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

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    did I? well, I feel the same about you 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/ )

    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

    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
    The starting premise from the OP was whether all muslims should be blamed for terror attacks. There's obviously a direct link between ISIS followers and wanting to carry out terror attacks. If you want to add other numbers to it then give some substance to it. Linking an article about who may want Sharia law (38,000 interviewed - being some 0.002% representation of muslims) doesn't mean they want to commit terror attacks.

    Well critising won't stop terror attacks but if you are laying the blame of terror attacks solely or mainly on the Quran then what's your alternative solution?

    Surely it's exactly the point? If those people are disturbed then they need mental help or education or something to go to the root of the problem to fix it.

    My view is that if those same people belonged to any other section of society, then they would find some other means of promoting/justifying violence whether it would be joining the KKK or the current black vigilante inspired justice of shooting police officers in the name of blacklivesmatter or being violent in Turkey or commit atrocities across Africa etc etc. There is a small but significant number of people around the world who are just ****ed up but so long as it's not on our doorstep, we're usually happy to turn a blind eye.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    The starting premise from the OP was whether all muslims should be blamed for terror attacks. There's obviously a direct link between ISIS followers and wanting to carry out terror attacks. If you want to add other numbers to it then give some substance to it. Linking an article about who may want Sharia law (38,000 interviewed - being some 0.002% representation of muslims) doesn't mean they want to commit terror attacks.

    Well critising won't stop terror attacks but if you are laying the blame of terror attacks solely or mainly on the Quran then what's your alternative solution?

    Surely it's exactly the point? If those people are disturbed then they need mental help or education or something to go to the root of the problem to fix it.

    My view is that if those same people belonged to any other section of society, then they would find some other means of promoting/justifying violence whether it would be joining the KKK or the current black vigilante inspired justice of shooting police officers in the name of blacklivesmatter or being violent in Turkey or commit atrocities across Africa etc etc. There is a small but significant number of people around the world who are just ****ed up but so long as it's not on our doorstep, we're usually happy to turn a blind eye.
    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 " ?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    I don't think it's fair to say that the ideology is the root cause of the problem. There are millions and millions of Muslims all over the world who subscribe to Islamic and Qur'an ideology, including all verses in the Qur'an that mention violence. Why hasn't the ideology hasn't turned all of them, or even most of them into terrorist attackers if it's the root cause of the problem?

    Rather than it being something about the ideology that turns them into attackers, more likely it's something about them and/or their situation.


    In 2012, a shooting took place in a cinema in Aurora, Colorado. The killer, James Holmes, had dyed his hair red and was calling himself "The Joker", and his apartment was decorated with Batman merchandise. Now what should we blame for this attack? What is the root cause of the problem? Is it Batman?
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    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.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    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.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    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.
    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?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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? If people didn't attack purportedly 'in the name of Islam', you would not be criticising the ideology.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    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.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    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.
    they may not be pious or sincere in your view, but most surely they feel that they are. In fact, they consider the peaceful Muslims as "sellouts" "Uncle Toms" "kuffar lovers" etc etc

    however, while "terrorists" may pick and choose the violent excerpts, the "good ones" pick and choose the peaceful excerpts. In my view, the violent excerpts simply shouldn't be there.

    (Original post by Zerforax)
    All the points you have flagged still go towards interpretation - what counts as "disobedient"?
    that's hardly the point. However you may interpret "disobedient", you don't beat your wife, period.
    (Original post by Zerforax)
    Fact remains that the vast majority of muslims don't agree with all their interpretations or do the same actions.
    of course . This is what we have been saying all along,

    (Original post by Zerforax)
    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?
    it seems that I fail in making you understand my point

    personally, I would have very high standards for my "holy book". No wife-beating at all. No cutting off hands, crucifixions, sex with slavegirls etc etc . If there are no violent verses, they cannot be misinterpreted

    so, in my view, the Quran can and should be held responsible because it clearly holds inspiration for many evil deeds - as I said, the relevant verses are, at best, ambiguous and, at worst, evil

    of course that the Quran also holds many positive messages and can encourage people to lead good lives - but this is not a reason for neglecting the negative aspects

    best
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    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.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    If people didn't attack purportedly 'in the name of Islam', you would not be criticising the ideology.
    yes, that would help somehow

    and if Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot had not massacred so many people in the name of Communism, my criticism of it would be less severe
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Is it Batman?
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    But a perfect ideology cannot be misinterpreted, can it? So, is Islam imperfect?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    Yes, believe it or not, a scripture written 1500 years ago is not perfect, alongside almost all other religious scriptures.
    Moslems claim it to be perfect though.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    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.
    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.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    So its essentially been refuted that islam is the original source of the problem,
    Only to an Islamic apologist.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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.