Is it fair to blame Muslims for terror attacks?

Your first sentence is an oft-repeated platitude. The fact is that as well as containing peaceful verses, Islamic scripture is also overflowing with disgusting, violent, aggressive and hateful verses which groups like ISIS use to justify some of their most heinous acts.

Invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy every time a member of your religion does something you don't like is childish as well as futile, because it's essentially ignoring the problem at its root cause: the ideology.

thanks for your answer (although I feel that you don't actually reply to my points)

to make this simpler, (and so as to try and stick to the thread topic) let's take up again my last question:

do you really think that ISIS e.g. would crucify prisoners, if Quran (5:33) did not explicitly allow to have recourse to such a punishment for those who "spread corruption in the land " ?

Yes - I think they would find some other excuse to do it.

I don't think so

since the Quran explicitly allows crucifying prisoners, cutting off hands, having sex with captured slavegirls etc, ISIS feel they are authorised, or even advised to do so

just like, on another level, the Quran explicitly authorising husbands to beat their "disobedient" wives means that some Muslims will feel justified (or even encouraged) in beating their rebellious wives

in my view, words have their literal meaning (even if, by contextualisation/interpretation/translation you can do wonders...) and are not simply water off a duck's back : especially if they are considered to be the literal word of God

so, I don't think that the Quran can be entirely absolved : at best, it's ambiguous and misleading. At worst, it's evil.

Your first sentence is an oft-repeated platitude. The fact is that as well as containing peaceful verses, Islamic scripture is also overflowing with disgusting, violent, aggressive and hateful verses which groups like ISIS use to justify some of their most heinous acts.

Invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy every time a member of your religion does something you don't like is childish as well as futile, because it's essentially ignoring the problem at its root cause: the ideology.

Sigh, the ideology is not the root of the problem. Your average Muslim doesn't suddenly wake up one day and decide "Hey here's an idea, why don't I murder 20+ people for Islam?"The problem is young Muslims becoming radicalised, the source of radicalisation is not a heart-filled desire to help Islam, the source is hatred for everyone around you - this derives from peoples' lives being destroyed by conflict, oppression, segregation, discrimination and corruption - all of which manifest in countries like Syria and Iraq, which have suffered some brutal regimes and western foreign policy blunders.

Stop blaming Islam when clearly 99.99% of Muslims are not causing problems, which simply defies your own logic. If the source of the problem is the ideology, why are almost all Muslims peaceful? Why are almost all Muslims suffering the most from these atrocities? You are a clueless individual, and your reps are from equally clueless xenophobes who want to scapegoat our 21st century problems on a foreign religion. If people didn't attack purportedly 'in the name of Islam', you would not be criticising the ideology.

These are not pious or sincere men. They do what they want and then add their justification afterwards. The fact that they pick and chose extracts of the Quran points towards that.

All the points you have flagged still go towards interpretation - what counts as "disobedient"?

Fact remains that the vast majority of muslims don't agree with all their interpretations or do the same actions.

If you can use one (or a minority) example(s) to make out that Islam/the Quran is evil - why doesn't the counter have any bearing? There are obviously muslims who follow the Quran and lead very charitable lives who help all those around them (helping muslims and non-muslims alike). Or do they not suit your argument?

You're resorting to meaningless insults so I'm going to ignore that part of your post.

The ideology most certainly does have a part to play. The fact that most Muslims aren't terrorists does not change this because most Muslims, like most human beings, are decent and are governed by their own innate morality rather than that as set out by an ancient and outdated book.

Yes, and many are radicalised by people who have extreme interpretations of Islam, that's the point. It's not the interpretation of the majority, but it's still Islam and that won't change, regardless of how many times you try and deny it.

If people didn't attack purportedly 'in the name of Islam', you would not be criticising the ideology.

Go ahead and attack my credibility for some indirect, implicit insults if that's what you need to make a robust reply. But you are literally posting nonsense, you are seemingly classifying Islam and extremist Islam as if they're the same thing. Clearly the Quran is open to interpretation, and clearly there are different forms of Islam - how can an ideology which is open to interpretation be the source of the issue?

The very fact that there is leniency for humans to manipulate Islam and make it more extreme or interpret it with more severity suggests that the problem is not actually the ideology - but as I said, hatred and bigotry from non-religious sources.

If the ideology is the problem, it would be adhered to by all Muslims. You've suggested that the Quran is open to interpretation - that directly contradicts your theory about the ideology being the issue. People interpret it how they want, ISIS deliberately exploit it and interpret it as brutally as possible to justify their crimes - but the actual SOURCE and reasoning for their crimes therefore cannot be Islam.

You're essentially saying that the source of the problem is Islam, but ISIS are manipulating Islam AFTERWARDS to justify their actions. That makes no sense.

Is it Batman?

Nonsense. I am saying that an extreme version is still an interpretation of Islam, not that it is the only or even the most commonly adhered to one, it clearly isn't.

But the fact that Islam has multiple interpretations, ie - some interpret it as good, others interpret it as evil, means that the problem is not in fact the ideology but in fact the humans who are choosing to interpret it in worse ways.

You're speaking nonsense, not me.


You are telling me that Islam, the ideology/religion, is the problem.

But the fact that Islam has multiple interpretations, ie - some interpret it as good, others interpret it as evil, means that the problem is not in fact the ideology but in fact the humans who are choosing to interpret it in worse ways.

The source of this originates from what I said before, hatred, fear, corruption - all of which manifest in brutal regimes and conflict, examples of which we have seen in Tunisia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, etc... Victims of radicalisation due to these conflicts / corrupt governments choose to interpret it as extreme because extreme is all they know, when their houses have been bombed, when political instability is the norm, when their parents/friends have died...

The problem is not Islam. Islam has extreme tenets, yes, but its the people who as you pointed out earlier with regard to having a conscience, that cause the problem. Its PEOPLE who choose to ignore the ethical issues and go ahead and purport Islam as a death cult rather than what it actually is. So stop attacking Islam, you're helping no one, you're making innocent Muslims feel segregated and oppressed, and you're blaming the wrong thing.

But a perfect ideology cannot be misinterpreted, can it? So, is Islam imperfect?

Yes, believe it or not, a scripture written 1500 years ago is not perfect, alongside almost all other religious scriptures.

No, you are speaking more nonsense. If an ideology can be so badly misinterpreted then it is part of the problem, simple. Not the whole problem, but part of it nonetheless. The extremists can just cherry pick the violent bits.

So its essentially been refuted that islam is the original source of the problem,

It is not being 'misinterpreted' as if its some mistake, you're basically implying that the terrorists are actually decent people just making a sorry mistake of reading it incorrectly. It is being deliberately warped to fit their needs. Islam isn't some, as you put it, cherries on a cake waiting to be picked. Islam is what it is, with some degree of uncertainty, but the level of misinterpretation by the terrorists is essentially like taking the cherry from another cake and putting it on it. They are actively warping what Islam says.

But thats not even the substance of my original point. You're claiming the ideology is responsible. Yet again, you've dug yourself into a hole. If people are actively choosing to warp it how they want, then that is their own fault and not the ideology's.

But beyond this, you are claiming that Islam is the 'source', ie - it is the initial, first thing that these terrorists look to when they commit these atrocities. This is simply incorrect, I've studied every single case of foreign-target terror attacks, and every single time, its not some ultra pro-Muslim individual waking up and deciding he has no choice but to defend Islam. Its always some broken, weak individuals, often victims of conflict or oppression, breaking and resorting to hate and using islam as a veil to hide behind.

This is evidence here:

- Sediffine Rezgui (Tunisia attacker) was reportedly radicalised during the Libyan civil war / Libyan crisis. He reportedly liked to drink and breakdance. Quite obviously this person was broken by the events in Libya and became radicalised.
- Omar Mateen was reportedly an attendant of the gay nightclub.
- The Lorry truck attacker was reportedly a 'loner' and liked to binge drink.

They all sound like true Muslims don't they?

No

you are being stupid and ignoring the fact that these are broken individuals who have been radicalised, NOT by their 'loyalty to Islam', but have each individually been broken by events in their life

So its essentially been refuted that islam is the original source of the problem, but I have no doubt that you'll shy away and ignore this entire post and reply with some bitter 2-line response targeting what little of this post you have the leverage to actually respond to.

Again, more nonsense and petty insults. The ideology most certainly is partly to blame and can indeed be cherry picked. The Quran is full of violent passages that are used by extremists, not nice passages that are completely corrupted. The bad bits are already there, it's just that most Muslim either ignore them and thus don't act on them or don't even know they exist.