saudi Arabia because of corruption, their corruption does not derive solely from Islam, otherwise every predominantly Muslim country would be corrupt - but clearly they aren't. There are other factors causing this corruption, namely the fact that Saudi Arabia is considered by its leaders to be 'owned' by them and not a lot of people are happy with forced leadership in the 21st century. You can't pinpoint this corruption to Islam as its cause, while the governments may use Islam as an excuse to persecute opposition with extreme measures, their motivations aren't because they want to fulfil Allah's will, its because they want to remain in power.
Original post by Frank Underwood
"It's the most politically corrupt borough in the UK" yeah of course it is, duh,.
Yes it is Frank
I don't see why you can't accept this fact (it was once compared to a banana republic by a senior UK Judge investigating voting corruption)
You don't need to lie to cover this fact up as it simply make you look VERY dishonest
Original post by BaconandSauce
Yes it is Frank
I don't see why you can't accept this fact (it was once compared to a banana republic by a senior UK Judge investigating voting corruption)
You don't need to lie to cover this fact up as it simply make you look VERY dishonest
I don't see why you can't accept this fact (it was once compared to a banana republic by a senior UK Judge investigating voting corruption)
You don't need to lie to cover this fact up as it simply make you look VERY dishonest
And the mayor of Tower Hamlets is white, but this person is blaming the Muslim population
-_-
Original post by Donald J Trump
This is my first post on here, it may be very controversial - I fully agree that muslims can do more, before the politically correct brigade start this is not hate post. Now that has been cleared up lets have a look at the question we have
Why do people think Muslim's don't do enough against ISIS?
It's my belief that muslims do not do enough to help intelligence agencies because they protect the radicalised muslims. It may not be ISIS, but remember Al-Qaeda- they had a lot in common with ISIS but also have some differences. Now when the americans sent spies to Abottabad, the muslims around there did not turn him, you have to be crazy to believe his Neigbours never seen him in what 10 Years. Also to add to that i think English schools should not teach Islam in any Religious studies - this is purely because England is a Chrisitian country. T he more you talk about radicalisation the more chance muslims will become radical. I think they have a moral obligation to turn anyone in who they may think are in danger of radicalisation- this is where they are failing, there are ISIS members in the United Kingdom at the minute a lot in the West Midlands, they will worship as they are very religious nobody has turned them in. All this is my opinion of course maybe I am wrong but I am fairly certain a muslim will be able to distinguish radicals through beliefs. If i can find any news articles to support my theory i will be back to add them
Why do people think Muslim's don't do enough against ISIS?
It's my belief that muslims do not do enough to help intelligence agencies because they protect the radicalised muslims. It may not be ISIS, but remember Al-Qaeda- they had a lot in common with ISIS but also have some differences. Now when the americans sent spies to Abottabad, the muslims around there did not turn him, you have to be crazy to believe his Neigbours never seen him in what 10 Years. Also to add to that i think English schools should not teach Islam in any Religious studies - this is purely because England is a Chrisitian country. T he more you talk about radicalisation the more chance muslims will become radical. I think they have a moral obligation to turn anyone in who they may think are in danger of radicalisation- this is where they are failing, there are ISIS members in the United Kingdom at the minute a lot in the West Midlands, they will worship as they are very religious nobody has turned them in. All this is my opinion of course maybe I am wrong but I am fairly certain a muslim will be able to distinguish radicals through beliefs. If i can find any news articles to support my theory i will be back to add them
England is a christian majority secular country. All religions should be taught or religion shouldn't be taught in schools at all.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Moscow concert hall shooting: at least 40 people dead and 100 wounded
- I am a shia muslim . AMA
- Is it Haram to do this?
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Is Liverpool Muslim friendly?
- Flatmate is gay, I am Muslim. I want him to know I have no problem with his sexuality
- Being a muslim girl (is sometimes hard)
- I'm A Muslim. Ask Me Anything!
- i took off my hijab, family is crazy
- Why is religion difficult?!
- Black girl and Pakistani guy
- I hate being religious and it's making me depressed
- Is becoming a nurse allowed in Islam?
- Family falling apart over my sisters boyfriend...
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Claims that a 9 year-old boy was treated poorly by staff ‘because he’s Jewish’
- She's my best friend, and I want to help her
- Islam and converting...
- Am I a bad muslim for this?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks 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 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
