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

    18
    (Original post by ironandbeer2)
    Too right, it was probably the CIA.
    This post was made before culpability had been established. Continuing to quote it as some sort of opportunity to crack cheap jokes is hardly productive.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    This post was made before culpability had been established. Continuing to quote it as some sort of opportunity to crack cheap jokes is hardly productive.
    lol who else do you think would have beef with the French? Climate change protestors deciding to shoot up loads of people?
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by ironandbeer2)
    lol who else do you think would have beef with the French? Climate change protestors deciding to shoot up loads of people?
    I prefer evidence to apparent common sense. I am not going to establish guilt for something like this without some sort of confession or other proof of culpability. As far as terrorist attacks go, I think it's a good rule to see if a particular argument would stand up in court before accepting it. Would saying 'lol who else do you think would have a beef with the French' stand up? No, it wouldn't, hence I don't accept it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drowzee)
    What an absurd statement to make. Many immigrants have integrated perfectly well, and are 'just like everybody else'. People will not give up on some of their culture because it's a part of their identity, there is nothing wrong with that. As long as they have integrated and respect the British culture, then they are just like everybody else.

    Yes because that would make everything better OP. I dislike Islam, but we cannot just taint people with same brush and discriminate over a billion people. It would only make things worse.
    I get your point, adopting liberal values and mellowing out doesn't mean abandoning their whole culture and that's pretty much been the assumption of immigration up to this point, but people adopt a lot of the values of their new country while retaining some of their old ways. Im not saying every Muslim is 'evil', in fact, with each generation they become a generation further removed from the traditions and value system of the nation of their immigrant ancestors.

    But with new immigrants coming in, extremists could be one of them too. For example the Syrian refugees.. Coming to Germany and Austria, many of them entered the countries undocumented.. Extremists could have been one of them
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BGreen123)
    You need to read it with context. When it was written, heretics were executed so that's where those quotes come from. In Ecclesiasticus it states homosexuality is wrong so are all Christians homophobes?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I have read with context, I am a student of Islamic history. I wouldn't talk about islam as a muslim unless I had studied the historical situation of the time in which it was revealed. You are totally, totally incorrect. The first time any group of muslims were declared heretics was during the reign of Abu Bakr during the ridda wars, not Muhammad.
    The ridda wars were waged against arab tribes who accepted Muhammd as a prophet but declared that they owed nothing to Abu Bakr, including their oaths of allegiance or bay'ah.
    Abu Bakr declared the people rom the three tribes who had professed belief in new prophets Musaylima, Tulayha and Sajjah (each new prophet(esse)s of each of the three tribes) who then went on to try and conquer makkah and was repelled) as non muslim heretics - and this was a correct definition for them.
    This was defensive.

    However, he also declared muslim towns and villages which didn't profess belief in a new prophet, and didn't even declare war on Abu Bakr's regime or get ready for war, as heretics. This was because they refused to pay him zakaat, or the compulsory tax for all muslims those over the poverty line. Despite that these people continued to give zakaat to the poor, Abu Bakr declared this as illegitimate (attributing a false saying to Muhammad to d so), and because zakaat was compulsory and they refused to pay him, he defined them as non muslims.
    He then went on to send his general Khalid bin Waleed to slaughter the people of those communities. This was by no means defensive. His excuse was another falsified saying of muhammad declaring apostasy a capital offense.
    Less importantly, they were not apostates. More importantly, Muhammad didn't kill any of those three men who publicly declared conversion away from islam - Ubaydullah ibn Jahsh (to christianity), Ayyaash (atheism), and Hishaam (polytheism).
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    That would be incredibly unfair. This is assuming that all Muslims are involved in the attacks or believe in them.
    A lot of these Muslims are running to find safety because they too are being attacked by the same people we are.
    Could you live with yourself knowing you denied so many humans safety? That you turned them away and sent them to a brutal death?
    Besides, immigration is not the only method they have to get IS members into our countries. A lot of them contact people via social media and have people already living here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by magicstars64)
    That would be incredibly unfair. This is assuming that all Muslims are involved in the attacks or believe in them.
    A lot of these Muslims are running to find safety because they too are being attacked by the same people we are.
    Could you live with yourself knowing you denied so many humans safety? That you turned them away and sent them to a brutal death?
    Besides, immigration is not the only method they have to get IS members into our countries. A lot of them contact people via social media and have people already living here.
    So far, of the 2 terrorists from the Paris attacks identified so far, 1 was french, one had a syrian passport whose owner Greek authorities have records of entering their country as a refugee. However, syrian passports have value on the black market, and it's possible this one was stolen and then sold to the terrorist. So there's a chance that refugees aren't involved at all, though I doubt there are zero isis members embedded among them.

    The fact that isis fighters embedded among the syrian refugees in lebanon took over the Qalamoun mountains is proof of that. Although, the mountains are being retaken by Hezbollah and their lebanese christian allies as we speak.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniMastermindBOSS)
    Muslims would not be capable if beating anyone in a war.

    They focus on hate and killing rather than contributing anything good to society. In a couple of hours we could easily wipe out every life form from every single muslim country there is, but luckily for them we don't live to hate and kill others. We focus on science and technology, and improving life rather than hate, which means we are much more advanced.

    This is why muslims now are immigrating to other countries where they can have more and more kids until they can take over that way. Already now it's dangerous because even your next door neighbour could be plotting attacks and waiting until the right time.

    Muslims do not want to integrate, they are here to cause trouble and nothing else. People who believe in other religions have no problems integrating because they understand it's not their country and we have different cultures. If they thought that was a problem, they would leave, not go around causing trouble and killing innocent people.
    speculative, fear/hate mongering bs that sounds like it's come straight from some tabloid article - all assumptions, nothing of substance

    plus 'we' could 'wipe them out' - how? have you any idea of how warfare works in modern society? we're not talking trenches and bayonets anymore, it's a whole lot more complex
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Muslims are not a race. Please don't racialise us.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Apologies... i know people who are anti-jews are anti-sematic but i dont know the politically correct way to refer to anti-muslims
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    We need to consider deporting the ones already here, unless we want to be living under the Shariah in 2050, which is what 40% of the so called moderate majority of muslims in the UK want.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    We need to consider deporting the ones already here, unless we want to be living under the Shariah in 2050, which is what 40% of the so called moderate majority of muslims in the UK want.
    What a preposterous xenophobic point! Who will run the NHS, dentists or judiciary system?! Most Muslims I know are all doctors or studying working very hard to become quality providers to the population. Deporting Muslims would mean the country would fall apart


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pereira325)
    Apologies... i know people who are anti-jews are anti-sematic but i dont know the politically correct way to refer to anti-muslims
    There isn't one. 'Islamophobic' is the pc term for 'anti islamic' whereas there is no way to refer to hatred of the muslim people (the ummah) as opposed to hatred of the islamic religion, which is called anti-islamicism. Anti-muslim is the most correct term to use, but it's not in wide use.
    The word 'anti-islamism' refers to people against the political system of Islam. I personally dislike this, because it'sthe same as anti-islamicism, as political ideas are at the heart of Islam, and its 'hands' are the parts of the islam political system (which are not in place anywhere, including da'esh/isis).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    We need to consider deporting the ones already here, unless we want to be living under the Shariah in 2050, which is what 40% of the so called moderate majority of muslims in the UK want.
    Again. I have been ideologically opposed, and vocally against sunni extremism/wahaabi-kharijites since I became religion 3 years ago. I have never done, thought or said anything against the people of MY country, i.e. Wales or the UK - on the contrary, I fought and continue to fight for many of its principles, which are the same as those I consider to be of my own religion. You want to take my right as a british citizen to live in the lands of my welsh ancestors as a free man?
    If britain was controlled by people who thought like you we'd essentially become a western ISIS.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Well, that's clearly bull****. Don't put words in my mouth because you fail to compute what I've actually said.
    I like you
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Question: Supposing a similar attack were to be carried out by Christians, or atheists, bar it not getting the same level of attention, would people also be advocating not letting in any more Christians or Atheists? How about if it was a black man, or homosexuals, or people with mental health issues, shall we also try get all the people with similar characteristics out of the country too?
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BGreen123)
    What a preposterous xenophobic point! Who will run the NHS, dentists or judiciary system?! Most Muslims I know are all doctors or studying working very hard to become quality providers to the population. Deporting Muslims would mean the country would fall apart

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    An overhyped fallacy. We survived for thousands of years before muslims showed up and we will survive after they have gone.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hasan_Ahmed)
    Again. I have been ideologically opposed, and vocally against sunni extremism/wahaabi-kharijites since I became religion 3 years ago. I have never done, thought or said anything against the people of MY country, i.e. Wales or the UK - on the contrary, I fought and continue to fight for many of its principles, which are the same as those I consider to be of my own religion. You want to take my right as a british citizen to live in the lands of my welsh ancestors as a free man?
    If britain was controlled by people who thought like you we'd essentially become a western ISIS.
    Then emmigrate to a shia country like Iran then. Islam has no place in Western civilization. It is completely opposed to it in fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, blaming all Muslims for attacks by ISIS - who have also attacked thousands of Muslims and burnt the Quran - and preventing 1.5 billion people from entering Europe is rather stupid.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Farage is a hero)
    Then emmigrate to a shia country like Iran then. Islam has no place in Western civilization. It is completely opposed to it in fact.
    Iran is still going through the process of ridding its attitudes and laws of the safavid, sunni influenced version of twelver shia islam. I have no interest in living there - this country is where my people are. This country is where I was born and raised. My best two languages are english and welsh.
    Authentic, classical Shia islam is in no way opposed to the values ofwestern civilisation except for minor things, like its positions on public sexuality and intoxication.

    It doesn't call for the killing of homosexuals, it affords equal rights to women, it gives privileges to non muslim minorities (like reduced tax rates, government funding for places of worship, no military conscription). It doesn't allow military imperial expansionism, being a socialist republican ideology. The killing of apostates for their change in beliefs is forbidden. The killing of members of other muslim sects is forbidden. Civil religious and political debate is conducted in public, and encouraged both in public and in private. Education is a right, and not a privilege. Cooperation with other muslim and non muslim states is sought, as well as the protection of weaker, threatened muslim and non muslim states. It doesn't allow fgm, forced marriage, the taking of slaves from prisoners of war, or marital rape. It promotes the use of pre-marital relationships to get to know people (called temporary marriage, or 'mut'ah', literally 'fulfillment' ) .
    There are many others.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Don't kid yourself. Your stance on just about every issue is consistently pro-Islam regardless of which way the evidence is pointing. A humanist sees value in all human beings, whereas your attitude seems to be to make light of the deaths of 120 (and counting) non-Muslims to push your pro-Islam views under the guise of humanism and anti-racism. Nobody who's seen your comments on threads of a similar subject matter to this one is under any illusions about what you're trying to do.
    If saying that not all Muslims are terrorists and that it's stupid to think of them that way is pro-Islam, then I am proudly pro-Islam.
 
 
 
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: December 12, 2016
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
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.