Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Actually, an Islamic group, whose ideology was very close to ISIS, already tried to seize Mecca - arguably, they succeeded for two weeks. In 1979, they took control of the Grand Mosque with several hundreds of pilgrims.
    The Saudi evacuated the whole city and attacked the Mosque; they made a surgical grenade assault that killed pretty much everybody in there.

    Ironically, this lead the Saudi to enforce Wahhabism in order to prevent other similar groups from spawning in Saudi Arabia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

    I would also like to point that Mecca doesn't need ISIS to see thousands of dead during the Hajj.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Luke Kostanjsek)
    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.
    The things is, this game is bigger than us.
    Religion is bullying tool, money is a game changer, no ncountry cares about ham right in another countries, its just big soap opera.
    As another user truely said, its also what we can sell not just take.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by QE2)
    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 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.

    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!
    No no. You are so wrong. Look at the reason and purpose of going to hajj. And ofcourse Muslims will be excited, they getting to fulfill something really important in Islam.

    You lack knowledge of the battles that went. Because people on the opposition side were against islam and wanted to end it...and prevent it from spreading peacefully. They wanted Mohammad peace be upon him dead as they knew people will listen to him over time. Above all, they wanted war to happen so the Muslims had no choice but to defend themselves and their houses and land.

    Do not act like non-Muslims did not live aside with the Muslims.

    Keep quoting without knowing context and the circumstances.

    If Islam really did spread purely because of wars then why was not everyone a Muslim in those areas as the way state it...seems pretty easy right that they could have done this?

    And please do present your views one day to an islamic scholar would be interesting. Allah knows best. Peace.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I didn't say anything about them representing all Muslims though. I know that most Muslims don't subscribe to their reading of Islam.



    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.



    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.



    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.
    Ok we should listen to no Muslim is what you saying. Not sure how that will work.....

    Where are theae groups getting their weapons from? Why can't they be stopped?
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Josb)
    Actually, an Islamic group, whose ideology was very close to ISIS, already tried to seize Mecca - arguably, they succeeded for two weeks. In 1979, they took control of the Grand Mosque with several hundreds of pilgrims.
    The Saudi evacuated the whole city and attacked the Mosque; they made a surgical grenade assault that killed pretty much everybody in there.

    Ironically, this lead the Saudi to enforce Wahhabism in order to prevent other similar groups from spawning in Saudi Arabia.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_seizure

    I would also like to point that Mecca doesn't need ISIS to see thousands of dead during the Hajj.
    Not sure about your last sentence. I am talking about murder here. The hajj is still being performed til this date so they did not succeed in their plan.

    Do you think anyone can stop hajj from taking place? I believe it is protected.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    I think the reason why there is "islamophobia", is that Islam is being blamed as the main reason for groups such as ISIS and the Taliban. It is important to consider the roles of the economy as well as the political and domestic factors within the middle eastern countries, and not to place the blame completely on Islam.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by h333)
    Ok we should listen to no Muslim is what you saying. Not sure how that will work.....
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Muslims who want to discuss the faith from a scriptural point of view should obviously be listened to (e.g. scholars, interested non-scholars, etc.) What I'm saying is that in the same way as it's not possible to look at the actions of the IS and say, 'this definitely represents the teachings of Islam', it's also not possible to state that the peaceful majority definitely represents Islam (especially given that peaceability is the only thing they have in common, and are otherwise diverse in opinions), for the simple reason that Islam is a set of ideas, and Muslims are people with identities, who tend to carry all sorts of cultural and political influences/biases.

    A set of ideas can only be debated on its contents, not on the actions of those that claim to hold to them. Otherwise a Muslim from Indonesia would be no different to a Muslim from tribal areas of Pakistan, nor from a Muslim from England, when vast differences between these is clearly the observed state of affairs.

    Where are theae groups getting their weapons from?
    Well, the IS partly captured its weaponry from the Iraqi army, which all but collapsed during their initial offensive in 2014. As for the rest of it - captured from other opposition groups, the Syrian army, and acquired illegally using money from illegal oil sales (with some suspicion of Turkish collusion in this respect), private donors, extortion, ransom, etc.

    Why can't they be stopped?
    Whether they can or can't depends rather on what you mean by stopping them. Can their territory be taken from them and their fighters/leaders killed, given enough time? Without a doubt. But this is essentially a war of ideas, and it's much harder to defeat them in that area, given the ease with which propaganda can be disseminated these days.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Not sure about your last sentence. I am talking about murder here. The hajj is still being performed til this date so they did not succeed in their plan.

    Do you think anyone can stop hajj from taking place? I believe it is protected.
    The goal of Ikhwan (the Wahhabi group that seized the grand Mosque) was not to prevent the Hajj. It was to "free" Mecca from the Saudi and start a revolt against them.

    I meant that there have been many deadly incidents during Hajj without ISIS.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Muslims who want to discuss the faith from a scriptural point of view should obviously be listened to (e.g. scholars, interested non-scholars, etc.) What I'm saying is that in the same way as it's not possible to look at the actions of the IS and say, 'this definitely represents the teachings of Islam', it's also not possible to state that the peaceful majority definitely represents Islam (especially given that peaceability is the only thing they have in common, and are otherwise diverse in opinions), for the simple reason that Islam is a set of ideas, and Muslims are people with identities, who tend to carry all sorts of cultural and political influences/biases.

    A set of ideas can only be debated on its contents, not on the actions of those that claim to hold to them. Otherwise a Muslim from Indonesia would be no different to a Muslim from tribal areas of Pakistan, nor from a Muslim from England, when vast differences between these is clearly the observed state of affairs.



    Well, the IS partly captured its weaponry from the Iraqi army, which all but collapsed during their initial offensive in 2014. As for the rest of it - captured from other opposition groups, the Syrian army, and acquired illegally using money from illegal oil sales (with some suspicion of Turkish collusion in this respect), private donors, extortion, ransom, etc.



    Whether they can or can't depends rather on what you mean by stopping them. Can their territory be taken from them and their fighters/leaders killed, given enough time? Without a doubt. But this is essentially a war of ideas, and it's much harder to defeat them in that area, given the ease with which propaganda can be disseminated these days.


    I think the best way to combat ISIS is to have other Middle Eastern countries take a more active role such as Turkey,Saudi Arabia ect. So it does not cause people in the countries where ISIS is prevalent to feel that they are being invaded by Western "imperialists", which would only further the divide between East and West. Isis needs to be dismantled from the inside rather then brute force as you its "ideas".
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Muslims who want to discuss the faith from a scriptural point of view should obviously be listened to (e.g. scholars, interested non-scholars, etc.) What I'm saying is that in the same way as it's not possible to look at the actions of the IS and say, 'this definitely represents the teachings of Islam', it's also not possible to state that the peaceful majority definitely represents Islam (especially given that peaceability is the only thing they have in common, and are otherwise diverse in opinions), for the simple reason that Islam is a set of ideas, and Muslims are people with identities, who tend to carry all sorts of cultural and political influences/biases.

    A set of ideas can only be debated on its contents, not on the actions of those that claim to hold to them. Otherwise a Muslim from Indonesia would be no different to a Muslim from tribal areas of Pakistan, nor from a Muslim from England, when vast differences between these is clearly the observed state of affairs.



    Well, the IS partly captured its weaponry from the Iraqi army, which all but collapsed during their initial offensive in 2014. As for the rest of it - captured from other opposition groups, the Syrian army, and acquired illegally using money from illegal oil sales, extortion, ransom, etc.



    Whether they can or can't depends rather on what you mean by stopping them. Can their territory be taken from them and their fighters/leaders killed, given enough time? Without a doubt. But this is essentially a war of ideas, and it's much harder to defeat them in that area, given the ease with which propaganda can be disseminated these days.
    Yep I certainly do not want to listen to individuals that calim they are Muslims but kill innocent Muslims and non-Muslims.

    You do know that this ISIS and what is going on in Syria is not as clear as it seems?

    As there is not one group but several now. And at times people mistaken any Muslim defending themselves also for ISIS.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Josb)
    The goal of Ikhwan (the Wahhabi group that seized the grand Mosque) was not to prevent the Hajj. It was to "free" Mecca from the Saudi and start a revolt against them.

    I meant that there have been many deadly incidents during Hajj without ISIS.
    I am not talking about incidents but murder/killings.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by h333)
    Yep I certainly do not want to listen to individuals that calim they are Muslims but kill innocent Muslims and non-Muslims.
    A small but important distinction: we're talking about actions here. You may personally not want to listen to the opinions of extremists, and that's fine, but what I'm saying is we can't say anything about Islam based on the actions of Muslims (tendency to violence/peaceability). So you can't look at the aforementioned Muslims and use that as evidence for what Islam says (though the two may be found to be in partial agreement on further study), but the same goes for peaceful cultural Muslims.

    You do know that this ISIS and what is going on in Syria is not as clear as it seems?

    As there is not one group but several now. And at times people mistaken any Muslim defending themselves also for ISIS.
    How do you mean? :holmes: If you mean to ask whether I'm aware that Syria isn't a two-dog fight between the regime and the IS, the answer is yes. It's a messy civil war with multiple groups fighting.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Because the left has no real causes left and a huge boner for inventing new ones by creating victim identities and so on so the left can be all protective and whatever. Often, their causes have been eliminated to the point they must attack them on other absurd fronts such as our words, thoughts and feelings.

    Take a look at this foul attempt at thought manipulation:

    http://www.runnymedetrust.org/upload...lamophobia.pdf

    It's like someone paid a marketing company to improve the image of Islam and Muslims. It's sick. There's a good series of sketches on this in Monkey Dust.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cvx5j216wOI
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asFU5ReztXU

    From one of my favourite political dramas (with a main theme of multiculturalism funnily enough):
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imMGchI1EWY

    Also they let a load of Muslims in to speak for themselves (literally what they did) and given free run without thinking to maintain common procedure that would prevent them from exerting bias. Anti-racism psychology taken to an extreme.

    The xenobe is guilty.
    ->
    The xenobe is guilty or innocent.
    ->
    The xenobe is innocent.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Islam has only recently received this mass media attention in the last 10-15yrs. If Islam was the cause of extremism there would had been more incidents and groups throughout history. It almost feels like extremist Islam has been invented in the last 2 decades does make you wonder.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    A small but important distinction: we're talking about actions here. You may personally not want to listen to the opinions of extremists, and that's fine, but what I'm saying is we can't say anything about Islam based on the actions of Muslims (tendency to violence/peaceability). So you can't look at the aforementioned Muslims and use that as evidence for what Islam says (though the two may be found to be in partial agreement on further study), but the same goes for peaceful cultural Muslims.



    How do you mean? :holmes: If you mean to ask whether I'm aware that Syria isn't a two-dog fight between the regime and the IS, the answer is yes. It's a messy civil war with multiple groups fighting.
    Yes I meant its not clear. And that somehow everyone doing something of their own interest including the foreigners and within the region.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    No no. You are so wrong. Look at the reason and purpose of going to hajj. And ofcourse Muslims will be excited, they getting to fulfill something really important in Islam.
    So, taking time off work, travelling to a foreign country and staying in luxury hotels so you can do something that you really want to do, is not a holiday?
    Whatever.

    You lack knowledge of the battles that went. Because people on the opposition side were against islam and wanted to end it...
    But they didn't. That's the important point.
    Pre Islam Mecca was an inclusive, polytheist society. They did not reject Islam at first. The leaders of the Quraysh actually attempted to negotiate with Muhammad and offered him incentives and even offered to incorporate Islam into their system if he stopped dissing the established beliefs and causing trouble.
    He rejected them.

    and prevent it from spreading peacefully. They wanted Mohammad peace be upon him dead as they knew people will listen to him over time. Above all, they wanted war to happen so the Muslims had no choice but to defend themselves and their houses and land.
    This is simply not supported by the evidence. Read some books like Mubarakpuri and Lings (both written by Muslims)

    If Islam really did spread purely because of wars then why was not everyone a Muslim in those areas as the way state it...seems pretty easy right that they could have done this?
    I never claimed that it was purely by offensive military expansion, only that it was an element. You are claiming that it played no part whatsoever.

    And please do present your views one day to an islamic scholar would be interesting. Allah knows best. Peace.
    The arguments presented by apologists on here are essentially the arguments of scholars. I have seen nothing in their articles and videos that has not been presented on here at some point.
    The position that "I don't know, but I trust that there is someone who does" is not a viable one.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ESPORTIVA LUTA)
    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)
    Ooh, contoversial!

    But not entirely unreasonable.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by h333)
    Ok we should listen to no Muslim is what you saying. Not sure how that will work.....
    If we are looking objectively at the contents of the scripture, then yes, we should look only at the evidence, not listen to conflicting opinions.

    If we want to know how different groups subjectively interpret that scripture, then yes, we must listen to the opinions of those groups.

    Quite simple really.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by physicst)
    The question has statistical background. All Islamist are not cruel but majority are which leads to this phobia . In case of other religion vice versa is applicable imo . I am not always correct.
    majority? Nah.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ranadosa)
    majority? Nah.
    Do you understand the difference between an Islamist and a Moslem?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

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

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