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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Nope, I said that it is a contributing factor towards making them more likely to become sympathetic with extremist views. Please don't smear my words.
    Yet you refuse to accept that Islamic ideology is a contributary factor in Islamist terrorism.

    How do you explain that?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)

    As it is already obvious, religion is a tiny factor in this. The 'extremist groups' that these people resort to could just as easily be far right-wing or other terrorist groups, but it is Islamist extremists because of the way that they use social media and indoctrinate young people.
    .
    just as we blame right wing ideology for attacks like that of andreas brevik, we blame islamist ideology for the hundreds of islamic terrorist attacks that have occurred globally. obviously case by case there maybe minor background issues etc that play their part but ultimatly, islamic terrorism is not committed by non muslims - so the link is tangible to the ideologies involved. noone has been fishing around andreas breviks past to see if he was bullied at school or lost his job to a nigerian. We ( and you would im sure) accept his motivation was far right ideology.

    you are simply making your self look more and more stupid to deny the islamist influence behind islamist groups and their terrorism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    What is wrong with holding 'backwards' views? So long as they aren't willing to act on it, there is no problem.
    What is wrong with holding 'racist' views? So long as they aren't willing to act on it, there is no problem.
    So basically, you are fine with someone claiming that black people should be slaves, or that scantily clad women deserve to be raped, as long as they don't actually act on those beliefs? You wouldn't challenge them or point out how damaging, divisive and dangerous those views are?
    I must say, you do have some rather odd ideas.

    Find me a poll which says that "x% of Muslims would willingly go out and commit terrorist atrocities" and then I'll be worried.
    I can imagine that some homosexuals would be concerned when they see polls where 50% believe it should be illegal, even if they have not been on the receiving end of homophobic attacks by Muslims. And ex-Muslims could easily be worried by a poll that shows a third of younger Muslims in the UK believe that apostates should be executed, despite never having received direct death threats.

    You may not be worried about the possibilities of an Islamist attack, but the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc, would beg to differ.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I don't see the problem, its a high Muslim population area, so by the logic of some of the people on here, they should have come out with knives and beheaded all the controversially-dressed females in the group? and yes, there were some.
    A couple of years ago, in rural Morocco, a girl in our group had stones thrown at her because her arms and lower legs were uncovered.

    At uni, I knew Muslims who drank and had pre-marital sex.

    Anectotal stories of the behaviour of individuals are utterly irrelevant in the context of determining the nature of an ideology. The only relevant source material are the documents on which the ideology is based.

    And the Quran does not say that immodestly dressed women should be beheaded. In fact, it does not prescribe any punishment for dressing immodestly, rather it is something that Allah will judge on the day of reckoning.

    I know I've said this before, but you really should try to read the Quran if you are going to try and defend it. At the very least, it might prevent you from making yourself look silly.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36973314

    "We complained to the police headquarters but nothing happened," he said.
    Another of Mr Sankari's friends, Diya, said the United Nations was also failing to protect the gay community in Turkey.

    You the man Alevelstress
    One singular case study is not representative of anything
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by remiremi)
    And we have millions of women subjected to this cult that suffer every day

    Being forced into arranged marriages and Burkas, not even being allowed to date who they want. They can't even show their own face in public without their Husband exiling them from the family and kicking them from the house.

    this is not democracy, these women stuck in this enviroment are helpless.
    Are these women suffering, though? Their way of society is viewed in the same way as democracy is viewed by us. Go into a Muslim country and ask the women how they feel.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otah007)
    Hate speech is a crime.
    Racism and bigotry are crimes.
    Discrimination is a crime.

    All of these can stem from hate of Islam - I've been the target of all of them - and all are dealt with harshly by the law. And anyone who makes statements like 'all Muslims are terrorists' are breaking the law.
    I get that you are young and there can be a desire to want things to be simple.

    Things are not simple. Lets do the philosophy.

    What is a crime?

    That's the question. Is it anything the government says? What is the government but a bunch of blokes? Is it infallible?

    Of course not. A government gains respect as an authority when it makes laws that make sense and that clearly represent crimes or that are appropriate.

    Not many people would have much argument against laws such as on theft, murder, criminal damage, threatening people, etc. When a government makes laws specifically against those things then that is normally acceptable. Even in pursuit of stopping those things the government can go too far but no one is really going to question the goal, merely the means.

    Lets say we go full retard and create an egalitarian society. A new government is rushed in appointed by lottery. The leader is a big fashion buff trraditionally and his first law is that people should not wear red with blue because those colours clash horrifically. You see someone being arrested in the street. Would you really call that a crime? I wouldn't. Unless I was considering the arrest itself.

    There are reasonably real crimes and then there are things people slap labels onto. Slapping labels on to things like this is simply ridiculous. You decide to make something so basic a crime then sure it will look like there is a sudden huge surge in crime everywhere that is terrible and tearing everything apart. If you actually understand what is crime however and I mean by advanced learning, experience, understanding rather than simply looking it up in the dictionary, then it's all a load of rubbish.

    Hating Islam, expressing hate of Islam, insulting Islam and so on is not real crime at all. If you see it that way you ought to do a bit of soul searching. I hate Islam and things like football. Do I think those things should be criminalised? Absolutely not. Can I get along with people who pursue Islam or football on the TV? Sure. We might have some friction or less to speak about but otherwise you live and let live.

    This is just normal. It's the British rational and commonsense way. You on the otherhand speak pure evil in the form of authoritarian extremes.

    Perhaps you are arguing merely because you don't want to get into trouble. Argument from self preservation and appeal to those who dictate the laws of society.

    Here is the funny thing. The Koran is simply what Muhammed said written down. It's not a bunch of stories but actually a speech containing orders and directives for its followers. If Muhammed were alive today and giving a public speech like such from the Koran he could easily be arrestable for hate speech.

    You are also wrong about how our laws work. Some of them are vague, there are some catchalls but it's not quite as bad as it could be.

    Neither racism, bigotry or discrimination are crimes. Not only are they not crimes but they are actually the right and appropriate thing in some circumstances. They only become crimes when they are not the right thing and I don't think the word bigotry is even in the written law anywhere.

    Bigotry and racism are merely thought crimes and no one takes thought crime seriously. If you make thought a crime, you're pretty much a supervillain that puts even Hitler to shame. I can imagine you in power. You try to send all the bigots and racists to prison but soon you run out of prison space. Now you have to send them to camps and where do we go from there? Are you going to open reeducation camps and gulags? Please actually study history. You can't build a worldview from a few rushed school lessons and a 15 minute showing of "Show Racism the Red Card".

    Discrimination is wrong in things such as employment when choosing a candidate or giving out opportunities for success but otherwise, you do it dozens of times a day just to get by. Discrimination is doublespeak if ever I saw it. It actually means choosing. You always actually choose and not choose at the same time, unless you have no choice. Therefore by making any choice you are discriminating. Since most choices are one of many then I am sure that you can see that today there is far more discrimination in any scenario than anything else and that it is consuming, swallowing whole our society.

    In fact, discrimination by the simple meaning is entirely legal in the workplace as well. I do it all the time and especially in hiring. Why I can say that is because while I discriminate on things such as qualifications, etc, I do not discriminate based on protected characteristics. I would actually get into a lot of trouble if I didn't discriminate using the appropriate measures such as can someone actually do the job. You can't not discriminate at all, you must discriminate. You simply aren't allowed to discriminate in the wrong way.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    And Sharia Law is only interpreted as hand-chopping and all of that stuff under very few regimes,
    Wrong. Amputating the hands of thieves is specifically laid down in the Quran (5:38). It is not something that is the result of some regimes' "interpretation of sharia". lol

    Sharia Law is slightly brutal, but far more moderate under almost all Islamic governments in the world. Incriminating a Muslim for wanting 'Sharia Law' is as vague as incriminating a westerner for wanting 'government'.
    Sharia simply involves using the Quran and sunnah as the basis for all judicial and legal decisions. Therefore, if the Quran or sunnah prescribes a hudd punishment (amputation, stoning, beheading, etc) for an offence, then that is what can be imposed if all the conditions are fulfilled. You cannot have a sharia system that cannot sentence a thief to amputation or an adulterer to stoning. It is not compulsory but it is an option.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Yet you refuse to accept that Islamic ideology is a contributary factor in Islamist terrorism.

    How do you explain that?
    You've misread the majority of my posts, I accept that Islam is a factor, but it is a factor not worth attacking because believe it or not, yelling "Mohammed was a pedo" or instantly attributing all Muslims with terrorism or oppression has made very few Muslims convert to atheism, if any.

    Instead, work to find out why people resort to extremism in the first place.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    One singular case study is not representative of anything


    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    I've been to the heart of Muslim communities where the children probably haven't even seen westerners before, and the adults hadn't left their country, and they are friendlier than the average white person in the UK, they offer food and hospitality and they did not run out with a meat cleaver trying to behead some of the controversially-dressed girls in my group of people. They are good people
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What is wrong with holding 'racist' views? So long as they aren't willing to act on it, there is no problem.
    So basically, you are fine with someone claiming that black people should be slaves, or that scantily clad women deserve to be raped, as long as they don't actually act on those beliefs? You wouldn't challenge them or point out how damaging, divisive and dangerous those views are?
    I must say, you do have some rather odd ideas.

    I can imagine that some homosexuals would be concerned when they see polls where 50% believe it should be illegal, even if they have not been on the receiving end of homophobic attacks by Muslims. And ex-Muslims could easily be worried by a poll that shows a third of younger Muslims in the UK believe that apostates should be executed, despite never having received direct death threats.

    You may not be worried about the possibilities of an Islamist attack, but the people of Syria, Iraq, Libya, etc, would beg to differ.
    You are fine to think internally and within your family or community whatever you like.

    But venting it out loud and acting on these thoughts is a problem.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    A couple of years ago, in rural Morocco, a girl in our group had stones thrown at her because her arms and lower legs were uncovered.

    At uni, I knew Muslims who drank and had pre-marital sex.

    Anectotal stories of the behaviour of individuals are utterly irrelevant in the context of determining the nature of an ideology. The only relevant source material are the documents on which the ideology is based.

    And the Quran does not say that immodestly dressed women should be beheaded. In fact, it does not prescribe any punishment for dressing immodestly, rather it is something that Allah will judge on the day of reckoning.

    I know I've said this before, but you really should try to read the Quran if you are going to try and defend it. At the very least, it might prevent you from making yourself look silly.
    And this year an MP was murdered by a far-right sympathiser, it does not mean all far-right sympathisers are murderers.

    Its funny that you criticise anecdotal stories when your post consists of at least two anecdotal stories, lol
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Wrong. Amputating the hands of thieves is specifically laid down in the Quran (5:38). It is not something that is the result of some regimes' "interpretation of sharia". lol

    Sharia simply involves using the Quran and sunnah as the basis for all judicial and legal decisions. Therefore, if the Quran or sunnah prescribes a hudd punishment (amputation, stoning, beheading, etc) for an offence, then that is what can be imposed if all the conditions are fulfilled. You cannot have a sharia system that cannot sentence a thief to amputation or an adulterer to stoning. It is not compulsory but it is an option.
    You've once again demonstrated that you have no clue what Sharia Law means. There is no set list of things which have to be obeyed by Sharia Law.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Are these women suffering, though? Their way of society is viewed in the same way as democracy is viewed by us. Go into a Muslim country and ask the women how they feel.
    1. How would they respond if it's all they every know and if their God says it shall be so?

    2. Why are we not allowed to judge others?

    3. We are primarily talking about Islam here, not there. So this is completely irrelevant. While I wish religion didn't exist at all, it would be naive to think that is achievable. But what we can do, is protest an ideology from manifesting itself in our country.

    16 page full of troll replies to you, chapeau.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    So when I visited there, how come it was, in my opinion, more peaceful than parts of London? Why wasn't I taken hostage by terrorists if the area is such a violent Islamic regime?
    And yet, the FCO advises against non-essential travel in the region, due to the threat of terrorism.

    Perhaps you were lucky.
    Perhaps you were under the protection of the people the FCO were warning about.
    Perhaps you were never there.
    I guess we'll never know.

    However, one thing we do know is that as you have used the behaviour of the Muslim inhabitants of Kargil as representative of Islam, you must now also accept the behaviour of the Muslim inhabitants of Raqqa as equally representative of Islam.

    Oh, the dangers of using limited personal experience as a basis for generalising the whole, eh?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    If you want to go around challenging, deporting and killing people because of their views,
    Where TF did that come from?
    Ironically, there are actually places where people are being killed because of their views, and it's not the UK
    Try and guess what the ideology is that is being used to justify these killings in at least one region...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    No silly. It's not liberal secularism. Try again!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    And yet, the FCO advises against non-essential travel in the region, due to the threat of terrorism.

    Perhaps you were lucky.
    Perhaps you were under the protection of the people the FCO were warning about.
    Perhaps you were never there.
    I guess we'll never know.

    However, one thing we do know is that as you have used the behaviour of the Muslim inhabitants of Kargil as representative of Islam, you must now also accept the behaviour of the Muslim inhabitants of Raqqa as equally representative of Islam.

    Oh, the dangers of using limited personal experience as a basis for generalising the whole, eh?
    You criticise me for using personal experience to generalise Islam, but Sleepysnooze, another Islamophobe social crusader on this site, did the exact same thing - and so have many others, bringing up their unpleasant experiences with Muslims.

    The point is, the average, random Muslim community outside of the Middle East is evidently not some kind of anti-western, democracy-hating, gay-killing society. That kind of society is limited to Islamic State. We have people who think xyz about the western world, who disapprove of some aspects of our lives, and whatnot, but they are peaceful people.



    Now its time you answered me something, do you think constantly hating Islam is going to stop terror attacks?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    You criticise me for using personal experience to generalise Islam, but Sleepysnooze, another Islamophobe social crusader on this site, did the exact same thing - and so have many others, bringing up their unpleasant experiences with Muslims.

    The point is, the average, random Muslim community outside of the Middle East is evidently not some kind of anti-western, democracy-hating, gay-killing society. That kind of society is limited to Islamic State. We have people who think xyz about the western world, who disapprove of some aspects of our lives, and whatnot, but they are peaceful people.



    Now its time you answered me something, do you think constantly hating Islam is going to stop terror attacks?
    If you are not a troll, then you are so so so so naive that you not only think your limited experience is representative of life in a Muslim country for gays, women, and other undesired, but think so much of it you use it as the base of a big online debate, then you are beyond help.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sena98)
    And if you read Quran you can easily see that islam does not want to barbaric things.
    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides - Quran 5:33

    The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah - Quran 24:2

    Cut off the hands of a male or female thief as a punishment for their deed and a lesson for them from God. - Quran 5:38

    We have made lawful to you your wives...and those slaves whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war - Quran 33:50

    I'm not sure "barbaric" means what you think it means.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides - Quran 5:33

    The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah - Quran 24:2

    Cut off the hands of a male or female thief as a punishment for their deed and a lesson for them from God. - Quran 5:38

    We have made lawful to you your wives...and those slaves whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war - Quran 33:50

    I'm not sure "barbaric" means what you think it means.
    Very few Muslims actively do this

    are they poor followers of Islam?
    answer the question please
 
 
 
  • 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.