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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    Offline

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    As predicted. Goodbye.
    It is fact, goodbye.
    Offline

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    Offline

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    Offline

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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    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.
    I disagree that it is negligible, it clearly isn't. I explained already that most Muslims don't adhere to the most extreme and violent interpretations.
    Offline

    13
    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
    Were Crusaders Christian? Were the inquisitors Catholic?

    Also why is the urge to have power asynchronous to the belief in a religion, one may well influence behaviour concerning another ie using religion to gain power or using power to promote religion. Indeed history suggests the reliance of one on the other for efficacy.

    They objectively are muslims. They interpret the Koran and act upon its words ie the definition of a muslim. However they may be 'bad muslims' which is up to the general populace and the scholars (imams) to decide based on the collective direction of the religion as a whole, for example the christian book basically never changed but it went from murdering people or setting them on fire to peace and love and tolerance (to some degree). This is why the Westboro Church who are also objectively christians are viewed as nutters and 'bad christians' because they are not representative of the group as a whole and the group makes this known. Nobody would claim them to be representative but this phenomenon hasn't just fallen out of the sky by chance, it has been the work and the general intent of the group which has created this perception. They don't match both general consensus and everyday firsthand evidence so are known to be fringe elements.

    The same applies to Muslims except for their general perception is limited from a firsthand perspective ie they tend not to favour huge degrees of integration (this is a fact, check the government data) instead staying 'same group' which means the countries which they inhabit have little first hand evidence. Thus the only evidence is that of their behaviour as a group which from Saudi Arabia to ISIS and 52% of British Muslims believing homosexuals should be condemned and a significant amount (I cant remember the stat off the top of my head so I wont make it up) wishing for Sharia - a genuinely misogynist and retrograde form of rule - and a fair few sympathising with ISIS and jihadis, people get a bad impression compounded by their lack of opposition (in some instances) to such horrible activities. With nothing to point to and say 'see they oppose unequivocally such things' the interpretation is that of acceptance.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    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
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    again your claiming someones ' obviously false understanding of the Qur'an ' is you substituting for mohammed. it doesnt work
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    or that the person was attracted to that material for some reason, and then acted upon it due to some message that was deep in it. If you wish to continue to implicate Batman or the Joker, you can, but the fact remains Mohammed has been inspiration for far more nutcases than those two. so can you explain this?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    Explain to me why someone can binge drink all their life, but yell 'allahu ackbar' before a massacre and suddenly islam is the problem.
    is there not a mechanism within islam for someone to become a muslim literally within seconds of uttering shahada? this has assisted in islam becomeing the 'fastest growing faith in the world' what makes you think islamist terrorism cannot be inspired just as quickly
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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.

    or that the person was attracted to that material for some reason, and then acted upon it due to some message that was deep in it.
    Or the person was unstable and would have carried out an atrocity regardless, and simply looked for justification where there was one (or certainly where the vast majority don't see any).

    If you wish to continue to implicate Batman or the Joker, you can,
    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.

    but the fact remains Mohammed has been inspiration for far more nutcases than those two. so can you explain this?
    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.

    is there not a mechanism within islam for someone to become a muslim literally within seconds of uttering shahada?
    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.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.it isnt about 'multiple interpretations'- its far more problematic than that - ie all the points i made. islam was a template setout by mohammed - he elaborated, corrected and re--invented all its elements during his short reign as king of the muslims. he had no sole replacement t his death and effectively the control of the minds of a billion or so muslims fell traditonaly down to the most powerful warlord to seize the caliphate. in the 21st century there are millions of 'tazaroonis' that are attempting to be the mohamemd equivalent to lecture everyone else on what is and isnt the correct meaning of 1400 year old rules and edicts. As i said it doesnt work , a flawed system, which is propped up by millions of fatwas, later commentary and self appointed judicial bodies - none of which can universally proclaim what is meant by 'not killing a civilian' Mohammed had loads of people killed in his time and spared others- noone can really assume to know why some were regarded 'civilians and some werent
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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.
    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: http://www.ranker.com/list/the-13-cr.../whitney-milam

    Of course nobody in their right mind is going to say that Facebook is the root cause of all these problems. When so many people manage to use social media without doing anything of the sort, it's very natural and obvious to conclude that there must be something wrong with the individuals themselves.

    it isnt about 'multiple interpretations'- its far more problematic than that - ie all the points i made. islam was a template setout by mohammed - he elaborated, corrected and re--invented all its elements during his short reign as king of the muslims. he had no sole replacement t his death and effectively the control of the minds of a billion or so muslims fell traditonaly down to the most powerful warlord to seize the caliphate. in the 21st century there are millions of 'tazaroonis' that are attempting to be the mohamemd equivalent to lecture everyone else on what is and isnt the correct meaning of 1400 year old rules and edicts. As i said it doesnt work , a flawed system, which is propped up by millions of fatwas, later commentary and self appointed judicial bodies - none of which can universally proclaim what is meant by 'not killing a civilian' Mohammed had loads of people killed in his time and spared others- noone can really assume to know why some were regarded 'civilians and some werent
    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.*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    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.
    It goes further, and we could say that perhaps not 1+ billion Muslims interpret the scripture in a cuddly nice way. These people live in the most unstable parts of the world where human rights are not respected, catalysed by the ideology. It should definitely be noted that not being at war does not mean peace-loving if various freedoms are stripped away by the leaders.

    Mao's red book was similar, an icon bearing a thought process similar to the days gone by. If any ideology could lead to the abandonment of reason, then it could be easily exploited. It just so happens that it does so on various degrees.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't think it's fair to suggest that Muslims who travel to Western countries to better their lives can be generalised to "Muslims around the world" - because there's some deep seated conflicts between the scientific worldview and the religious worldview, some of the attitudes to western education are less than positive thus self-select out of the pool.

    The more moderate attitudes to interpreting scripture may be something to do with stability - an unstable environment tends to lend itself to interpreting scripture in a more aggressive way, to justify land/power-grabs as an extension of economic policy.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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: [/u]Of course nobody in their right mind is going to say that Facebook is the root cause of all these problems. When so many people manage to use social media without doing anything of the sort, it's very natural and obvious to conclude that there must be something wrong with the individuals themselves.
    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
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.
    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.
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.*
    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
 
 
 
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?
Useful resources

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.