The Student Room Group

Muslims "in the crosshairs of bigotry"

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Tongeyyy
So you've said that 1.6 billion muslims are peaceful and I've quoted a figure to disprove you because supporting suicide bombings in the name of religion is NOT peaceful so your argument is that 'I can't control what people think'


Anyone can hold ill thoughts, the only problem I'm worried about is whether they're willing to act on them

Find me a poll saying that a large percentage of Muslims would willingly consider committing terrorist attacks, then I'd be worried.
Original post by alevelstresss
Anyone can hold ill thoughts, the only problem I'm worried about is whether they're willing to act on them

Find me a poll saying that a large percentage of Muslims would willingly consider committing terrorist attacks, then I'd be worried.


Well I think you should already be worried that there are probably around 1000 jihadists in the UK right now who are part of that boat and with attacks in the name of islam becoming a norm in Europe these days
Original post by Tongeyyy
Well I think you should already be worried that there are probably around 1000 jihadists in the UK right now who are part of that boat and with attacks in the name of islam becoming a norm in Europe these days


I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.
Original post by sleepysnooze
honestly tell me how many muslims *you* think support/accept homosexuality then. make me chuckle.


I’m not going to give figures, as it is obvious Islam is unaccepting of homosexuality and women and is an abhorrent ideology. However, it is also obvious that there are some muslims who accept homosexuality.
Original post by alevelstresss
I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.


Well of course the figure is going to contested but what I'm saying is that there is a sizeable number of infidels of ISIS in this country who are willing to act on their beliefs and kill innocents.

And for your one example that proves that these attacks aren't in the name of Islam can you explain why the Truck driver in Nice shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he mowed down scores of innocent French?
Original post by alevelstresss
I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.


Actually that figure sounds about right. Britain has more Muslims than Germany and in Germany it is estimated that there are middle to high hundreds of extremists that are on the watchlist of the BND.

And to me that is already too many. Doesn't matter what % that is, it is too many. Same way the group of neo-Nazis killing over a decade was too many. They were three. And it was a huge scandal because of police failings. Three vs a thousand.
Original post by alevelstresss
I am yet to see a reliable source claiming this tbh, a few odd Daily Express/Mail articles don't constitute to this.

And their attacks aren't in the name of Islam, they are in the name of political gain.

Take the Bataclan attackers for example, they wanted revenge on France for airstrikes.


Well of course the figure is going to contested but what I'm saying is that there is a sizeable number of infidels of ISIS in this country who are willing to act on their beliefs and kill innocents.And for your one example that proves that these attacks aren't in the name of Islam can you explain why the Truck driver in Nice shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he mowed down scores of innocent French?
Original post by frankielogue
I’m not going to give figures, as it is obvious Islam is unaccepting of homosexuality and women and is an abhorrent ideology. However, it is also obvious that there are some muslims who accept homosexuality.


nah, come on, give me a guess of a figure. or else I'm going to assume you mean something like 95% are unaccepting. in which case, your little anecdote was very pointless in proving that the homophobia wasn't as huge as it is.
Original post by Tongeyyy
Well of course the figure is going to contested but what I'm saying is that there is a sizeable number of infidels of ISIS in this country who are willing to act on their beliefs and kill innocents.

And for your one example that proves that these attacks aren't in the name of Islam can you explain why the Truck driver in Nice shouted "Allahu Akbar" before he mowed down scores of innocent French?


Firstly, how do you know he said it?

Secondly, because he knows that shouting "allahu ackbar" gives him an instant link to ISIS, because of the narrow-mindedness of racist bigots in the world.
Original post by frankielogue
my closest friends are muslim and whilst they are against gay marriage for religious reasons, completely accept homosexuality

Ask your friends if they pray five times a day and when they last time were in mosque. May be they are not true Muslims... :cool:
Reply 270
Original post by MMM1997
When you are taking verses from the Quran there are rules on which verses can be acted upon and which ones can't. This verse was specific to a time and place. The verse doesn't say that we can kill traitors.
Correct. It is verse 5:33 that does that. (And for "traitors", read "opponents")

It says the polytheists who betrayed the Muslims who were traitors. It only refers to them at that time
Except it does not say that at all. It simply says that the polytheists who do not submit to Islam or go into exile can be hunted down and killed. The Quran actually says that after four months, Allah and Muhammad are no longer bound by any treaties they have with the polytheists.

What exactly are these polytheists supposed to have done. I often hear this accusation of "treachary" and "treaty breaking" in regards to 9:5, but no one can ever explain what it involved. Certainly, if you read Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Mubarakpuri or Lings, there is no mention of anything other than refusing to submit to Islam, and specifically, a desire to continue their pagan religious rituals during hajj to Mecca (something that the polytheists had been doing for centuries).

I seriously recommend reading some proper histories rather than just dawahganda websites and YouTube videos. If you want a genuine academic overview, Marshall Hodgson's mammoth work is pretty comprehensive.
https://ia801003.us.archive.org/6/items/TheVentureOfIslamClasicalAgeVol1MarshallHodgson/The_Venture_of_Islam_Clasical_Age_Vol-1_Marshall-Hodgson.pdf
Original post by alevelstresss
Firstly, how do you know he said it?

Secondly, because he knows that shouting "allahu ackbar" gives him an instant link to ISIS, because of the narrow-mindedness of racist bigots in the world.


Well then I would ask you the same question of did the Battaclan attacker do it for revenge due to airstrikes? Typical double standards of you lefties. The fact is that numerous reports from witnesses said he shouted it.

And no I'm not saying he's linked to ISIS but what he did was at least partly motivated by Islam
Original post by Tongeyyy
Well then I would ask you the same question of did the Battaclan attacker do it for revenge due to airstrikes? Typical double standards of you lefties. The fact is that numerous reports from witnesses said he shouted it.

And no I'm not saying he's linked to ISIS but what he did was at least partly motivated by Islam


These sorts of people yell "allahu ackbar" because they know that the media will go berserk over it, and it amplifies the damage of their attack.
Original post by alevelstresss
These sorts of people yell "allahu ackbar" because they know that the media will go berserk over it, and it amplifies the damage of their attack.


I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. So you're dismissing the most obvious and reasonable reason for yelling "allahu ackbar" which is because what he is doing is in the name of Islam and because his religion teaches him to carry out what he's done for a reason you've just made up on the spot for him yelling it to amplify his attack which has "nothing to do with islam"
Reply 274
Original post by QE2
Correct. It is verse 5:33 that does that. (And for "traitors", read "opponents")

Except it does not say that at all. It simply says that the polytheists who do not submit to Islam or go into exile can be hunted down and killed. The Quran actually says that after four months, Allah and Muhammad are no longer bound by any treaties they have with the polytheists.

What exactly are these polytheists supposed to have done. I often hear this accusation of "treachary" and "treaty breaking" in regards to 9:5, but no one can ever explain what it involved. Certainly, if you read Ibn Kathir, Ibn Ishaq, Mubarakpuri or Lings, there is no mention of anything other than refusing to submit to Islam, and specifically, a desire to continue their pagan religious rituals during hajj to Mecca (something that the polytheists had been doing for centuries).

I seriously recommend reading some proper histories rather than just dawahganda websites and YouTube videos. If you want a genuine academic overview, Marshall Hodgson's mammoth work is pretty comprehensive.
https://ia801003.us.archive.org/6/items/TheVentureOfIslamClasicalAgeVol1MarshallHodgson/The_Venture_of_Islam_Clasical_Age_Vol-1_Marshall-Hodgson.pdf


This treaty is the treaty of hudaybiyyah in which the polytheists were supposed to allow the Muslims to perform their pilgrimage and that they would leave the city for 3 days. The polytheists also agreed to no fighting which they then went against by attacking the Muslims allies. The polytheists set the conditions and they were the ones who broke it. And please do not make the assumption that I got this information from dawahganda websites and youtube videos. You haven't asked me what my sources are. As you said there is always mention of treachery and treaty breaking but there isn't anything specifically mentioned. Read up on the treaty of hudaybiyyah which was significant in the fact that it was completely in favour of the polytheists but it was the Muslims who benefitted most from it.
Original post by Tongeyyy
I honestly can't believe what I'm reading. So you're dismissing the most obvious and reasonable reason for yelling "allahu ackbar" which is because what he is doing is in the name of Islam and because his religion teaches him to carry out what he's done for a reason you've just made up on the spot for him yelling it to amplify his attack which has "nothing to do with islam"


It has something to do with Islam, no one's denying that. But these attackers do not wake up one day and suddenly decide to kill in the name of Islam, they do it because their lives go wrong and they start sympathising with extremist groups just like ISIS. Its why if you actually do some research on the subject instead of preaching theoretical bigotry, you would realise that every single attacker since the Sydney Siege has a backstory and a history of petty theft, or being in a war-torn country, or being arrested and put in jail, or being discriminated against, or being pursued by the security services - etc... Its never them waking up and deciding to kill for Islam.

And its pretty logical that yelling "allahu ackbar" is a media-aimed stunt to maximise the negative impact of their attack.

Take a look at Rezgui (Tunisia beach attacker), he liked to drink and breakdance and was harmless according to his friends. But apparently yelling "allahu ackbar" is all you need to make it an Islamist terror attack. Its because racist bigots like you focus on the foreign culture as the problem, and you lack perspective on these peoples' lives and why they would become so predisposed towards violence.
Reply 276
Original post by MMM1997
In a history book


Original post by MMM1997
And tafsir books
Muhammad used the opportunity afforded by a small skirmish between some Bedouin, who were allies of the Quraysh, and some Muslims, to march on Mecca with an army of 10,000 and demand the submission of Mecca and its inhabitants.

Does it not seem a little unwarranted to then order the killing of every polytheist who does not submit to Islam? You don't think that punishing a whole group for the actions of unrelated others is unjustified? It would be like ordering the death of every French Muslim because of the actions of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.
Reply 277
Original post by frankielogue

2.) That 100% figure is complete garbage, my closest friends are muslim and whilst they are against gay marriage for religious reasons, completely accept homosexuality
So they don't "completely accept homosexuality". Because of their religion.

Way to refute an argument bro!
Reply 278
Original post by frankielogue
No, all of my many muslim friends accept homosexuality
Except that you said that they don't completely accept it. For religious reasons.
Reply 279
Original post by QE2
Muhammad used the opportunity afforded by a small skirmish between some Bedouin, who were allies of the Quraysh, and some Muslims, to march on Mecca with an army of 10,000 and demand the submission of Mecca and its inhabitants.

Does it not seem a little unwarranted to then order the killing of every polytheist who does not submit to Islam? You don't think that punishing a whole group for the actions of unrelated others is unjustified? It would be like ordering the death of every French Muslim because of the actions of the Charlie Hebdo attackers.



You keep missing the main point. THE POLYTHEISTS BROKE THE TREATY.

Quick Reply

Latest