Is it fair to blame Muslims for terror attacks?

As predicted. Goodbye.

It is fact, goodbye.

Explain to me why someone can binge drink all their life, but yell 'allahu ackbar' before a massacre and suddenly islam is the problem.

Are you ignoring my posts? I'm not saying Islam is the sole problem in any of these cases, but part of it, something which you seem to be completely denying.

Lol you ignored pretty much all of my posts, which is why you didn't see my prediction of your response and you responded exactly as I thought.

I read them, just don't agree with your implication that ideology has nothing to do with it.

Never said it had nothing to do with it.

If you had read my posts, you would realise that I am simply saying that it isn't the 'source' of the problem, as you appear to proclaim. It has an extent of influence, but its negligible given that there are overwhelmingly more nonviolent Muslims.

Islam is a religion of peace. Is ISIS really "Islamic" or are they just using this as a mask and the real reason for the attacks is the urge to have power? Why do people say "Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or the Paris bombings?" Were they really?


Posted from TSR Mobile

Let's think about that carefully, shall we?

Is Batman a document that claims to be sourced, via a prophet whose behaviour is the model for all men to follow, from a deity, and does it claim that its words must be followed closely by all adherents and that eternal salvation will be forthcoming for all who do so? If so, then clearly, Batman is the root of the problem.

If Batman is a work of art or fiction that is advertised as such, then the perpetrator must shoulder 100% of the blame.

Analogously, I could just easily ask "Does the Qur'an actually tell people to commit terrorist attacks upon civilians, or does it prohibit them? If it endorses them, then clearly the Qur'an is the root of the problem. If it prohibits them, then the perpetrator must shoulder 100% of the blame," and then*say that it very obviously and unequivocally prohibits such attacks, and so it cannot possibly be the root cause of the problem.

Of course then I'd be told "Ah, but that's just your subjective interpretation - the attacker obviously didn't agree, and was influenced by the Qur'an to commit attacks. Who's to say whose interpretation is right? Either way, clearly the Qur'an is such that can inspire attacks". However, if you want to treat the tiny minority's obviously false understanding of the Qur'an as "no less valid, making the Qur'an the root cause nonetheless", you'd need to say the same for the attacker's interpretation of Batman, and for every other influence alleged to have inspired every other misdemeanour.

A better argument than all of that is simply to say that the Qur'an/Batman/Whatever is not the root cause of attacks, because regardless of what their contents might be, the vast majority of people manage to look at this material without it resulting in the slightest inclination to hurt anyone. The root cause must therefore be some aspect of the person rather than the material they looked at.

Explain to me why someone can binge drink all their life, but yell 'allahu ackbar' before a massacre and suddenly islam is the problem.

the obvious problem with your analogy is where the subject matter is unclear as to when murder is or is not acceptable ( because according to mohammed at times its ' acceptable '. and who indeed would be regarded as a civilian' ( ie what we in west regard as civilian could be regarded as being ' of the enemy' by mohammed , as some hadith can suggest) . To compound further you are talking about a global belief system that has no undisputed head of scriptural authority that can clear these questions up ( not for 1300+ years anyway) - bit like issuing everyone with nuclear fusion reactors without telling them how to use it - the inventor of which died in some nuclear reactor accident. Finally perhaps the most relevant , is the weakness of one and half billion people in the first place all relying on some vague guidelines from the 8th century to govern their general behaviour. when it comes to whether they should kill someone or not. its not a recipe for a sound community

again your claiming someones ' obviously false understanding of the Qur'an ' is you substituting for mohammed. it doesn't work

This isn't a new argument you're making, it's just the same thing as was said before: "The Qur'an is unclear, several interpretations are possible, you might say that it's totally obvious that the attack in question is prohibited by the Qur'an, but it's subjective and someone else might think differently". Fine, but then you have to apply exactly the same logic to Batman, Catcher in the Rye and every other such inspiration of any attack, and not just when it suits you, or where you have doubts over the interpretation.I don't wish to implicate anyone other than the individuals committing the attacks in question. I'm just pointing out that highlighting Islam as the root cause of the problem is equally as ridiculous and logically akin to highlighting Batman or any violent films/video games as the root cause of the real world violence that follows from them.There are vastly many more Muslims in the world than avid fans of Batman and the Joker.The countries that Western countries are attacking most often these days are overwhelmingly of Muslim majority. Since the people who are most likely to feel the need to exact some sort of vengeance will probably have links to these countries, they are very likely to be (or assumed to be) Muslim as well.No, uttering the shahadah is the final step in the process of becoming a Muslim but it's not sufficient by itself. If you said the shahadah right this second it wouldn't make you a Muslim.

i made this point to you previously - im sure close to a billion+ or so people know who batman is also but only one example of an attack could be conjured up that bears any relevance to your claim.*2 billion people use a software created by Marc Zukerberg daily - and yet there have been so far zero killings inspried by his quotes.

Analogously, I could just easily ask "Does the Qur'an actually tell people to commit terrorist attacks upon civilians, or does it prohibit them? If it endorses them, then clearly the Qur'an is the root of the problem. If it prohibits them, then the perpetrator must shoulder 100% of the blame," and then*say that it very obviously and unequivocally prohibits such attacks, and so it cannot possibly be the root cause of the problem.

Of course then I'd be told "Ah, but that's just your subjective interpretation - the attacker obviously didn't agree, and was influenced by the Qur'an to commit attacks. Who's to say whose interpretation is right? Either way, clearly the Qur'an is such that can inspire attacks". However, if you want to treat the tiny minority's obviously false understanding of the Qur'an as "no less valid, making the Qur'an the root cause nonetheless", you'd need to say the same for the attacker's interpretation of Batman, and for every other influence alleged to have inspired every other misdemeanour.


A better argument than all of that is simply to say that the Qur'an/Batman/Whatever is not the root cause of attacks, because regardless of what their contents might be, the vast majority of people manage to look at this material without it resulting in the slightest inclination to hurt anyone. The root cause must therefore be some aspect of the person rather than the material they looked at.

Better still is the argument that most Moslems manage to be peaceful people despite what the Koran tells them to do. This shows that most people have at least a modicum of commonsense and aren't entirely indiscriminant in their superstition. Maybe they unconsciously realise that the Koran is not as perfect as they are indoctrinated to claim and can distance themselves from its more obvious atrocities.

And even better still would be widespread abandonment of an obviously political tool, invented by a mediaeval warmonger and now returned to its roots by twenty-first century warmongers who follow his words and deeds exactly.

Actually there have been lots of killings where social media has played a part in ultimately resulting in death, either because of something that was posted upon it, or because the attacker wanted to upload their killing onto it.Some examples:

I don't really see how this is not a point about "multiple interpretations". You talk about millions of different people trying to decide the correct meanings of rules, nobody being able to universally proclaim who is a civilian and who isn't.*But I disagree -*I think that it is 100% unequivocal, the killing of people in the recent Nice attacks was, according to the Qur'an, entirely wrong, no two ways about it. Everybody who thinks it can be justified by Qur'anic verses is simply wrong. It's just as obvious as saying that Batman is about a man in a black outfit who fights criminals.

If you want to say that my opinion on the matter isn't in any way authoritative and there's no telling for sure what the correct meaning of the Qur'an verses are, that's fine, but then I will say the same about your opinion on Batman or any other influence that has resulted in anyone doing anything bad (regardless of how obvious you think it is that your view on it is correct).Therefore, there is no basis for treating the two sources differently. Either you can say that they're both the "root cause" of their respective attacks, or neither of them are.*

you are now really delving into the depths of stupid remarks now - facebook is a medium for transmitting ideas, not a source of ideology itself. facebook has had posted on it islamist propaganda - which indeed has caused radicalism and potenital terrorists- but its int the medium to blame but the ideology that promotes the ideas of violence to ahcieve islamic agendas ie islamist ideology

And yet your average Islamist indoctrinate will simply point to Mohammed, who killed numerous , what we would regard as , civilians during his campaigns and the retributions afterward. He didnt spare young boys, nor did he stop attacks where women and children of the enemy were within his attack zones. he even killed poets and satirists , so your argument in the eyes of an islamic indoctrinate falls flat on its face. the point is the structure that islam has created in muslim society is an imperfect and chaotic pot of potentially over-boiling sectarian hatred and acts of violence.

your now flailing argument seems to want to hinge on the effects of 'batman' as if the world is wondering why batmen comics are causing so many problems round the world - you are a great example of why islamic world is in the state it is - blame everything and everyone as long as its not islam - ' blame the West, blame all non muslims, blame muslims themselves , blame BATMAN '- but dont blame islam 'becuase otherwise youd be forced to recognise its failings and reform it- and noone wants to be the muslim that opens that can of worms

But when it's to do with Islam, all that goes out the window, and it's the ideology that's flawed. The minority interpretation that promotes killing civilians is now suddenly the right one.

Double standards if I ever saw them.*