Why do Muslims have to take responsibility for ISIS but white people don't have to...

Why do people make it seem like Muslims are responsible for ISIS and terrorist attacks and need to do something about it yet they never claim white people are responsible for the appalling violent behaviour of the far right?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

aarora

I'm bored of these threads.

Reply 2

ABeingOnEarth

Although I agree with this, not only "White People" are part of the far right.

Reply 3

Youngmetro

Because people on TSR are bigoted nationalists who are against all forms of religion and use ISIS as leverage to attack muslims and their religion.

Reply 4

TheArtofProtest

Because we white people can't be bothered to learn about the differences between black and brown people so it's just easier to paint them all with the same brush.

In other words, racial/cultural superiority.

Reply 5

MildredMalone

Maybe if all white people followed the exact same set of beliefs, and if white people refused to condemn the behaviour of violent racists, you might have a point.

Reply 6

Farm_Ecology

Original post by intelligent con

You may surprised to find out that white people can be Muslim as well, the religion isn't just restricted to brown people...

There is nothing coherent to bind a group of people together by race, there is by culture and religion.

It is up to Muslims as a whole to modernize the religion.

It is up to the far-right (and to an extend the far-left as well) to deal with violent behavior of the far right.

It is up to local communities to deal with extremism in all camps.

Edit: As a point, Individual Muslims should not need to stand out and condemn the acts of ISIS. It is their responsibility to questions their beliefs, and what they are being told.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 7

Metalfros

Original post by aarora

I'm bored of these threads.

I'm bored of the anti-muslim threads.

Original post by Onde

Because Islam is an ideology that people choose to have, and not "a race"; because Islam glorifies a terrorist (Muhammad), and calls for acts of terror in its central religious text.

Just stfu and gtfo. You are the kind of man that riles people up over nothing and who disturb the peace. And don't ever again dare to label muslims in general terrorists.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 8

NabeelS

Original post by Onde

Because Islam is an ideology that people choose to have, and not "a race"; because Islam glorifies a terrorist (Muhammad), and calls for acts of terror in its central religious text.

hahaha most people on this earth don't choose a religion, they are born in it, indoctrinated by it. Besides most people never question something like religion. Try questioning your religion anywhere else in the world apart from Western Europe and some parts of America. Chances are you will be ostracised by your family and society, faced with a choice like this most people blindly "believe". All humans ever want to do is fit-in, we are very social creatures.

Reply 9

NabeelS

Original post by Onde

Even if people were born with religion, they still have the capacity to think. If they are able to ask "why should "we" blamed for ISIS?", they are able to think "Hang on a minute, they actually have a point about Islam and its negative association with terrorism". If you fear being ostracised, it would be better to simple not play the charade of questioning perfectly sound criticism and to stay silent.

Humans are indeed social creatures, but Muhammad was not someone who wished to fit in. He wanted to terrorise everyone until they fit in, or were slaughtered.

First of all, i don't give two hoots about Mohammed/Jesus/Moses. All of them were subverts/terrorists to one degree or another. I'm not referring to your personal opinion, leave your proselytizing out of this.

I was talking about most humans' inability to think critically and question power. I think you may have a naive view of peoples' critical thinking levels. Look around you at the strangers, most people don't think about politics/religion/psychology in depth. We as a species just bow to power half the time.

Have you ever seen the response you get if you question a society's deeply held/indoctrinated "beliefs"? Have you ever seen what happens to people who do this? People are lucky if they are left alone, more often than not it leads to violence, whether they are Hindus/Muslims/Christians. I was born in India and I used to see this **** in both Hindus/Muslims.

Reply 10

NabeelS

Original post by Onde

I don't care if you don't care about Muhammad..that is utterly irrelevant to this thread. The fact is, the first tenet of the Islamic faith necessitates that Muhummad is recognised as the Messenger of Allah, so the matter of him being a self-described terrorist is a crucial point.

I see that you didn't respond to the actual discussion and keep going on about Muhammed. I pity you.

Reply 11

Joinedup

What about white muslims? you a racist bruv?

Reply 12

NabeelS

Original post by Onde

Look, if Muslims worship Allah, and put Muhammad on a pedestal, both beings who are recorded as engaging in or condoning terrorism in Islam's "holy book", I fail to see how this is not relevant.

If you worship a terrorist (e.g. Osama Bin Laden), and you believe that it is divine will that you commit terrorist acts against the unbelievers, then you have real questions to ask of yourself.

a terrorist will kill you on the spot if you said that they worship OBL. Nothing will be more against Islam than that.

From your responses it is obvious that you have entrenched views so this discussion is a rather pointless exercise in futility on my part. "holy book", "terrorist" (a complex individual and society distilled down to one word, dunno how you managed that?). The only thing I agree with you is that indeed there is a personality cult about Mohammed in Islam, which is tragically/hilariously against one of the main tenets of the religion.

Reply 13

Kvothe the Arcane

Original post by intelligent con

Not that I'm saying that muslims have to do something about it but ethnicity is not an ideology.

Reply 14

NabeelS

Original post by Onde

Depends on the religion. For all we know, there are terrorists who worship Osama Bin Laden. I wasn't making a point about Bin Laden being a Muslim, just saying that to me, Bin Laden/Muhammad/Allah are all terrorists in their ideology.

This is the qur'anic description of terrorism btw:

"Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". - Quran 3:151

"I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." - Quran 8:12

I don't know how you can disagree that this is not a description of terrorism, and that it delights in that fact.

This is from a book codified in the 9th century based on sayings in the 6th century, it ain't gonna hold up in the 21st century. Besides, this is pretty tame compared to the old testament. BTW in this context non-believers means pagans/idol worshippers hence the quote "they joined companions with Allah".

Reply 15

NabeelS

Original post by Onde

As far as I know, the qur'an was written in the 7th century, and has changed comparatively little, except for the incredible number of interpretations due to the vagueness of the language (I do not disagree with your general point).

There are about 15 million Jews in the world, and Judaism in its current form is very insular, and not prone to fanatical acts of terrorism and imperialism.

Islam by contrast, has around 100 times the recorded number of adherents, and has been a global concern since the earliest bouts of imperialism by the Muhammadans. Islam has not modified its central tenets since then, and it is still the case that to be a Muslim, you must follow a terrorist god and a terrorist messenger. If your point in highlighting the age of the Qur'an is supposed to make it seem like it is not considered relevant by most Muslims, it really does not hold up to scrutiny. If it were so, it would be completely straightforward for Muslims to renounce Allah and Muhammad. And yet they do not do it. Why not?

I do not understand why you bring up "context". I had taken it as a given that terrorism was fundamentally wrong. I did not realise this thread has to deal with terrorist sympathisers.

There is no right or wrong in the pursuit of power, even more so in the middle ages, it still holds true as well. I don't think you understand the pressure that a society has on individuals. Apart from Europe, societies are very intrusive into people's personal affairs and it takes very very determined individuals to break free and these people are always a tiny minority as is the nature of humans.

Islam has always been political and still is (though it's power is greatly diminished). Christianity used to be for millennia but not any more while Islamic countries try to be but don't have the means to do so. Even Judaism used to be political and still is but only in regards to the nation of Israel. Religion has always been a tool for politics and always will be. Might I suggest you read political theories to see how religion/economics/identity politics are used to grab power.

Reply 16

typonaut

Original post by intelligent con

I think the premise of this statement is wrong. For a start I don't think reasonable people believe that all muslims are responsible for IS. It is more the case that they think that muslims should disassociate themselves from IS - probably in an active way, because IS is making the claim to represent all (or at least a large proportion of) muslims.

Secondly, white people have taken responsibility for the far right - at least if you believe that the law is effectively controlled by white people. Because various laws make the actions of these people illegal.

Reply 17

Pythian

Original post by Onde

What I find annoying is the way people often retort by declaiming terrorists as having "distorted" Islam. On the face of it, this is an unbelievable conceit. The person saying this must presumably be in possession of the "true" version of Islam – which, ultimately, requires a direct connection to God.

Islam is unique. Like all religions, it's replete with inconsistencies and contradictions. But, it lacks a final arbiter of truth - in the way Catholics have a Pope. There isn't a valid means of discarding "untrue" interpretations of Islam other than the burden of logic and evidence from the unassailable rise of secular ethics in society. People are good & decent - despite their religion and thanks to moral progress allowed by secular ethics.

Ultimately, we must start by saying that there isn't any "interpretation" because there isn't any God. Once you start by granting 'his' existence, then you must formulate some means of identifying the "correct" interpretation. Well, who is to say? Islam's truth is not subject to plebiscite or whimsy. The problem pivots on accepting the validity of the religion. All religions point to nebulous historical figures as our moral guide. It's this ridiculous creation of an alternative "reality" that has little relation to the actual universe. Our moral arguments have been subject to the dialectic and progress. The objections to religion are not merely rational and scientific - but equally moral and philosophical. Though these are, of course, complementary. Well-intentioned people who argue that ISIS have distorted Islam are very much undermining the case against them.

Religion is an exploitative relic of times when the inexplicable cast very heavy shadows and penumbras. Their retreat has seen religion morph into an irrelevance among the people of developed countries - with a corresponding advancement in the moral warp and woof of society. We've become better people. The moral attitudes to homophobia and anti-Semitism in the last century are great instances of this. They are precepts directly wedded to religion.

Our common humanity & decency and the collective pursuit of truth is the antidote to cultural indoctrination and atavistic belief systems. The rational approach is to combat religion at its source; while judging every individual on the basis of their moral character.

Reply 18

HAnwar

I'm not taking responsibility for any attacks I didn't do.

Reply 19

username1204031

Original post by MildredMalone

Maybe if all white people followed the exact same set of beliefs, and if white people refused to condemn the behaviour of violent racists, you might have a point.

But not all Muslims follow the exact same set of beliefs, and many do condemn that behaviour.

Lots of white people/Christians/Irish people followed the same beliefs as the KKK/IRA and lots of them refused to condemn that behaviour. I don't get why this is so hard to understand.