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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    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
    You're just making the same argument over and over again, and I've refuted it several times already.*The problem is, you want to take the obvious, established, majority interpretation when it suits you (i.e. violent films are just works of fiction), and the forced, fringe, minority interpretation when it suits you (i.e. attackers interpret such violence to be promoted in Islam, therefore it is a violent ideology).


    In every other situation you'll say "No, it's not a problem with the material that influenced them, everybody else manages to absorb that material without being violent, it's just that the person had issues of their own, the problem is with them, the material clearly doesn't aim to encourage violence in real life and the vast majority of people would see it that way).

    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.*
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    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.*
    Islam, though, is uniquely burdened with source material that claims itself to be produced by a deity that must be obeyed, and that ordains death to be the punishment for those that fight against the deity(those that are against Islam). Islam itself cannot claim perfection and that the god's law is paramount and then absolve itself of blame when people do as their god has commanded - that would be a double standard.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    You're just making the same argument over and over again, and I've refuted it several times already.*The problem is, you want to take the obvious, established, majority interpretation when it suits you (i.e. violent films are just works of fiction), and the forced, fringe, minority interpretation when it suits you (i.e. attackers interpret such violence to be promoted in Islam, therefore it is a violent ideology).In every other situation you'll say "No, it's not a problem with the material that influenced them, everybody else manages to absorb that material without being violent, it's just that the person had issues of their own, the problem is with them, the material clearly doesn't aim to encourage violence in real life and the vast majority of people would see it that way).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.*
    again you arnt reading my rely - you cant resort to your usual copy paste prepared pedantry answer. i never made the distinction that 'movies are fiction' . Thats not relevant. movies are simply entertainment- islam is ( supposedly) the ultimate template for governing how a muslim is supposed to think act and live. Mohammed was suppossed to be the best example for a muslim. Mohammed had civilians killed, when it suited his islamic agenda ( ie to conquer non muslim lands etc). relying on this level of morality is problematic. thats why there are problems in the islamic world and stemming from it - because it is problematic. We all see that, why cant you- its not rocket science
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Islam, though, is uniquely burdened with source material that claims itself to be produced by a deity that must be obeyed, and that ordains death to be the punishment for those that fight against the deity (those that are against Islam). Islam itself cannot claim perfection and that the god's law is paramount and then absolve itself of blame when people do as their god has commanded - that would be a double standard.
    The Qur'an does not endorse killing people simply for not being Muslims, and people who do this are actually going against what Islam has commanded. That is both a matter of fact, and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.

    As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    again you arnt reading my rely - you cant resort to your usual copy paste prepared pedantry answer. i never made the distinction that 'movies are fiction' . Thats not relevant. movies are simply entertainment- islam is ( supposedly) the ultimate template for governing how a muslim is supposed to think act and live. Mohammed was suppossed to be the best example for a muslim. Mohammed had civilians killed, when it suited his islamic agenda ( ie to conquer non muslim lands etc). relying on this level of morality is problematic. thats why there are problems in the islamic world and stemming from it - because it is problematic. We all see that, why cant you- its not rocket science
    There is nothing that Muhammad said or did that necessarily indicates that killing people just for being non-Muslims is acceptable. However there are verses of the Qur'an (always accepted as a higher authority than Hadith) that unequivocally condemn such actions.*

    So regardless of what you may say about Islam and/or what Muhammad did, the fact remains that such attacks are unacceptable, and the vast majority of Muslims would agree with me.

    Now it may be possible for some insane or malicious individual to read the Qur'an and then think it's a good idea to start committing such attacks, but that is true of anything.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The Qur'an does not endorse killing people simply for not being Muslims, and people who do this are actually going against what Islam has commanded. That is both a matter of fact, and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.

    As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
    I didn't say it did. It says:

    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment 5:33

    I am waging war against Allah, merely by pointing out the nastiness of Islam and advocating that educated Moslems abandon it in the twenty-first century..
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    I didn't say it did. It says:

    Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment 5:33

    I am waging war against Allah, merely by pointing out the nastiness of Islam and advocating that educated Moslems abandon it in the twenty-first century..
    Apparently you're now the one who gets to decide what "wage war against Allah" entails? Whilst most Muslims would take it to mean that it involves physical violence against Muslims in an attempt to kill off Islam, you think that simply criticising Islam is a type of "war" now?

    I refer you again, back to my previous statement: "if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you."
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    Apparently you're now the one who gets to decide what "wage war against Allah" entails? Whilst most Muslims would take it to mean that it involves physical violence against Muslims in an attempt to kill off Islam, you think that simply criticising Islam is a type of "war" now?
    War against Allah is obviously not a physical war as Allah has no earthly substance. It can only mean an ideological war.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    I refer you again, back to my previous statement: "if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you."
    Why not? You seem to be able to pick which bits of the Koran have meaning now, and which bits can be ignored.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    War against Allah is obviously not a physical war as Allah has no earthly substance. It can only mean an ideological war.
    Well there's the cause of the problem then. You can turn anything into a violent ideology if your interpretation is the one that counts and everybody else's, (though they outnumber you by the hundreds of millions and though their understanding of it is by far the more obvious), is wrong.

    The established, mainstream understanding is that it involves physical warfare against Muslims for the purpose of reducing the prevalence of Islam.

    Why not? You seem to be able to pick which bits of the Koran have meaning now, and which bits can be ignored.
    I don't need to. I'm saying that no matter what the Qur'an (or anything else) says, if 99.9% of people can look at it without feeling the need to attack anyone afterwards, it cannot be the root cause of attacks.

    You're the one whose argument relies on interpreting it a specific way, choosing obvious, mainstream interpretations when it suits you or fringe interpretations when it suits you.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    There is nothing that Muhammad said or did that necessarily indicates that killing people just for being non-Muslims is acceptable. However there are verses of the Qur'an (always accepted as a higher authority than Hadith) that unequivocally condemn such actions.*

    So regardless of what you may say about Islam and/or what Muhammad did, the fact remains that such attacks are unacceptable, and the vast majority of Muslims would agree with me.

    Now it may be possible for some insane or malicious individual to read the Qur'an and then think it's a good idea to start committing such attacks, but that is true of anything.

    any thing is possible - but there seems to be a far stronger correlation between malicious individuals you refer and islamist doctrine. far far more than any other faith, or comic book character, or social media site. and in far more wider circumstances and geographical area. you still havent offered an explanation for this.
    im terms of mohammed, idont expect you to aknowledge any of his violent actions and motives as indeed you dont aknowledge the issues regariding islamsit doctrine either. however to the rest of the logically thinking world- its too obvious to ignore the records written in islamic chronicles themselves quoting where mohammed had enemies executed, allowed their families to be killed or captured into slavery and indeed the murder of those who mocked or satirised him personally. This is undeniable im afraid - what we can glean form this is theres enough 'islamic evidence' for a terrorists to form an 'islamic inspiration' to murder - as long as they can justify within themselves they are doing so on behalf of islamic agendas. isIamists generally accept attacking the west and western culture as viable targets as they are often in direct contrast to islamic culture- and islam proclaims itself as superior to all others. the point as to whetehr in your opinion ( or mine) that they are 100% accurate is irrelevant to the fact that islamist ideology has put into their heads that somewhow islamic culture is superior to everyone elses and those places that dont accept this should be attacked. its a dangerous mentality ot foster and indeed allow to go unchallenged - which it is within islamic communities especially here.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The established, mainstream understanding is that it involves physical warfare against Muslims for the purpose of reducing the prevalence of Islam.
    At least we can agree that Moslems are commanded to fight to keep Islamic beliefs dominant.

    My point is that a perfect book from a deity should (a) not be capable of misinterpretation (as the Koran is), and (b) be read literally and not interpreted if it tells you to do so (as the Koran does).
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reformed)
    any thing is possible - but there seems to be a far stronger correlation between malicious individuals you refer and islamist doctrine. far far more than any other faith, or comic book character, or social media site. and in far more wider circumstances and geographical area. you still havent offered an explanation for this.
    I have actually. I've mentioned that people from (or with links to) war afflicted countries, whose state is likely to be perceived as primarily the fault of Western countries, are in this day and age most likely to be Muslim (or assumed to be Muslim) based on the demographics of those countries.

    **
    im terms of mohammed, idont expect you to aknowledge any of his violent actions and motives as indeed you dont aknowledge the issues regariding islamsit doctrine either. however to the rest of the logically thinking world- its too obvious to ignore the records written in islamic chronicles themselves quoting where mohammed had enemies executed, allowed their families to be killed or captured into slavery and indeed the murder of those who mocked or satirised him personally. This is undeniable im afraid - what we can glean form this is theres enough 'islamic evidence' for a terrorists to form an 'islamic inspiration' to murder - as long as they can justify within themselves they are doing so on behalf of islamic agendas. isIamists generally accept attacking the west and western culture as viable targets as they are often in direct contrast to islamic culture- and islam proclaims itself as superior to all others. the point as to whetehr in your opinion ( or mine) that they are 100% accurate is irrelevant to the fact that islamist ideology has put into their heads that somewhow islamic culture is superior to everyone elses and those places that dont accept this should be attacked. its a dangerous mentality ot foster and indeed allow to go unchallenged - which it is within islamic communities especially here.
    Again, the same argument as before, and I've already responded to it. Whatever the contents of Islam may be and however you or terrorists may choose to interpret it, the vast majority of Muslims consider it not to be such that it endorses this sort of violence.

    Your point that people could still, in their own minds, use it to justify an attack is true. But this is true of anything.*
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    1. the non muslim world doesnt fall for this rhetoric only muslims do. Why? becuase thats how islamic society was structured. We go back to the failure of the system so now a simple border dispute between two tribes, or two countries, can become a 'jihad' on behalf of the people who want to seize their neighbours land. and all of a sudden that war becomes eligible for finance from the 'islamic war fund' of gulf arabia and indeed zakat contributions of the islamic world. as well m sure a few thousand gullible sacrificial lambs form the muslim communities aroud the globe . create a false loyalty that al muslims must feel to any other muslim and their cause ( even if it seem that muslim is a mass murderer - saddam hussein anyone?) a
    Mohammed understood the power of 'jihadifying' local disputes over land- thats how took mecca and medina off the incumbent arab pagans. his principles live on today in the 17 year old kid given shelter by the germans who then decides to try stab as many as he can on a train, to try further the influence of some backward islamic caliphate in a desert somewhere. that is the effect of islamist dogma. Does a buddhist asylum seeker do this? a jewish one?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    The Qur'an does not endorse killing people simply for not being Muslims, and people who do this are actually going against what Islam has commanded. That is both a matter of fact, and accepted by the vast majority of Muslims.

    As I say, if you want to give credence to forced, fringe, minority interpretations, you cannot just pick and choose when to do this as it suits you.
    Islamic doctrine asserts that it is authored by the one true God, that prophets are infallible, that its own set of laws must be adhered, and that people who don't must be purged/killed. It doesn't matter if there are verses that preach peace, as long as it cannot be questioned, it remains an ideology that sets society back by centuries.

    To further that point, I don't think it matters whether it is a fringe minority interpretation or not - ultimately as long as the ideology satisfies three criteria, that is a) reason must not be used, and b) certain kinds of thought are non-permissible, and c) the ideology must be deemed the ultimate authority, then we have a fertile breeding ground for hostility.

    A petri-dish, or a catalyst of sorts.

    If it stands in the way of social/economic/political progress, then the ideology is questionable at best and causes absolute destruction at worst, at which point it needs to be critically opposed - but not with bigotry or hatred.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    1. (Original post by tazarooni89)
      I have actually. I've mentioned that people from (or with links to) war afflicted countries, whose state is likely to be perceived as primarily the fault of Western countries, are in this day and age most likely to be Muslim (or assumed to be Muslim) based on the demographics of those countries.
      **
      doesnt explain the pakistani terrorist, the indonesian terrorist, the nigerian terrorist, the american terrorist .... etc etc the list goes on and on. war is not the common factor in these cases - their exposure to islamist ideology is. if your thesis was correct - we'd have terrorist attacks a plenty in europe from those immigrants from sierra leone, congo, sri lanka, israel, Christian syrians and jordainians etc. But we do not. their ommission from the terrorism statistics is glaring as the repeated appearance of a variety of ethnicities that share one faith. Heck we had mass immigration after two of the biggest wars of all time 60 years ago and not the associated ' ptsd terrorism ' you are trying to claim. you are running out of straws to clutch.
      (Original post by tazarooni89)
      Again, the same argument as before, and I've already responded to it. Whatever the contents of Islam may be and however you or terrorists may choose to interpret it, the vast majority of Muslims consider it not to be such that it endorses this sort of violence.
      but the fact remains that murder and killing to an end was acceptble practice of mohammed - and he is a more relevant spokesman of islam than you or i
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Running over innocents in France on Friday, military coup in Turkey on Saturday, "honour" killing his own sister for wearing western clothing in Pakistan, axing up people on a train on Monday. Stabbing a mother and her daughters for wearing western clothes i.e. something that shows skin today. All done by Muslims, in the past 5 days. Something has fundamentally gone wrong with their religion.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    This video says it all:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    At least we can agree that Moslems are commanded to fight to keep Islamic beliefs dominant.
    Well it would be rather silly for any group of people to be pacifistic even when their self-preservation is at stake.
    *
    My point is that a perfect book from a deity should (a) not be capable of misinterpretation (as the Koran is), and (b) be read literally and not interpreted if it tells you to do so (as the Koran does).
    Any book is capable of misinterpretation. Even when the "correct" meaning is blindly obvious, anyone can just come along and say "yeah but I think it means X, not Y'.

    I agree, the Qur'an has to be read in accordance with its own instructions on how to interpret it - that is, literally unless stated otherwise, and with no insistence on any interpretation that is merely implicit.*That would mean that the term "wage war" must involve an actual war being waged, and not some kind of metaphorical "war with words". *
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    .*That would mean that the term "wage war" must involve an actual war being waged, and not some kind of metaphorical "war with words". *
    Well, not when the war is against a deity that has no earthly presence (except in Mohammed's mind).
 
 
 
  • 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 like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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

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