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

    11
    ReputationRep:
    EVERY BODY WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjET-FjFa2Q
    THIS GIVES YOU A GOOD INSIGHT INTO ALL OF THIS.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A wooden egg)
    You could say why does the right wing have their tongue 50 feet up Israel
    Indeed. You could. The Israeli govt and IDF have acted unacceptably in some situations. No argument there.

    an when it comes to diagrams when one is drawn about Islam western media scream "freedom of speech", fair enough< but when its one about Jews or Israel its immediately branded as anti-Semitism....take the ken Livingstone story as an example
    I'm not sure what "anti-Islamic diagram" you are referring to, but if a right-wing politician voiced the opinion that all Palestinians should be transported to Saudi Arabia, leaving the land for Israelis, there would rightly be uproar and calls for their resignation.

    So I'm not sure what point you're making?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A wooden egg)
    can you name an actual quran quote and notone from a supposed sheikh as that can easily be made up and when giving a quote give it with the proper context and not just "kill" for example and yaddder on about it being terrorising
    How does "context" make a violent or conflictual verse into a peaceful one?

    Simply saying, "oh, that was only referring to a particular event" still leaves the passage as violent. For example, 8:12 may well be recounting events at the Battle of Badr, but a passage that says
    "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
    is a violent passage. Context does not change that.

    Then of course, you have verses like 5:33, which is unpleasantly violent...
    "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 murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides,"
    and has no historical context as it is a ruling on crime and punishment. In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir states that the verse is general in use and applies to all those who commit the crimes mentioned.

    More instruction to violence in in 24:2...
    "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"
    Like 5:33, this verse is still valid today, and some states even stilll apply it!

    As for conflict, 8:39 does not refer to any particular historical event, and is open ended...
    "And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah."

    Even if there was a historical context for all of these (which there isn't), they are still violend and conflictual passages. They were part of the religion at some point.
    Therefore the religion cannot be "peaceful".

    As I have said many times, based on the evidence of the Quran and sunnah, Islam is a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and intolerance, of equality and discrimination.
    No reasonable person in possession of the facts can deny this.
    The sooner people accept this, the sooner that people can start addressing the unacceptable elements.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    This is one of the common traits of the Muslim apologist who has been fed the sanitised version of Islam and is not familiar with vital parts of the Quran and sunnah..
    1. Deny X
    2. Ask for evidence of X
    3. Shown evidence of X
    4. Ignore evidence of X
    5. Often vanish, never to be heard from again.

    Strange, I never get tired of it though!
    a good example of step 2

    can you name an actual quran quote and notone from a supposed sheikh as that can easily be made up and when giving a quote give it with the proper context and not just "kill" for example and yaddder on about it being terrorising
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harun_farah)
    EVERY BODY WATCH THIS!!!!!!!!!!!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjET-FjFa2Q
    THIS GIVES YOU A GOOD INSIGHT INTO ALL OF THIS.
    I don't think anyone is unaware that man has behaved terribly throughout history. No nation, religion or ideology is completely without blame.

    However, one thing is perfectly clear from history. When man's innate empathy and morality is abrogated to a higher power - whether that be a god or political ideology - things become much worse. And when that belief system successfully dehumanises its opponents, it goes off the scale. There are many examples. Islam is in no way unique.

    Also, the tired old "ISIS has nothing to do with Islam" fallacy is clearly and demonstrably untrue. And while it obviously does not represent all Islam or all Muslims, it does represent one interpretation of Islam, based on scripture, and it represents the position of some Muslims.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I'd be careful about asking for concrete evidence for events surronding the origins of Islam.
    Somebody might ask you for concrete evidence that Allah actually spoke to Muhammad (via Jibril). Then where would you be?

    However, if we are to accept the the sahih hadith collections are as reliable as anything else in that context, then there is plenty of evidence of Muhammad acting in ways that could get him tried as a war criminal today - although it probably wouldn't have caused much outrage in 7th century Arabia.
    Very true, and furthermore, not much could be done at that point if there were objections.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    The Quran and sunnah contain plenty of evidence to shows Islam to contain violence, intolerance and discrimination (I don't like the word "evil", it's too vague and emotive). But that is not to say that it is entirely those things.
    /
    You've read the Qur'an??? ;D
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Indeed. You could. The Israeli govt and IDF have acted unacceptably in some situations. No argument there.

    I'm not sure what "anti-Islamic diagram" you are referring to, but if a right-wing politician voiced the opinion that all Palestinians should be transported to Saudi Arabia, leaving the land for Israelis, there would rightly be uproar and calls for their resignation.

    So I'm not sure what point you're making?
    Sorry by diagrams i meant pictures and if there would b an uproar it definitely wouldnt be in the westeren european countries as theyd all be arrested for anti semitism
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A wooden egg)
    Sorry by diagrams i meant pictures
    What is an "anti-Islamic picture"?

    and if there would b an uproar it definitely wouldnt be in the westeren european countries as theyd all be arrested for anti semitism
    Are you claining that, if a right-wing politician called for all Palestinians to be deported to Saudi Arabia leaving the region for Israelis, anyone expressing outrage would be arrested for anti-semitism?

    Because if you are, you are being very silly.
    There is probably more popular support for the Palstinians than for Israel, certainly in the UK.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ovo_zverit)
    /
    You've read the Qur'an??? ;D
    Yes, along with a classical tafsir for clarification.
    You should try it. It will give you a better understanding of Islam.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    How does "context" make a violent or conflictual verse into a peaceful one?

    Simply saying, "oh, that was only referring to a particular event" still leaves the passage as violent. For example, 8:12 may well be recounting events at the Battle of Badr, but a passage that says
    "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
    is a violent passage. Context does not change that.

    Then of course, you have verses like 5:33, which is unpleasantly violent...
    "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 murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides,"
    and has no historical context as it is a ruling on crime and punishment. In his tafsir, Ibn Kathir states that the verse is general in use and applies to all those who commit the crimes mentioned.

    More instruction to violence in in 24:2...
    "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"
    Like 5:33, this verse is still valid today, and some states even stilll apply it!

    As for conflict, 8:39 does not refer to any particular historical event, and is open ended...
    "And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah."

    Even if there was a historical context for all of these (which there isn't), they are still violend and conflictual passages. They were part of the religion at some point.
    Therefore the religion cannot be "peaceful".

    As I have said many times, based on the evidence of the Quran and sunnah, Islam is a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and intolerance, of equality and discrimination.
    No reasonable person in possession of the facts can deny this.
    The sooner people accept this, the sooner that people can start addressing the unacceptable elements.
    Well i can tell you ive read the quran as i have with other books and these harsh treatments only apply in extreme events ( i mean even you said it battle of badr means full moon so clearly its not referring to an actual battle therefore being open to lots of different interpretations of when these actions youve spoken about can take place....and i think its quite clear the peaceful element outnumbers the violent element for example zakat is one of the 5 main pillars which means to give to charity and i also see for the quote abou 5:33 youve said that ibn kathir has said its for general use but you've just given another persons interpretation and therefore saying thats what the quran meant which can i just say is what isis use in their difference for their actions (ie refer that baghdadi has made this interpretation so therefore its true)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abc_123_)
    Btw I'm speaking as a upper class white atheist so I'm not biased
    You have a mighty high opinion of yourself. White and atheist? I won't question it.

    But "upper class"? Who even says that about themselves? I get the feeling you are under a great misapprehension as to your position in the class system
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thequickspark)
    I define it as a religion that consistently enforces a message of peace through peaceful means. No reference to murdering in the name of achieving peace.
    Good definition for a peace movement. But religions are not belief in peace and as ideologies they were not created to achieve peace.
    (Original post by QE2)
    A religion that contains no condoning of or commands for conflict or violence in scriptures that are considered to be infallible and immutable.
    Then Christianity is "religion of peace". In New Testament, which replaced Old Testament in Christianity, you won't find calls for violence. Only peace and love, peace and love. And millions of killed people in wars and prosecutions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Why do they love Islam so much that they shrug their shoulders when its followers rape women in the street? Why do they have the attitude of "it's just their culture man" when Muslims behead gays? Just wondering. Why is it OK for Muslims to act like this but it's not OK for non-Muslims to wear shirts with naughty cartoon pictures of ladies on it?
    Because there Genocidal maniacs
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Good definition for a peace movement. But religions are not belief in peace and as ideologies they were not created to achieve peace.

    Then Christianity is "religion of peace". In New Testament, which replaced Old Testament in Christianity, you won't find calls for violence. Only peace and love, peace and love. And millions of killed people in wars and prosecutions.
    I agree. Religions were made for means of controlling and subjugating people. I was refuting those who claim that Islam, Christianity, etc were religions of peace. They simply aren't. Even New Testament Christianity has lead to mass genocide over the course of time.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A wooden egg)
    Well i can tell you ive read the quran as i have with other books and these harsh treatments only apply in extreme events
    Even if the verses did only apply to a specific, historical event (and some don't), they are still violent. Remember that the Quran is Allah's final guide for all humanity, perfect and unchangable - which raises the question, why did Allah include these passages in such a guide if not as some kind of lesson for future use? It would be illogical to include them as nothing more than a history record.

    ( i mean even you said it battle of badr means full moon so clearly its not referring to an actual battle therefore being open to lots of different interpretations of when these actions youve spoken about can take place....
    It was called the Battle of Badr because of where it took place - the wells of Badr. It was an actual battle.

    and i think its quite clear the peaceful element outnumbers the violent element for example zakat is one of the 5 main pillars which means to give to charity
    Ah, so you agree with me that Islam is a religion of peace and violence.
    And BTW, zakat is not "giving to charity". It is compulsory for all Muslims, so it is a tax or levy. I mean, you wouldn't call your National Insurance Contributions "giving to charity", would you?

    and i also see for the quote abou 5:33 youve said that ibn kathir has said its for general use but you've just given another persons interpretation and therefore saying thats what the quran meant which can i just say is what isis use in their difference for their actions (ie refer that baghdadi has made this interpretation so therefore its true)
    Islam itself relies on interpretations of people, because the Quran in ambiguous, contradictory and lacks detail (despite it claiming that it is "clear and fully detailed". That's why Islam requires the sunnah, and scholars, to function. Remember that many of the apparently violent passages require the personal interpretation of people to apply the context that is so important to apologists.
    BTW, 5:33 does not have any historical context within the Quran, I only mentioned Ibn Kathir in order to confirm that. After all, his tafsir is the most widely used and respected explanation of the Quran in the world. However, none of them can claim to be "true" as they are all subjectine interpretations of ambiguous and contradictory texts.
    Whose interpretation do you favour?
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    You have a mighty high opinion of yourself. White and atheist? I won't question it.

    But "upper class"? Who even says that about themselves? I get the feeling you are under a great misapprehension as to your position in the class system
    No "upper class" person would dream of referring to themselves as "upper class". I think he might mean "nouveau riche".
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I can't see the logic in it. Recently I've been leaning farther and farther to the left on social issues but I'll never be able to understand socialists' infatuation with Islam. I think there's a huge memetic element to it with the 'Islam is a religion of peace' and 'not all muslims' slogans. The desire to feel part of a just cause and the ease of jumping on the bandwagon probably makes it seem more attractive than keeping a consistent viewpoint. Also, most of our population has grown up with morals that aren't so divergent from Muslims, to the extent it's more an argument about whether it's less civilized to stone gays or imprison them for years. I was raised as an atheist so I will never be able to get over how alien Islam feels to me.

    But that's just focusing only on Islam. I think the majority of backlash against Muslims is not out of a concern for backward cultural practices, but instead comes from Christians and the authoritarian right, who are also vastly inflating the threat posed by the Muslim population. Many of those people are just as bad, and from that perspective I can see why leftists might stick up for Muslims, even if they don't really deserve it.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by admonit)
    Then Christianity is "religion of peace". In New Testament, which replaced Old Testament in Christianity, you won't find calls for violence. Only peace and love, peace and love. And millions of killed people in wars and prosecutions.
    Has the NT replaced the OT? That is a hotly debated issue in Christianity.

    However, because Christianity does not claim to opreate on the basis of infallible, immutable divine revelation, a perfect guide for all peoples and time, it has transformed into a religion of peace in many cases. As Christianity does not require total and slavish adherence to doctrine (especially in recent times) Christians are able to say "I reject those passages" without fear of takfir and jahannam. "However, there is still plenty of scope for it to be interpreted as a religion of violence.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Unkempt_One)
    I can't see the logic in it. Recently I've been leaning farther and farther to the left on social issues but I'll never be able to understand socialists' infatuation with Islam. I think there's a huge memetic element to it with the 'Islam is a religion of peace' and 'not all muslims' slogans. The desire to feel part of a just cause and the ease of jumping on the bandwagon probably makes it seem more attractive than keeping a consistent viewpoint. Also, most of our population has grown up with morals that aren't so divergent from Muslims, to the extent it's more an argument about whether it's less civilized to stone gays or imprison them for years. I was raised as an atheist so I will never be able to get over how alien Islam feels to me.

    But that's just focusing only on Islam. I think the majority of backlash against Muslims is not out of a concern for backward cultural practices, but instead comes from Christians and the authoritarian right, who are also vastly inflating the threat posed by the Muslim population. Many of those people are just as bad, and from that perspective I can see why leftists might stick up for Muslims, even if they don't really deserve it.
    I think that the explanation is quite simple.
    In a display of ironic racism, they conflate "Muslims" with "Brown Foreigners" and so take the position that any criticism of their ideology is a form of cultural imperialism.

    In some respects, there is no difference between religion and extreme political ideology. The both require a suspension of critical faculties and the ability to see any criticism as reason for taking offence They both make good use of pejorative terms to describe their critics in an attempt to demonise them. A regressive-left SJW would rather eat their own babies than be publicly accused of racism. And that is what often happens to people who raise concerns about issues like slavery, domestic violence and misogyny in the Quran.
 
 
 
  • 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.