The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why do people think Muslim's don't do enough against ISIS?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Frank Underwood
two unnecessary questions


or questions that you don't know the answers to - oops
Original post by mkap
Seriously why do people don't think Muslims don't do enough about ISIS? you just think that we sit back and watch the news and agree with ISIS 100%. well guess what we don't.

Majority of Muslims don't agree with ISIS and their dumb extreme actions does affect us Muslims. We cant even get on buses or public transport without people looking at us in disgust or verbally abuse us and act like we are the ones who go blowing up people.

Even an American school nearby in Jeddah has got an ISIS threat just because its American and the population of the school is majority Muslim. Literally everyone hates our religion now and attacks it constantly.

So i ask you what can Muslims do apart from educate our Muslim community. its not like we can all hold hands and go to Syria and knock em all out.

Do you really think that if we knew someone who had terrorist ideologies we would just let them walk free, no because Muslims get killed too and at the end of the day its innocent human life that is killed whether a person is Muslim or not.

/rant over :getmecoat:


Well, about knocking them all out.... :kungfu:

The last paragraph is soo perfect! :cry2::dance:
Original post by Frank Underwood

And now you're backing off


Dream on.

Original post by Frank Underwood

people who see Islam as peaceful


The vast majority of Moslems are peaceful; the ideology definitely is not peaceful. It was quite obviously invented as a mechanism for getting people to fight wars, in fact.
Original post by Good bloke
Dream on.



The vast majority of Moslems are peaceful; the ideology definitely is not peaceful. It was quite obviously invented as a mechanism for getting people to fight wars, in fact.


The ideology is not peaceful because 1500 years ago, someone who opposed Islam by definition opposed government, and everything you stood for and lived for, because of Islam's highly political nature.

There is no point whatsoever in criticising a 1.5 millennia old religion, when everyone has moved on.

If you're going to say something like "evidently people haven't moved on, such as terrorists" - these terrorists violate parts of the Quran regardless, so I'm not sure why you're criticising its tenets.
Original post by AlmightyJesus
or questions that you don't know the answers to - oops


those questions were irrelevant and stupid
Original post by Frank Underwood
those questions were irrelevant and stupid


how? and even if they were irrelevant, the fact that you aren't answering them is obviously very suspect - it just screams embarrassment or ignorance if you can't or won't
Original post by AlmightyJesus
how? and even if they were irrelevant, the fact that you aren't answering them is obviously very suspect - it just screams embarrassment or ignorance if you can't or won't


1. muslim cleric then
2. because Muslims dress like that sometimes
Original post by Frank Underwood
1. muslim cleric then
2. because Muslims dress like that sometimes


only fundamentalists though - not these "western moderates" that we hear about all the time
Original post by Frank Underwood

If you're going to say something like "evidently people haven't moved on, such as terrorists" - these terrorists violate parts of the Quran regardless, so I'm not sure why you're criticising its tenets.


I don't use terrorists as examples to show that Islam and its adherents have not actually moved on. You only have to look at the prevailing morality among Moslems to see it, and, if they want to be accepted as Moslems, they cannot move on because the Koran itself - the ultimate and unchangeable rulebook - forbids it.

You can see it even on TSR, where you might expect a more liberal or rebellious attitude: people who wish to criminalise adultery, those who want laws against blasphemy, those who refuse to condemn barbaric practices allowed by the Koran (like major physical punishments, slavery and misogyny), those who support Islam's rules about female inheritance and male authority, those who want the sexes segregated in public (and women dressed in desert clothes).

These sorts of views, largely unthinkable in the west generally, are held by either the majority or a significant minority of Moslems and they set themselves apart from the society they say they want to be part of and which, in many cases, has saved them from oppression.
Original post by AlmightyJesus
only fundamentalists though - not these "western moderates" that we hear about all the time


Hence why I said "IF you dress like..."

IF
Original post by Frank Underwood
Hence why I said "IF you dress like..."

IF


yes, if, so "if" you dress like a fanatic on a train, I don't blame people for staring - it's pretty intimidating
Original post by mil88
to me, your opinion is worthless.


Likewise.

Original post by mil88
For your final point, the verse doesn't mention what you're trying to say it is.


"(And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess") [4:24]. Muhammad ibn "Abd al-Rahman al-Bunani informed us> Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Hamdan> Abu Ya"la> "Amr al-Naqid> Abu Ahmad al-Zubayri> Sufyan> "Uthman al-Batti> Abu"l-Khalil> Abu Sa"id al-Khudri who said: "We had captured female prisoners of war on the day of Awtas and because they were already married we disliked having any physical relationship with them. Then we asked the Prophet, Allah bless him and give him peace, about them. And the verse (And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess) was then revealed, as a result of which we consider it lawful to have a physical relationship with them". Ahmad ibn Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn al-Harith informed us> "Abd Allah ibn Muhammad ibn Ja"far> Abu Yahya> Sahl ibn "Uthman> "Abd al-Rahim> Ash"ath ibn Sawwar> "Uthman al-Batti> Abu"l-Khalil> Abu Sa"id who said: "When the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, captured the people of Awtas as prisoners of war we said: "O Prophet of Allah! How can we possibly have physical relationships with women whose lineage and husband we know very well?" And so this verse was revealed (And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess)". Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Farisi informed us> Muhammad ibn "Isa ibn "Amrawayh> Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Sufyan> Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj> "Ubayd Allah ibn "Umar al-Qawariri> Yazid ibn Zuray"> Sa"id ibn Abi "Arubah> Qatadah> Abu Salih Abu Khalil> Abu "Alqamah al-Hashimi> Abu Sa"id al-Khudri who reported that on the day of Hunayn the Messenger of Allah, Allah bless him and give him peace, sent an army to Awtas. This army met the enemy in a battle, defeated them and captured many female prisoners from them. But some of the Companions of the Messenger, Allah bless him and give him peace, were uncomfortable about having physical relations with these prisoners because they had husbands who were idolaters, and so Allah, exalted is He, revealed about this (And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess)."

http://quranx.com/tafsir/Wahidi/4.24

"Verse 4.24 And, forbidden to you are, wedded women, those with spouses, that you should marry them before they have left their spouses, be they Muslim free women or not; save what your right hands own, of captured [slave] girls, whom you may have sexual intercourse with, even if they should have spouses among the enemy camp, but only after they have been absolved of the possibility of pregnancy [after the completion of one menstrual cycle]; this is what God has prescribed for you (kitāba is in the accusative because it is the verbal noun). Lawful for you (read passive wa-uhilla, or active wa-ahalla), beyond all that, that is, except what He has forbidden you of women, is that you seek, women, using your wealth, by way of a dowry or a price, in wedlock and not, fornicating, in illicitly. Such wives as you enjoy thereby, and have had sexual intercourse with, give them their wages, the dowries that you have assigned them, as an obligation; you are not at fault in agreeing together, you and they, after the obligation, is waived, decreased or increased. God is ever Knowing, of His creatures, Wise, in what He has ordained for them."
http://quranx.com/tafsir/Jalal/4.24

"(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess.) The Ayah means, you are prohibited from marrying women who are already married,(except those whom your right hands possess) except those whom you acquire through war, for you are allowed such women after making sure they are not pregnant. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sa`id Al-Khudri said, "We captured some women from the area of Awtas who were already married, and we disliked having sexual relations with them because they already had husbands. So, we asked the Prophet about this matter, and this Ayah was revealed "(Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess). Consequently, we had sexual relations with these women.''"

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=684&Itemid=59

A 'divine' nad 'perfect' book of 'objective' morality which permits men to rape - oooops I mean 'have sex with' - married women whom they've captured in war. How disgustingly horrible, vile and sick.
Original post by AlmightyJesus
yes, if, so "if" you dress like a fanatic on a train, I don't blame people for staring - it's pretty intimidating


its this fear and intimidation which is dividing society, we should all know that these people are peaceful
Original post by Frank Underwood
its this fear and intimidation which is dividing society, we should all know that these people are peaceful


...are they? what about their fanatical beliefs? what about their intolerance? if somebody thinks gay people should be killed, and you're gay, why wouldn't you be at least slightly intimidated? what about fascists or nazis in society? should we look to them in the same way we look at libertarians?
Original post by AlmightyJesus
...are they? what about their fanatical beliefs? what about their intolerance? if somebody thinks gay people should be killed, and you're gay, why wouldn't you be at least slightly intimidated? what about fascists or nazis in society? should we look to them in the same way we look at libertarians?


Do you honestly think that the Muslims living in England, coming from whichever country by choice, want to kill gay people and kill apostates? Come on, just because they're Muslim, they aren't psychopaths. The Quran was written 1500 years ago, to think that all Muslims today follow it word-to-word is obscene, and the same applies to Christians
Original post by Frank Underwood
Do you honestly think that the Muslims living in England, coming from whichever country by choice, want to kill gay people and kill apostates? Come on, just because they're Muslim, they aren't psychopaths. The Quran was written 1500 years ago, to think that all Muslims today follow it word-to-word is obscene, and the same applies to Christians


are you implying that, for instance, a nazi shouldn't at least partly intimidating a jew even though it's 2016 in the UK?
Original post by AlmightyJesus
are you implying that, for instance, a nazi shouldn't at least partly intimidating a jew even though it's 2016 in the UK?


No, try again

and also try again with your grammar, that sentence makes no sense
Original post by Frank Underwood
Do you honestly think that the Muslims living in England, coming from whichever country by choice, want to kill gay people and kill apostates? Come on, just because they're Muslim, they aren't psychopaths. The Quran was written 1500 years ago, to think that all Muslims today follow it word-to-word is obscene, and the same applies to Christians


It was obviously an analogy.

Also, have you tried talking to a Muslim about how their timeless book is no longer as relevant as it was 1500 years ago?
Original post by Frank Underwood
No, try again

and also try again with your grammar, that sentence makes no sense


I'm sorry - I wrote part of that, then left it for a while, then came back without reading it back - that's my fault
but in terms of your "no, try again" - why? what's the difference here? nazis hate jews, muslims (at least fanatics) hate gays.
Original post by Farm_Ecology
It was obviously an analogy.

Also, have you tried talking to a Muslim about how their timeless book is no longer as relevant as it was 1500 years ago?


Nope, but I can't imagine it being any different to talking to a Christian, Hindu or Jew about theirs respectively.

All religion is equally silly in my eyes, but it's unfair to blame people for the actions of an extremist minority, regardless of how absurd their beliefs are.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you