Girl stabbed in France by man trying to ‘make sacrifice for Ramadan’

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

animus1

Original post by Aceadria

Indeed, apologies.

No worries at all.

Reply 21

Thutmose-III

Original post by TheGreatPumpkin

Can we settle this now that in this instance it was simply a man not taking his medication and not some grand Muslim conspiracy.

It's possible for something to occur for more than one reason. It's possible for someone to be mentally ill and also to have been influenced by extremism.

Reply 22

TheGreatPumpkin

Original post by Thutmose-III

It's possible for something to occur for more than one reason. It's possible for someone to be mentally ill and also to have been influenced by extremism.

I never said he wasn't, but on account of his mental state it is fair to say, unlike the Paris or California shootings, this was an isolated incident.

Reply 23

Thutmose-III

Original post by TheGreatPumpkin

I never said he wasn't, but on account of his mental state it is fair to say, unlike the Paris or California shootings, this was an isolated incident.

It depends. If it turns out this man was radicalised at Britain First meetings then it might not be a one-off incident. If that turns out to be the case there must be an extensive investigation of this group.

Reply 24

TheGreatPumpkin

Original post by Thutmose-III

Wrong thread, mate.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 25

Thutmose-III

Original post by TheGreatPumpkin

Wrong thread, mate.

Yep, that's my bad, though the point remains.

Being mentally ill doesn't necessarily mean that therefore there were no ideological issues involved. In fact, terrorist groups often groom and recruit particularly vulnerable individuals

Reply 26

TheGreatPumpkin

Original post by Thutmose-III

I agree with that.

Reply 27

Copperknickers

Original post by GEEKSruletheworld!

Have you even read the Qur'an? Yeah I thought not.

“Whoever kills a person [unjustly]…it is as though he has killed all mankind. And whoever saves a life, it is as though he had saved all mankind.” (Qur’an, 5:32)

"2:190. And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.

191. And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. For disbelief is worse than killing.[...]

[...]

193. And fight them until there is no more disbelief, and all worship is for Allah alone."

Obviously it clearly says 'those who fight you', but still, the Quran, like the Bible, does not forbid killing in the name of one's religious beliefs, it only forbids murder of innocent people. The context by the way is that the followers of Mohammed have been exiled from the city of Mecca, and they are planning to launch an assault on it to take it for their cause. So clearly this verse does not promote only self-defence, at least in this context - arguably it does not extend to all Muslims, only the followers of Mohammed at that time, but claiming that the Quran does not apply in modern times because of changed circumstances goes against all teachings of mainstream learned Muslim thought and practice.

Besides, Muslims are supposed to emulate the life of Mohammed, and he was a military leader who attacked many more cities than just Mecca, so trying to claim that Mohammed himself was against offensive attacks against non-Muslims is a difficult proposition to say the least.

Anyway all of this is completely irrelevant to this incident, the Quran does expressly forbid the murder of innocent people and human sacrifice is not sanctioned by any Abrahamic religion since the day Abraham himself was told not to sacrifice Isaac but a lamb instead.