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

Why don't we have sikhophobia, hinduphobia or buddhismophobia? Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Proxenus)
    I was assuming OP was talking about the existence of islamophobia today. I'm saying that ISIS is the main cause of islamophobia (along with 9/11)) in this generation. If I walked to a random guy in town why do you think islamaphobia exists they will say isis/9-11.
    Lol at you adding in 9/11 like you said that **** before. And at the part you bolded you didn't say that either. Just quit and stop backpedaling, it's not that serious but you're b.s.ing me now.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 0to100)
    Lol at you adding in 9/11 like you said that **** before. And at the part you bolded you didn't say that either. Just quit and stop backpedaling, it's not that serious but you're b.s.ing me now.
    What? I added 9/11 because you reminded me?

    The part you bolded I explained earlier in my last post.

    I aint bsing nothing son. Nothing I have said in this thread is wrong
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Well, they do have grand delusions of power and purpose, so I suppose they view Mecca as infidel-occupied territory to which they can make pilgrimage only after its 'liberation' and annexation into the caliphate.
    Lol if those individuals think like that then they have totally lost it imo. Because mecca does not need liberation in their way. Every year millions of Muslims are able to perform their pilgrimage and will in future too. So if they think they need to liberate it then they are only causing more destruction and to Muslims and Islam in particular.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by h333)
    Lol if those individuals think like that then they have totally lost it imo. Because mecca does not need liberation in their way. Every year millions of Muslims are able to perform their pilgrimage and will in future too. So if they think they need to liberate it then they are only causing more destruction and to Muslims and Islam in particular.
    With regards to liberation, I meant they think that the House of Saud are corrupt infidels, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to control the holy city. Didn't mean to say anything about the millions of pilgrims.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by IFoundWonderland)
    Are you insinuating that islamaphobia stems from arbitrary Muslims's decisions to not drink alcohol at the pub?
    Hey, thanks for your opinion

    I gave explanation to my original post (the one you quoted) in number of other posts in here to other users Feel free to check them out, I don't want to repeat myself 50 times over and over again, and have exactly same discussing with 5 users at the same time
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by hilrho)
    I feel honoured - can I play with your other brain wives too?
    I don't have them yet

    I don't know if my brain should be "gender fluid" and if I can have 2 brain wives and 2 brain husbands ..... for now, my sweetheart, you are my only one
    Offline

    2
    (Original post by lNurl)
    I don't have them yet

    I don't know if my brain should be "gender fluid" and if I can have 2 brain wives and 2 brain husbands ..... for now, my sweetheart, you are my only one
    Even better :lovehug::love::kissing2:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    I would imagine that some already have, before joining ISIS. The remainder have the rest of their lives, as long as they can fulfil istitah. And stay alive (but then the reward for dying while fighting in the way of Allah is to go straight to paradise anyway, so no need for a holiday in Arabia!

    Also remember that the vast majority of Muslims never undertake hajj. Only about 32 million non Saudi Muslims have made hajj to Mecca in the last 20 years. Out of 1.6 billion, that's only 2%! And some of those will be repeat visits. And the total population of Muslims over the last 20 years will be more than 1.6 bil, so it's probably more like 1%!
    Hajj is not a holiday firstly so lol to that. And no lol someone claiming to be a muslims and then killing another innocent muslim, let alone the non-muslims are not going to gain any paradise. You can only fight for yourself to defend yourself. Anyone can say i am fighting in the way of Allah...but only Allah knows his intentions and his way of doing so no one will be able to escape from that judgement as us Muslims believe.

    It is not the argument of if all Muslims take hajj or not. But it is what the individual Muslim take as their priority...like all Muslims if can should perform hajj and prioritise it above all.

    And as these islamic state groups claim to be the true Muslims then they should be the first. But i guess they care more about creating confusion if what the media is showing is true than actually practicing islam.

    You can't as a Muslim say I will dimiss the important pillars of Islam for so called their fighting in the way of Allah....sounds more like they are fighting in the way of their favour and interest.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    With regards to liberation, I meant they think that the House of Saud are corrupt infidels, and therefore shouldn't be allowed to control the holy city. Didn't mean to say anything about the millions of pilgrims.
    Aha i see. Still their logic is stupid because they would rather spend their life trying to achieve that in which thousands of Muslims lives might be lost...instead of actually practicing Islam and performing important pillars of Islam. Really no sense.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by h333)
    Aha i see. Still their logic is stupid because they would rather spend their life trying to achieve that in which thousands of Muslims lives might be lost...instead of actually practicing Islam and performing important pillars of Islam. Really no sense.
    They believe it to be their religious duty (so it's an an important Islamic endeavour, as far as they're concerned), and they're not too reluctant to make takfir on any Muslim who disagrees/resists.

    The joys of believing that one is executing the will of an unchallengeable authority, in a nutshell.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Hajj is not a holiday firstly so lol to that.
    Of course it is. In what way is it not a holiday?

    And no lol someone claiming to be a muslims and then killing another innocent muslim, let alone the non-muslims are not going to gain any paradise.
    Unfortunately, because of the ambiguous and contradictory nature of Islamic scripture, and the subsequent variety if interpretation, there is no fixed definition of "innocent". What we do know is that there is at least one legitimate, authoritative and mainstream interpretation that classes anyone who disobeys Allah's laws or "opposes and contradicts" Islam is not "innocent". Clearly, those people do not see those Muslims who oppose what they see as the spreading of the true interpretation of Allah's word, as innocent.

    You can only fight for yourself to defend yourself.
    Muhammad didn't. He conducted many offensive actions and campaigns.

    You can't as a Muslim say I will dimiss the important pillars of Islam for so called their fighting in the way of Allah
    "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." - 2:216

    "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." - 4:74

    "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home)." - 4:95
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anisahaha)
    Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, the west is deterring people away from islam by portraying us as 'terrorists' etc so hence the uprise of 'islamophobia'
    Its completely childish to see that people associate the small minority of extremists with the whole muslim race yet no one refers to all Germans as 'Nazi's' because of the inhumane actions of one man?

    I do not condone any of this in any way but its just a thought
    Claiming that Having a large number of adherents somehow lends legitimacy to Islam as a true religion is incorrect thinking. Millions of people can indeed be misled. What religion would not have large numbers after 1400yrs if beheading was the penalty for leaving the faith?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    They believe it to be their religious duty (so it's an an important Islamic endeavour, as far as they're concerned), and they're not too reluctant to make takfir on any Muslim who disagrees/resists.

    The joys of believing that one is executing the will of an unchallengeable authority, in a nutshell.
    Yes exactly "they" believe it which is probably like tbh i dont know the figure...as its not clear...so lets very very small number of so called Muslims and minority representitive.

    Do you think they will ever succeed in having what they call an islmaic state if that is what they are fighting for etc? And why doesn't the rest of the Muslim population from there and around the world help them or support them to do so?

    Something looks wrong that we listen to the people who cause terror with their so called duties and to the extent agree with their sayings more than the majority and peaceful ones.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Of course it is. In what way is it not a holiday?

    Unfortunately, because of the ambiguous and contradictory nature of Islamic scripture, and the subsequent variety if interpretation, there is no fixed definition of "innocent". What we do know is that there is at least one legitimate, authoritative and mainstream interpretation that classes anyone who disobeys Allah's laws or "opposes and contradicts" Islam is not "innocent". Clearly, those people do not see those Muslims who oppose what they see as the spreading of the true interpretation of Allah's word, as innocent.

    Muhammad didn't. He conducted many offensive actions and campaigns.

    "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." - 2:216

    "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." - 4:74

    "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home)." - 4:95
    Hajj is a pilgrimage and is not for you to relax but to perform certain activities.

    Sorry but you lack understanding. You are only allowed to fight back and defend if the people are against you because of your religion at the same time actually wages the war on you. Then you they will not be in category of innocent people as they want war but however, they are still conditions to be met even by fighting back to defend your right.

    Yes every proper Muslim knows what an innocent person is. If no one wants to fight you unnecessarily and minds their own business and just living their life....then they are innocent and as a Muslim you have no right to wage war on them or hurt them. If they do then they are surely sinning and will be judged.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Betelgeuse-)
    It's a very useful analogy. Islam causes terrorism through vocal hate preaching and incitement with justification from a reverred religious book that is observable and well understood. Inhaling Islamic teachings instills violence in amenable minds, altering their thoughts and behaviour and causing them to become hostile and violent. We can observe, empirically, how islamic hate preaching leads to terrorism.

    Slightly tongue in cheek but that is a lot of words to basically say Islamic terrorism cannot be proven with science. I would have to disagree that its not a very useful anology... its an excellent analogy to simple minded people who claim that just because something doesn't corrupt at a 100% success rate, means that X is not corruptive or the cause
    Your reasoning comes off as somewhat circular - that Islam causes extremism because of the preaching of Islamic extremists. MI5's own study into the issue found that the link between terrorism and religious observance is a weak one. Islamic terrorists rarely fir the profile of religious fundamentalists, but instead tend to be young, rebellious 'bad boy' types who engage in all kinds of behaviours expressly forbidden by Islam. They are often born and raised in the countries they end up attacking, while their parents, who usually grew up in Islamic countries surrounded by Islamic culture, rarely sympathise with terrorism. It's an extremely complex issue that has more to do with political, ideological, social and economic issues than anything else. It's a dangerous mistake to boil it all down to problems inherent in the religion.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SaraBZ)
    Do you have any evidence from the Quran (the Islamic holy book) or RELIABLE sources which state that Islam was 'invented by a mediaeval warlord to control the behaviour of and influence his pool of potential soldiers into fighting for control of the Arabian peninsula by appealing to their known superstitious predelictions.'?
    Funny thing is there isn't really any evidence that muhammed existed in the way that people think he did.

    Infact islam seems to be a product of the arabic conquests and was created after the conquests started.

    There is very little evidence for pretty much anything in the quran (mecca is only mentioned once)

    Muhammed probably didn't even exist, but the arab empire needed a holy figure (the same way the roman empire had jesus)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Hajj is a pilgrimage and is not for you to relax but to perform certain activities.
    It's not really a pilgrimage though, is it?
    There is no hardship or extended travelling involved. Everyone looks forward to it with excitement. You jump on a plane direct to Saudi. Air conditioned coach to a luxury hotel. Fully catered. Have you not seen all the websites advertising hajj packages?
    Not a holiday. Pfft!

    And not all holidays involve relaxation. Never heard of activity holidays?

    Sorry but you lack understanding. You are only allowed to fight back and defend if the people are against you because of your religion at the same time actually wages the war on you. Then you they will not be in category of innocent people as they want war but however, they are still conditions to be met even by fighting back to defend your right.
    Sorry, but it is you who lacks understanding. You have been fed this cherry-picked, sanitised version (no, don't deny it - it is obvious from the standard arguments you use) that is not supported by the Quran and sunnah.
    Just look at the Battle of Badr (I'm sure I've been through this with you before). That was caused by Muhammad riding out of Medina with an army to attack a large and valuable Quraysh caravan returning from Syria. The Meccan army only rode out from Mecca when they found out about the imminent attack.
    Now, how was that "self-defence"? If anything, the Quraysh were acting in self defence.

    And explain how Islam expanded from Medina without offensive military actions? How were battles as far away as Syria "self defence". How is besieging tribes who have never attacked you "self defence"?

    You just don't question the accepted narrative because you can't. Because when you do, it starts to unravel.

    Yes every proper Muslim knows what an innocent person is. If no one wants to fight you unnecessarily and minds their own business and just living their life....then they are innocent and as a Muslim you have no right to wage war on them or hurt them. If they do then they are surely sinning and will be judged.
    So, Ibn Kathir, and the sahaba whose accounts he relies on, was not a "proper Muslim"?

    And Allah, when he commands muslims to "find, besiege and ambush" disbelievers? He is clearly authorising offensive actions. Remember that in 9:5, the conquered polytheists have been given 4 months to convert or go into exile. There is no fighting. The war is over, but Allah still says that Muslims are to hunt down and kill those who did not convert or leave.
    Self defence? Hardly!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lNurl)
    Your every sentence can be true about Iran
    Sharia law, nuclear plants, human rights....

    But you see they have oil, so they managed somehow come in terms, negotiate.
    No, we 'came to terms' with Iran (which is a bit of a strong statement tbh, we're hardly that chummy with them) because we had no choice. The Middle East is unstable enough as is, and the Iranian nuclear program is far more threatening than North Korea's. North Korea, in the opinion of every commentator I've heard from, have hardly progressed from dirty bombs. Also, Iran are far more politically involved than North Korea, who has absolutely no interest in agreeing terms with anyone about anything.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by h333)
    Yes exactly "they" believe it which is probably like tbh i dont know the figure...as its not clear...so lets very very small number of so called Muslims and minority representitive.
    I didn't say anything about them representing all Muslims though. I know that most Muslims don't subscribe to their reading of Islam.

    Do you think they will ever succeed in having what they call an islmaic state if that is what they are fighting for etc?
    It's very unlikely, given the coalition assembled to destroy them. :beard: They don't have the material means to win this war, but they do present a real danger on the propaganda front. They've already orchestrated (or at least claim to have done so) significant attacks in faraway countries using the native-born citizens of those countries, and that is the far greater danger in the long-term.

    And why doesn't the rest of the Muslim population from there and around the world help them or support them to do so?
    Any number of reasons. Cultural Muslims, who constitute the majority of the world's Muslims, don't recognise the Salafi Islam practised by the IS as their own religion; even for fundamentalists, life generally appeals more than a squalid death on some battlefield; others agree with the IS's goals but disapprove strongly of their methods and therefore elect to sit out this conflict until a more suitable/Islamic (from their point of view) opportunity presents itself. And so on.

    Though it's important to note that some Muslims (both from there and from around the world) do indeed support them and have joined them. Their tens of thousands of fighters did come from somewhere, after all.

    Something looks wrong that we listen to the people who cause terror with their so called duties and to the extent agree with their sayings more than the majority and peaceful ones.
    One has to be objective about any ideology. There's a temptation, if one assumes as an axiom that faith = good, necessarily, to give more weight to evidence that suggests that a religion is pacifistic than evidence that suggests otherwise. Like any ideology, we can only judge religions on their scriptures.

    The scriptures of the three Abrahamic religions suggest (at least to me) that they are neither completely peaceful nor completely violent, but contain rather a lot of both. The majority of adherents (thankfully) disregard/are unaware of the violent passages in practice, but the existence of that majority may not be used to deny the existence of those passages, in the same way as the existence of a violent minority may not be used to deny the existence of peaceful/compassion-encouraging passages.

    So, in summary: we should listen to neither the terrorists nor the peaceful majority when trying to make a statement about what Islam 'really' is, in any sense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Pizzlasm
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 14, 2016
  • 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
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    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.