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

British Muslims: 'You are lazy if you say extremism is not Islamic' watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    And because the wealthy places don't get affected people don't realise they don't exist.
    Exactly right.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    If they were regular and reflected the teachings of the Bible to a significant sense it would be morally good of you to vocally condemn them and take steps to reduce their influence, so yes, to some degree.
    The pope hasn't condemned christian extremists attacks
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    The pope hasn't condemned christian extremists attacks
    You cant condem what does not exist.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catholic_)
    You cant condem what does not exist.
    What about Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people in Norway who saw himself as a crusader Christian?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Surely Muslims are the ones most concerned with extremism? The ratio of Muslims to extremists is overwhelming and clearly shows 99% of Muslims are not nor do they support the actions done in the name of their religion.

    Across the world, they have quickly stood up with everybody else to say that what is happening is not on them and they're equally upset and shocked by this.

    Religion and terrorism are not linked. How many Christians have gone on killing sprees? The media calls that the single act of a madman rather than what it actually may be.

    Just like feminism is an issue for everybody, so is this. You cannot blame an entire community for the actions of the minority.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reptilian)
    What about Anders Behring Breivik who killed 77 people in Norway who saw himself as a crusader Christian?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    He did it against Nowegian politicians for their crime of imposing mass immigration onto another group. Not for Jesus.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paigerichards)
    Surely Muslims are the ones most concerned with extremism? The ratio of Muslims to extremists is overwhelming and clearly shows 99% of Muslims are not nor do they support the actions done in the name of their religion.

    Across the world, they have quickly stood up with everybody else to say that what is happening is not on them and they're equally upset and shocked by this.

    Religion and terrorism are not linked. How many Christians have gone on killing sprees? The media calls that the single act of a madman rather than what it actually may be.

    Just like feminism is an issue for everybody, so is this. You cannot blame an entire community for the actions of the minority.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    How can terror and Islam not be 'linked'. It's like suggesting the KKK's beliefs were not racial. Islamists beliefs are religious. If you had the ability to judge Islamism on facts other than your emotions, without personalizing the issue, without viewing the issue in 'saying x may be offensive' you would be able to open your eyes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The KKK were racially motivated and applying the typical logic of this posts suggests that all white people are racist, and that simply isn't true, much like idea that all terrorists are Muslims.

    The Norway Attack in 2011 was done by a devout Christian, yet the media called him an unstable mind. The double standard hypocrisy in the way these cases are reported are likely to spread biased views like yours to others


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Catholic_)
    He did it against Nowegian politicians for their crime of imposing mass immigration onto another group. Not for Jesus.
    Then these terrorists are acting against the West for their occupation of Muslim countries and not for Allah. Same logic.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    The pope hasn't condemned christian extremists attacks
    When did I say that the Pope was morally good, and what evidence do you have that Christian terrorist attacks are sufficiently frequent and in keeping with biblical teachings to warrant vocal disassociation of them from the main body of Christians?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    When did I say that the Pope was morally good, and what evidence do you have that Christian terrorist attacks are sufficiently frequent and in keeping with biblical teachings to warrant vocal disassociation of them from the main body of Christians?
    You never said he wasn't and simple its called Google
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    You never said he wasn't and simple its called Google
    Right, so your argument was unjustified by evidence and unrelated to any claims I've actually made. Good one.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    Right, so your argument was unjustified by evidence and unrelated to any claims I've actually made. Good one.
    There are numerous articles its just I have exams so I don't have the time researching it but here are a few:http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-an...ight-white-men and http://www.commdiginews.com/world-ne...-muslims-9691/
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    There are numerous articles its just I have exams so I don't have the time researching it but here are a few:http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-an...ight-white-men and http://www.commdiginews.com/world-ne...-muslims-9691/
    Evidence is useless unless you've connected your argument to something I've said, but I've never claimed the Pope did or did not do anything, and a couple of Christian terrorist attacks is patently not equivalent to a murderous caliphate rampaging across the globe.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    Evidence is useless unless you've connected your argument to something I've said, but I've never claimed the Pope did or did not do anything, and a couple of Christian terrorist attacks is patently not equivalent to a murderous caliphate rampaging across the globe.
    You asked me about where is the evidence and then I show you some and thats not relevant?

    "What I do believe is that it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to vocally repudiate the extremism with their religion, or otherwise to challenge it."
    Here is an article about christian terrorism: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ian-extremism/

    Christian terrorists attacks are happening and moderate christians aren't vocally repudiate this extremism.

    What exactly are your points?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    You asked me about where is the evidence and then I show you some and thats not relevant?

    "What I do believe is that it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to vocally repudiate the extremism with their religion, or otherwise to challenge it."
    Here is an article about christian terrorism: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...ian-extremism/

    Christian terrorists attacks are happening and moderate christians aren't vocally repudiate this extremism.

    What exactly are your points?
    It's not relevant because I never said that the Pope was morally good. Your argument is that it isn't fair for me to say that the Islamic community generally should be vocal in condemning ISIS, because the Pope doesn't do the same, but it's irrelevant if I never even said that he was good.

    My point is that the Islamic community in general should vocally condemn the terrorist attacks which are now a significant consequence of their religion.

    You've focused on the fact that I don't say the same for Christians, but I've never said I won't do so as a rule. I'm not sure whether I think the several acts you've presented, which are generally small or dubiously connected to religion, qualify as 'sufficiently regular', and therefore warrant the general condemnation of the community. However, I'm not saying I wouldn't draw that conclusion if presented with more compelling evidence. You're trying to suggest that I adopt a double standard, but I don't. It's just that I know more about Islamic terrorism than I do Christian terrorism so I'm better able to make a judgement.

    So why do you keep throwing all this evidence at me? Christian extremists could kill thousands, or even millions more people than they do now, and this wouldn't change the fact that it would be good for Islamic communities to condemn this extremism.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    It's not relevant because I never said that the Pope was morally good. Your argument is that it isn't fair for me to say that the Islamic community generally should be vocal in condemning ISIS, because the Pope doesn't do the same, but it's irrelevant if I never even said that he was good.

    My point is that the Islamic community in general should vocally condemn the terrorist attacks which are now a significant consequence of their religion.

    You've focused on the fact that I don't say the same for Christians, but I've never said I won't do so as a rule. I'm not sure whether I think the several acts you've presented, which are generally small or dubiously connected to religion, qualify as 'sufficiently regular', and therefore warrant the general condemnation of the community. However, I'm not saying I wouldn't draw that conclusion if presented with more compelling evidence. You're trying to suggest that I adopt a double standard, but I don't. It's just that I know more about Islamic terrorism than I do Christian terrorism so I'm better able to make a judgement.

    So why do you keep throwing all this evidence at me? Christian extremists could kill thousands, or even millions more people than they do now, and this wouldn't change the fact that it would be good for Islamic communities to condemn this extremism.

    My point is that the Islamic community in general should vocally condemn the terrorist attacks which are now a significant consequence of their religion.

    They shouldn't have to though, I don't understand why people believe this, their religious leader condemning the attacks is not going to make any difference. I know this next point isn't the same but it's the only way I can try to explain it.. If someone condemns murder or terrorism people will still choose to do it despite the person public condemning them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    My point is that the Islamic community in general should vocally condemn the terrorist attacks which are now a significant consequence of their religion.

    They shouldn't have to though, I don't understand why people believe this, their religious leader condemning the attacks is not going to make any difference. I know this next point isn't the same but it's the only way I can try to explain it.. If someone condemns murder or terrorism people will still choose to do it despite the person public condemning them.
    First of all, even if it were true that their condemnation had no influence on the prevalence of such terrorism, it would be morally good for them to condemn it, particularly because, like it or not, they share a lot of ideology in common with the terrorists. It's just the same as it would be morally good of me to condemn those right-wingers who reject voluntary charity entirely, though I am not obliged to and though it most probably will not influence them.

    Secondly, I'm not sure its true that it wouldn't influence them. We know that a considerable number of Muslims from Europe, and Britain in particular, have joined IS, attempted to, or otherwise engaged in terrorist activity. I don't know much about what goes on in Mosques, but even if they do, as I have no reason to believe they do, vocally and vigorously condemn Islamic extremism, there is no reason why they shouldn't do so publicly and there is a good reason why they should. It really isn't unreasonable at all to expect that if we created an atmosphere in which nobody doubted at all the lack of sympathy which anybody had with Islamic extremism, the likelihood of British youths sympathizing with it would be reduced.

    Tell me, for what reason shouldn't they condemn it?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tomfailinghelp)
    First of all, even if it were true that their condemnation had no influence on the prevalence of such terrorism, it would be morally good for them to condemn it, particularly because, like it or not, they share a lot of ideology in common with the terrorists. It's just the same as it would be morally good of me to condemn those right-wingers who reject voluntary charity entirely, though I am not obliged to and though it most probably will not influence them.

    Secondly, I'm not sure its true that it wouldn't influence them. We know that a considerable number of Muslims from Europe, and Britain in particular, have joined IS, attempted to, or otherwise engaged in terrorist activity. I don't know much about what goes on in Mosques, but even if they do, as I have no reason to believe they do, vocally and vigorously condemn Islamic extremism, there is no reason why they shouldn't do so publicly and there is a good reason why they should. It really isn't unreasonable at all to expect that if we created an atmosphere in which nobody doubted at all the lack of sympathy which anybody had with Islamic extremism, the likelihood of British youths sympathizing with it would be reduced.

    Tell me, for what reason shouldn't they condemn it?

    The reason is simplifying that they should not have to. Everybody's morals are different and mine are simply that by being a member of a religion you should not have to publicly condemn behaviour of a few extremists of the same religion
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emski)
    The reason is simplifying that they should not have to. Everybody's morals are different and mine are simply that by being a member of a religion you should not have to publicly condemn behaviour of a few extremists of the same religion
    Um, it well may be that 'everyone's morals are different', but we can all agree that condemning the behavior of Jihadists is good if it reduces Jihadist activity.

    Perhaps more contentious is whether we can agree that the Islamic community distancing itself from Jihadism/Islamic Extremism is morally good, but I don't see why it shouldn't be? Certainly there would be nothing bad about it, it would make a lot of people more happy and comfortable, and it would be a good thing because it would be a display of solidarity against extremism - which is in itself good.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.