Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    No, it is not fair. This is like saying one person in the tribe has committed a crime; the whole tribe should endure the consequence that very one individual has to face. This is to do with different individuals, not about the religion. It is idiotic and ludicrous to blame all muslims for something goes against their belief.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I met a sixteen-year-old boy the other day. He dropped litter, swore and hassled an old lady. Would I be right in thinking every sixteen year old boy litters, swears and hassles old ladies?

    Islam isn't a religion of violence or peace. It can be interpreted in any way. Just like any holy book. Just because some psychopaths use certain passages to justify their actions doesn't mean every Muslim is held accountable for one person's actions. Everyone in the entire world would be guilty of something if we blamed one thing on an entire group of people.

    By dividing yourselves, you're giving in to terror attacks. They're designed to divide people. You're giving them what they want. Try and be smarter and better. Try and be what terrorists are not: compassionate, empathetic and reasonable human beings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhia9)
    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
    we should not blame all islams. we blame the isis terrorists
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    You know the answer to this question, rhia. Of course it's not fair to blame Muslims.

    Shall I blame Indians for rape?

    It's nonsensical, unnecessary stuff like this on TSR creating more division.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut64)
    No, it is not fair. This is like saying one person in the tribe has committed a crime; the whole tribe should endure the consequence that very one individual has to face. This is to do with different individuals, not about the religion. It is idiotic and ludicrous to blame all muslims for something goes against their belief.
    it's more complex than that

    yes, each person in a tribe is responsible for his/her actions only

    however, what if the tribe's "holy text" and historical beliefs contain violent elements which (if taken literally) will induce horrific crimes ? what if some of the tribe's members do act inspired by those texts and beliefs ? would it not be reasonable to criticise and oppose those texts and beliefs, as being responsible (at least in part) for inspiring the crimes ?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    it's more complex than that

    yes, each person in a tribe is responsible for his/her actions only

    however, what if the tribe's "holy text" and historical beliefs contain violent elements which (if taken literally) will induce horrific crimes ? what if some of the tribe's members do act inspired by those texts and beliefs ? would it not be reasonable to criticise and oppose those texts and beliefs, as being responsible (at least in part) for inspiring the crimes ?
    Hi, from what I know about Islam , their holy book, which is the Qu'ran , does not promote or encourage any violence. Thus, it terms of other Muslims being inspired by other Muslims carrying out the violence , it is not reasonable to shift the blame towards the religion itself. Being inspired just shows that different muslims interpret it differently, instead of the encouragement from the Qu'ran.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut64)
    Hi, from what I know about Islam , their holy book, which is the Qu'ran , does not promote or encourage any violence.
    You obviously haven't read it then.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    You obviously haven't read it then.
    Okay this just further contradicts the point that Islam should be blamed because that's same with Christianity. I know for sure that at some point it does mention homosexuality is not acceptable, so can I hold all Christians responsible for all the killings of gay people? Both Christianity and Islam are religions , so if Islam should be eradicated then what about Christianity ?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut64)
    Okay this just further contradicts the point that Islam should be blamed because that's same with Christianity. I know for sure that at some point it does mention homosexuality is not acceptable, so can I hold all Christians responsible for all the killings of gay people? Both Christianity and Islam are religions , so if Islam should be eradicated then what about Christianity ?
    Blaming the religion is not the same as blaming its adherents, and nobody is advocating that Islam is eradicated.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    it's more complex than that

    yes, each person in a tribe is responsible for his/her actions only

    however, what if the tribe's "holy text" and historical beliefs contain violent elements which (if taken literally) will induce horrific crimes ? what if some of the tribe's members do act inspired by those texts and beliefs ? would it not be reasonable to criticise and oppose those texts and beliefs, as being responsible (at least in part) for inspiring the crimes ?
    There are estimated to be between 1.5-1.7bil muslims in the world. The highest number of ISIS followers I've seen as an estimate is 200,000. For arguments sake, I'll double that for wives/sons etc so we're at 400,000.

    So 400k of 1.6bil - we're talking about 0.025% interpretation in a particular manner. But we should ignore that 99.975% are able to interpret the text in a non-terror attacks manner.

    But sure.. let's blame the text instead of the tiny minority..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut64)
    Hi, from what I know about Islam , their holy book, which is the Qu'ran , does not promote or encourage any violence. Thus, it terms of other Muslims being inspired by other Muslims carrying out the violence , it is not reasonable to shift the blame towards the religion itself. Being inspired just shows that different muslims interpret it differently, instead of the encouragement from the Qu'ran.
    If you read the Quran you would know there are many references to violence

    "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
    http://corpus.quran.com/translation....ter=8&verse=12
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    There are estimated to be between 1.5-1.7bil muslims in the world. The highest number of ISIS followers I've seen as an estimate is 200,000. For arguments sake, I'll double that for wives/sons etc so we're at 400,000.

    So 400k of 1.6bil - we're talking about 0.025% interpretation in a particular manner. But we should ignore that 99.975% are able to interpret the text in a non-terror attacks manner.

    But sure.. let's blame the text instead of the tiny minority..
    you are, once again, focusing on Muslims instead of on Islam

    no one is disputing that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists (however "Islamic" violence is by far not restricted to ISIS followers )

    but we should focus on Islam, not on Muslims : on the texts themselves (on the Quran in particular)

    some Quranic verses are explicitly violent. Via contextualisation/translation, this violent content can be interpreted in a (somehow) more peaceful manner, and most Muslims (insofar that they actually care - a good proportion of Muslims are just "cultural Muslims" and don't spend much time on the Quran) do exactly that

    should this prevent us from analyzing the Quran and blaming those Quranic verses for their violence, which is clearly inspiring the terrorists ?

    best
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhia9)
    Islam is a religion of peace.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut64)
    Okay this just further contradicts the point that Islam should be blamed because that's same with Christianity. I know for sure that at some point it does mention homosexuality is not acceptable, so can I hold all Christians responsible for all the killings of gay people? Both Christianity and Islam are religions , so if Islam should be eradicated then what about Christianity ?
    no one is saying "blame all Christians for the violent verses in the Bible" just like no one is saying "blame all Muslims for the violent verses in the Quran"

    what some of us are saying is this;

    - there are violent verses in the Bible which have inspired violence. The Bible is not, by any means, a "peaceful" book

    -there are violent verses in the Quran which have inspired violence. The Quran is not, by any means, a "peaceful" book

    once we have established this, we can then of course refine our analysis : who is worse, in which periods, how do e.g communists compare etc etc

    lots of people go down this line, but I am not particularly interested in this sort of calculations

    best
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rhia9)
    Islam is a religion of peace
    Who told you that?

    Spoiler:
    Show


    Spoiler:
    Show

    Is ISIS really "Islamic"
    Wahabbi Islamists e.g. ultra-orthodox Sunni Muslims (origin/heartland: Saudi Arabian cradle of Islam). Doesn't get much more 'Islamic' than that

    the real reason for the attacks is the urge to have power
    Considering the size of their territory/resources/forces they have relatively little in the way of power, as conventionally conceived thereof

    Why do people say "Muslims were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, or the Paris bombings?" Were they really?
    Yes, although it's also fair to say that Western interests, and Jewish agencies, probably had a hand in these things too
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by coconut64)
    Hi, from what I know about Islam , their holy book, which is the Qu'ran , does not promote or encourage any violence.
    it's quite difficult to find objective, purely factual examinations on the subject of Quran and violence (or, for that, Islam and violence)

    most Muslims will recognise that the Quran does contain violent verses, but claim that this only concerns fighting in self-defense, or against "oppression", or for the punishment of "guilty" people, who may bring "corruption in the land"

    so, the point becomes about definitions : what exactly qualifies as "oppression" ? who is "innocent" ? who is "guilty" ? of what exactly ? what is "corruption in the land ?

    take .e.g. Quran 5:33

    "it is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle, and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they are being slain in great' numbers, or crucified in great numbers, or have, in l' result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are being [entirely] banished from [the face of] the earth: such is their ignominy in this world. But in the life to come [yet more] awesome suffering awaits them"

    do you think that ISIS would have crucified prisoners, if there had not been verse 5:33 ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kutta)
    Nope..

    Is it fair to blame "white" people for slavery?
    is it fair to blame Christians for the KKK?
    is it fair to blame Christians for Breivik?
    Is it fair to blame Christians for the Lords Resistance Army?
    Is it fair to blame Christians for the Westboro Baptist Church?
    Is it fair to blame Sikhs for Flight 182?
    Is it fair to blame Jews for the actions of the state of Israel?
    is it fair to blame Indians/Hindus for the actions of Hindu extremists in India?
    Is it fair to blame Buddhists for Wirathu (aka the Burmese Bin Laden)?
    is it fair to blame white people for the destructing of ancient civilisations such the Indians?
    is it fair to blame Christians for Hitler and Nazi's?
    is it fair to blame the Chinese for Chairman Mao?
    is it fair to blame normal everyday Americans for the atomic bomb attacks which still effects peoples lives today?
    is it fair to blame us Brits for the drone strikes which kill innocent people?
    Is it fair to blame Muslims for ISIS?

    you get the picture....
    1. It was a problem of geopolitics and economics, the West didn't have a lot of raw materials so the value came from converting them imported from colonies to sell back to them (and keep any excess). The main reason we don't have slavery today is largely thanks to the electricity revolution.
    2. I have no idea about the history of Christians on the most part. WBC seems like a more fundamentalist view of the religious scripture. Blaming Christians as a whole, probably not - but blaming Christian ideology, we certainly can.
    3. I have no idea about the Sikhs.
    4. Israel/Palestine is a problem and then some, competing ideologies and poor interventions -> territorial disputes.
    5. Indians -> Christians, I have no idea on that part of history.
    6. Chinese for Chairman Mao - if I recall Chinese history correctly, he came about from seizing power of the existing regime during the Chinese Civil War after defeating Japanese forces. Some of his policies (Great Leap Forward) remain controversial, but hardly the fault of the people as he was largely authoritarian and was so strongly persuaded by misguided Marxist ideology that it caused widespread famine and death.
    7. Hitler and Nazism didn't come about from religious ideology, it came about from an ideology relating to Nationalism and encroaching economics (lebensraum) and anti-Semitism/racial-purity based on social Darwinist principles. Hitler's rise can be attributed to the perfect storm of circumstances - the Great Depression caused collective anxiety and was eager to take simple solutions to complex problems.
    8. The development of the atomic bomb (Manhattan Project) was deeply intertwined with the global politics at the time. If the Nazi party, or Communists in Asia got their hands on one first, the spread of their respective ideologies would quickly dominate the world. If the atomic nucleus and energies released from the nucleus is discovered, it's pretty hard to "un-discover" it.
    The actual release of atomic weapons on another state was a response to the absolute devotion to the Japanese ideology of dying with honor by putting up a fight rather than to surrender (to the Japanese, the humiliation of defeat was a fate worse than death). I'm not sure if Truman was acutely aware of the radiological impact.
    9. The drone strikes can be attributed to Her Majesty's Government and the Department of Defence acting too indiscriminately on targets. It is based on the ideology that we should destroy all terrorist groups at all costs, and if their associates are not distinguished then "innocents" will die. These topics are very sensitive because the lines between non-combatant and enemy targets get blurred.
    10. The Muslim population, I'd blame some of them for spreading the ideology of hatred. I blame the ideology more for brainwashing people into thinking that they must do God's bidding, and to make people believe that if they don't then they will burn in eternal hellfire.

    The most common theme in all of these are to do with ideologies - when normal reason doesn't work, suffering becomes an inevitability.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Too long; didn't read - if Muslims shouldn't be blamed as a whole, then their ideology should be blamed at least in part as a catalyst. There's a lot of pre-existing problems in the Middle East, politically and economically. ISIS emerges naturally as a consequence of marked instability and excessive religious conviction.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    you are, once again, focusing on Muslims instead of on Islam

    no one is disputing that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are not terrorists (however "Islamic" violence is by far not restricted to ISIS followers )

    but we should focus on Islam, not on Muslims : on the texts themselves (on the Quran in particular)

    some Quranic verses are explicitly violent. Via contextualisation/translation, this violent content can be interpreted in a (somehow) more peaceful manner, and most Muslims (insofar that they actually care - a good proportion of Muslims are just "cultural Muslims" and don't spend much time on the Quran) do exactly that

    should this prevent us from analyzing the Quran and blaming those Quranic verses for their violence, which is clearly inspiring the terrorists ?

    best
    Way to miss the entire point of my post. If 1.5bil people can manage to not interpret it in a violent way and only 0.025% manage to twist it into something violent, then surely the individuals rather than the text is at fault?

    It's like trying to argue all (violent) video games should be banned because some small minority carry out violent attacks.

    Frankly I believe those individuals would find some cause to promote/take violent actions even if they weren't interpreting the Quran in a skewed manner.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    Way to miss the entire point of my post.
    did I? well, I feel the same about you
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    If 1.5bil people can manage to not interpret it in a violent way and only 0.025% manage to twist it into something violent, then surely the individuals rather than the text is at fault?
    I answered about that. You are assuming that the only Muslims interpreting the Quranic verses in a violent manner are ISIS : this is blatantly not true. There are many, many more : among Western Muslims (go to any Islamic webforum), but also (and even more importantly) in Muslim countries. How many, no one knows exactly, but there are studies ( you could check e.g. at the Pew research Institute - there is a lot of information there, e.g. here http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/t...iety-overview/ )

    (Original post by Zerforax)
    It's like trying to argue all (violent) video games should be banned because some small minority carry out violent attacks.
    a very bad analogy. Who is saying that the Quran should be banned ? however, it should be criticised, especially if it is shown that it has directly inspired criminal behaviour. Just like videogames can be criticised fo the same reason

    (Original post by Zerforax)
    Frankly I believe those individuals would find some cause to promote/take violent actions even if they weren't interpreting the Quran in a skewed manner.
    while this may be true, it's beside the point

    by the way, 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 " ?

    best
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.