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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WebSurfer)
    Not read but rather listened to it. And I listened enough to give me true view of whether it promotes violence or not.
    Did you have any control over which bits were recited to you, or were they selected by the reader? Have you heard verses 5:29-40?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limadima)
    omygod, you're a psychopath please stop quoting me, if two random letters make you go on a rant about slavery, you need help..
    The Muslamic raygun is strong in this one:

    Attack someone
    Attacked person responds
    Play the victim

    Muslamic raygun successfully utilised.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    A lot of violence in the Old Testament. So why aren't Christians and Jews killing non-believers?
    An interesting question. There is a lot of violence in the Old Testament. I suspect the difference is accounted for by:

    (a) the Judaeo-Christian scripture not actually claiming to be the infallible word of God

    (b) the Judaeo-Christian scripture not actually telling its adherents to punish non-believers

    (b) In the case of Christians, the rules changed anyway when Jesus talked about changing the laws to turning the other cheek, rendering unto Caesar and loving thy neighbour

    (d) In the case of both Jews and Christians (though probably not in the USA), most western adherents are half-hearted, well-educated, and no longer truly believers - the opposite of Islam

    (e) Islam's scripture claims the scripture is the unchanging and infallible word of a god, and does enjoin its adherents to punish non-believers, and to keep away from them where possible (and they do follow it)

    (f) Christianity's role model is the polar opposite of Islam's: a peace-loving hippy who helped people and never hurt a fly, compared to an aggressive warlord who kept slaves and had people killed

    and (g) maybe it comes back to education and a more developed society, but Moslems just seem to be more superstitious than Jews and Christians, more inclined to indoctrinate children, and more rigorous in their adherence

    What do you think the reasons are?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Have you read the Bible? A lot of violence in the Old Testament. So why aren't Christians and Jews killing non-believers?
    Christians voided laws of the Old Testament.
    Jews perform their commandments according to the Laws of Torah, and not according to violent events described in Torah.
    There is no commandment "kill non-believer".
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by veryam*****ious)
    Hate to break it to you, but you are dead wrong mate. In 2013, for example, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe. Only two of them were “religiously motivated,” while 84 were predicated upon ethno-nationalist or separatist beliefs. You may think that most terrorists are Muslim, however it is just the media that selectively chooses to air these stories and magnify them beyond the limits of truth.G'day sir.
    You actually believe that! Lol! C'mon. It's not rocket science. Do you not keep tabs on what is going in the world. There are plenty of different news channels out there, not mainstream either. You soon get a feel of what is actually happening if you process what you read sceptically and critically. Close your eyes and imagine, even just for a moment, a world without Islam.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 41b)
    I am surprised that there is not more mainstream media coverage of this event.
    Coming up to the EU Referendum, I'm not surprised at all. It's the last thing the government and all those with jobs linked to the lucrative EU gravy train, want people to hear. It's all about controlling the press and lying to the public, in order to push through a political agenda. The EU promotes 'multiculturalism' (which really means 'Islam') because their left-wing plan is to bring in mass (male) Muslim immigration into Europe to change the demographic, wipe out the evolved Western cultures of the European states, wage a class war and instil Orwellian communist bureaucracy. Wages will be brought down. The white-loathing lefties like Merkel and her ideological sympaticos are behaving like criminals.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I wonder how or why it ended up in the recycle bin ?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)


    and (g) maybe it comes back to education and a more developed society, but Moslems just seem to be more superstitious than Jews and Christians, more inclined to indoctrinate children, and more rigorous in their adherence

    What do you think the reasons are?
    Western born Jihadists are disproportionately well educated and come from financially stable backgrounds.

    More than 50% of the Muslims in the UK want homosexuals prosecuted, more than 70% want non-Muslim blasphemers prosecuted.

    Are you suggesting 70% of UK Muslims are living in poverty or don't have access to further education ?

    I'll have a go at explaining what I think the cause is, but we know from experience what you have posited is not a contributing factor, education and poverty do not precipitate this

    If Jews and Christians committed themselves to 1400 years of sectarian cleansing of all but the most dedicated and pious we would see a drop in rationalism, as having religion/faith is an ability to surrender ones critical faculties. There is obviously a background racial pattern and an unique ideological precept that makes the situation what it is.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    Western born Jihadists are disproportionately well educated and come from financially stable backgrounds.

    More than 50% of the Muslims in the UK want homosexuals prosecuted, more than 70% want non-Muslim blasphemers prosecuted.

    Are you suggesting 70% of UK Muslims are living in poverty or don't have access to further education ?

    I'll have a go at explaining what I think the cause is, but we know from experience what you have posited is not a contributing factor, education and poverty do not precipitate this

    If Jews and Christians committed themselves to 1400 years of sectarian cleansing of all but the most dedicated and pious we would see a drop in rationalism, as having religion/faith is an ability to surrender ones critical faculties. There is obviously a background racial pattern and an unique ideological precept that makes the situation what it is.
    I think also Western society is very permissive and allows Muslims to get away with things they'd be executed / delimbed for in their home countries.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by veryam*****ious)
    Hate to break it to you, but you are dead wrong mate. In 2013, for example, there were 152 terror attacks in Europe
    152? What is your source for this? Are you even able to name three of them? How many of these attacks actually resulted in death? (actually, I can think of one of the attacks of 2013; when a French Muslim shot dead a soldier, and then proceeded to a Jewish school and cut down six children under the age of 8 in a hail of terrible gunfire)

    The incontestable fact is that there is a significant minority in the Muslim community of Britain who despise the advanced, secular and tolerant civilisation we have developed. They sympathise with the murder of others on the basis of their being infidels or homosexuals or adulterers or simply being a citizen of a Western democracy.

    Groups from within this minority have committed absolutely tragic and profoundly upsetting mass murders, like when four British Muslims blew themselves up on the London Underground and on a bus, killing 52 people. Has there been any comparable attack in the UK in the 21st century committed by adherents from any other ideological-religious subculture? Is there a Jewish terrorist underground that throws grenades at 10 Downing Street when the government does something Israel doesn't like? Is there a violent Sikh or Hindu group that slaughters fellow travellers on public transport in pursuance of a grievance that is from their Indian homeland? Are there any Christian terrorist groups who set off car bombs outside gay clubs to signify, through slaughter, their opposition to homosexuality?

    It is beyond dispute that there is a serious issue with terrorism and support for violent Islamism among a significant minority in the Muslim community. It is also true of a plurality or perhaps a majority within the Muslim community who are so committed to their tribalistic groupthink grievance complex that they deny the obvious and incontestable reality of this problem of young Muslim men and women coming out of their community and committing nauseating violence against their fellow citizens, or even travelling overseas to commit rape, enslavement and execution of groups about whom they know absolutely nothing (the Yezidi) in service to his cause of violent ideological Islamism.

    Are you Muslim? If so, you have simply confirmed the prevalence of the absolute commitment to putting your heads in the sand and denying even the existence of a problem in your community. If you are a leftist fellow traveller, you are treading the well-worn path of misguidedly allying yourself with violent Islamist medievalists, just as the foolish Iranian left did in 1979 believing that they could link up with the Islamic extremists to get rid of the Shah but then pursue a left agenda. In the 1980s tens of thousands of Iranian leftists were executed and Iran has suffered under the boot of Islamic extremism ever since. Perhaps the path is even more well-trodden when we think of the same sort of people who supported the Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939 and justified it in the name of "peace" and "anti-imperialism".

    Rather than making a persuasive argument to attack the position of the person to whom your responded, all you accomplished was to out yourself as yet another person who refuses to even acknowledge the existence of this problem, and in so doing become culpable in your own way for the ongoing violence originating from, and isolation of, the Muslim community.

    QE2 Plantagenet Crown Good bloke HanSoloLuck Hachik0 Emperor Trajan
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NickLCFC)
    Because attacks like these, more often than not, are religiously motivated. It's important information.
    so that means all attacks which are not religiously motivated have unimportant motives?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sainsburys wraps)
    so that means all attacks which are not religiously motivated have unimportant motives?
    If an attack is random and based on a trivial personal dispute, or intoxication, then that is simply a phenomenon that is characteristic of living in a human community. They happen, and the police and courts deal with them as best they can, as do government/local authorities in taking measures that tweak alcohol licensing regulations, school education programmes, prison sentences for knife carriage and so on.

    But if an attack is being carried out pursuant to a politico-religious agenda like Islamism, then that is something we are able to, and must, take measures against and which we are capable of reducing to almost nothing in terms of occurrences. It's also a phenomenon that is liable to grow and spread if not checked and dealt with. Furthermore, violence incited by that politico-religious motive has been the cause of violent incidents (like the suicide bombings of July 2005 that killed 52 Britons on the London Underground and bus) that far outweigh in scope, damage and tragedy of any random pub brawl or gang fight.

    If this man attacked people based on an extremist Islamic interpretation, then it is significant and it should be investigated thoroughly; is he part of a cell? Was he incited by a hate preacher who is at large and free to spread his message? Were there warning signs that were missed? Thus, his motive does matter and if it was Islamist in character, then it makes the attack more significant. That all seems quite self-evident, no?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    If an attack is random and based on a trivial personal dispute, or intoxication, then that is simply a phenomenon that is characteristic of living in a human community. They happen, and the police and courts deal with them as best they can, as do government/local authorities in taking measures that tweak alcohol licensing regulations, school education programmes, prison sentences for knife carriage and so on.

    But if an attack is being carried out pursuant to a politico-religious agenda like Islamism, then that is something we are able to, and must, take measures against and which we are capable of reducing to almost nothing in terms of occurrences. It's also a phenomenon that is liable to grow and spread if not checked and dealt with. Furthermore, violence incited by that politico-religious motive has been the cause of violent incidents (like the suicide bombings of July 2005 that killed 52 Britons on the London Underground and bus) that far outweigh in scope, damage and tragedy of any random pub brawl or gang fight.

    If this man attacked people based on an extremist Islamic interpretation, then it is significant and it should be investigated thoroughly; is he part of a cell? Was he incited by a hate preacher who is at large and free to spread his message? Were there warning signs that were missed? Thus, his motive does matter and if it was Islamist in character, then it makes the attack more significant. That all seems quite self-evident, no?
    It should be implicit that the sole cause is not religion. People don't go out and kill people because of religion alone, there is a multitude of factors contributing to why someone would do this, and spamming threads about how religion was the only identifiable motive is not the way to go.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sainsburys wraps)
    It should be implicit that the sole cause is not religion. People don't go out and kill people because of religion alone, there is a multitude of factors contributing to why someone would do this, and spamming threads about how religion was the only identifiable motive is not the way to go.
    I don't think Islam is being identified as a sole and total cause; it is Islamism that is being identified as the possible the driving factor. Islamism is a politico-religious ideology. However, it must also be said that a prerequisite for becoming a violence-inclined Islamist is that you first become a Muslim. You don't find violent atheist Islamists, for example. You might even compare Islam to the concept of a "gateway drug"; it is the pathway that may lead ultimately to violent terrorist crimes

    Furthermore, it is alleged (and I believe substantiated) that Islam's belief system and tenets easily lend themselves to an Islamist interpretation. There are many passages in the Quran that justify, or even mandate, a mindset that prescribes violence against non-Muslims, homosexuals, adulterers etc until the entire world has come under the Dar al-Islam.

    In addition, the complex interplay of religion and culture leads Muslims, both as a world religion and as a religious minority within Western countries, to consistently view themselves as being persecuted, under attack, victimised. The global Islam consciousness encourages a grievance culture (about the Israel-Palestine issue, about Sunni/Shi'a sectarianism, about Kashmir and about any situation where non-Muslims are present in "Muslim lands" ) that takes on a terrible and inexorable logic leading to a conclusion that violence is not only justified but mandated on both the political and religious levels.

    Further to the above, and related to the above point, the decision of many parts of the European Muslims to isolate themselves from the host society's dominant culture, to look down on it and view it with contempt, to reduce opportunities for everyday and ordinary interaction between these Muslims and their non-Muslims fellow citizens, is yet another potentiating factor that creates the atmosphere within that community where literally thousands upon thousands of Muslims born in Europe to take up arms and join a group that makes war both on the country in which they were born and also against groups in the Middle East about which they know nothing but are willing to murder/rape/enslave.

    The final factor is the attitudes of the "mainstream" Muslim community; their viewing themselves as first and foremost a part of the global Muslim Ummah rather than comrades of their fellow European citizens. And the "mainstream" Muslim communities sympathy for and agreement with this culture of victimhood and persecution, and finally their absolute refusal to concede even that there is a problem that exists and must be tackled.

    So yes, it is relevant when a Muslim man goes crazy in a shopping centre and starts stabbing people (a tactic which ISIS has called on all Muslims in Western countries to do; that ISIS has ordered all Muslims globally to attack Westerners in any way they can, even with knives if they can't get access to firearms or explosives). In such a situation, it is absolutely relevant to determine whether his religion was completely irrelevant and he is just a crazy man, or whether he committed this not as a product of mental illness but in response to, and pursuance of, the Islamist ideology that has so cancerously spread within the Muslim community.

    If he was a Christian or a Sikh or a Jew, it's open-and-shut that he's a mad man; there are no Christian or Sikh or Jewish terrorist groups he could be acting on behalf of, no global war and campaign of terrorism by groups from those religions against the West. But being a Muslim, it means we must explore his precise motivations and also whether he might have accomplices, whether he is part of a terrorist cell, whether he was acting on orders from an ISIS commander overseas or a recruiter or hate preacher here in the UK. Do you see now why it is relevant?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    I don't think Islam is being identified as a sole and total cause; it is Islamism that is being identified as the possible the driving factor. Islamism is a politico-religious ideology. However, it must also be said that a prerequisite for becoming a violence-inclined Islamist is that you first become a Muslim. You don't find violent atheist Islamists, for example. You might even compare Islam to the concept of a "gateway drug"; it is the pathway that may lead ultimately to violent terrorist crimes

    Furthermore, it is alleged (and I believe substantiated) that Islam's belief system and tenets easily lend themselves to an Islamist interpretation. There are many passages in the Quran that justify, or even mandate, a mindset that prescribes violence against non-Muslims, homosexuals, adulterers etc until the entire world has come under the Dar al-Islam.

    In addition, the complex interplay of religion and culture leads Muslims, both as a world religion and as a religious minority within Western countries, to consistently view themselves as being persecuted, under attack, victimised. The global Islam consciousness encourages a grievance culture (about the Israel-Palestine issue, about Sunni/Shi'a sectarianism, about Kashmir and about any situation where non-Muslims are present in "Muslim lands" ) that takes on a terrible and inexorable logic leading to a conclusion that violence is not only justified but mandated on both the political and religious levels.

    Further to the above, and related to the above point, the decision of many parts of the European Muslims to isolate themselves from the host society's dominant culture, to look down on it and view it with contempt, to reduce opportunities for everyday and ordinary interaction between these Muslims and their non-Muslims fellow citizens, is yet another potentiating factor that creates the atmosphere within that community where literally thousands upon thousands of Muslims born in Europe to take up arms and join a group that makes war both on the country in which they were born and also against groups in the Middle East about which they know nothing but are willing to murder/rape/enslave.

    The final factor is the attitudes of the "mainstream" Muslim community; their viewing themselves as first and foremost a part of the global Muslim Ummah rather than comrades of their fellow European citizens. And the "mainstream" Muslim communities sympathy for and agreement with this culture of victimhood and persecution, and finally their absolute refusal to concede even that there is a problem that exists and must be tackled.

    So yes, it is relevant when a Muslim man goes crazy in a shopping centre and starts stabbing people (a tactic which ISIS has called on all Muslims in Western countries to do; that ISIS has ordered all Muslims globally to attack Westerners in any way they can, even with knives if they can't get access to firearms or explosives). In such a situation, it is absolutely relevant to determine whether his religion was completely irrelevant and he is just a crazy man, or whether he committed this not as a product of mental illness but in response to, and pursuance of, the Islamist ideology that has so cancerously spread within the Muslim community.

    If he was a Christian or a Sikh or a Jew, it's open-and-shut that he's a mad man; there are no Christian or Sikh or Jewish terrorist groups he could be acting on behalf of, no global war and campaign of terrorism by groups from those religions against the West. But being a Muslim, it means we must explore his precise motivations and also whether he might have accomplices, whether he is part of a terrorist cell, whether he was acting on orders from an ISIS commander overseas or a recruiter or hate preacher here in the UK. Do you see now why it is relevant?
    This is a massively long-winded way of saying nothing at all.

    Islam is quite obviously not the sole cause in incidents like this, when we have a world population of 1.6 billion Muslims. There are obviously other specific factors which cause incidents like this, otherwise what's stopping all Muslims from doing it?

    With regard to the 'violence in the Quran', these things are open to interpretation. It is not clear in what it says a lot of the time, and thats why there are so many people purporting it in different ways.

    And many Muslims are attacked and persecuted, we have groups like Britain First who actively harass Muslim communities in Britain, and many others throughout Europe. I think it should be fine to criticise a religion, but there is a fine line between hate speech and criticism. When you go around claiming that halal meat funds terrorists and you make edited videos designed to incite hatred against Islam - that is a step too far. This could be one of many factors leading to their isolationism, but the isolationism certainly isn't widespread, and neither is it particularly different to isolation of other religious groups from society.

    And are you seriously telling me there aren't any non-Islamic terrorist groups on this planet? A simple google search would do you good.




    Also please make your writing concise, you think you get some kind of intellectual leverage by saying lots of 'exotic words' and expanding your word count insanely, but in all you could have made your points in each paragraph in two sentences. You didn't really say anything with those extra words and if you think it intimidates me, think again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sainsburys wraps)
    This is a massively long-winded way of saying nothing at all.
    It's a very complex issue, there were six discrete reasons I raised as being why there was necessarily a focus on the religion of the perpetrator if his religion was Islam.

    It was a long post, but to claim nothing was said at all is bizarre.

    Also please make your writing concise, you think you get some kind of intellectual leverage by saying lots of 'exotic words' and expanding your word count insanely, but in all you could have made your points in each paragraph in two sentences. You didn't really say anything with those extra words and if you think it intimidates me, think again.
    I did you the courtesy of taking your point seriously, and responding comprehensively. Your own ill-mannered and boorish response and assumption about my intentions simply reveal your own insecurities.

    You seem to be becoming highly emotional and overwrought. You are responding to my perfectly courteous posts that took your position seriously (and gave it a considered, if long, response) with almost hysterical paranoia and personal attacks.

    And looking back now at your "contributions", it seems to me that your insecurities about an inferiority of intellect are not entirely unfounded. That, added to your overemotional and churlish reply, make it clear that there is little profit to be had in further interacting with you. Bye.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    It's a very complex issue, there were six discrete reasons I raised as being why there was necessarily a focus on the religion of the perpetrator if his religion was Islam.

    It was a long post, but to claim nothing was said at all is bizarre.



    I did you the courtesy of taking your point seriously, and responding comprehensively. Your own ill-mannered and boorish response and assumption about my intentions simply reveal your own insecurities.

    You seem to be becoming highly emotional and overwrought. You are responding to my perfectly courteous posts that took your position seriously (and gave it a considered, if long, response) with almost hysterical paranoia and personal attacks.

    And looking back now at your "contributions", it seems to me that your insecurities about an inferiority of intellect are not entirely unfounded. That, added to your overemotional and churlish reply, make it clear that there is little profit to be had in further interacting with you. Bye.
    If you quote my post and respond to it properly instead of defending your ego, you would appreciate that your 'six reasons' are disputable.

    It seems as if you're more interested in staying above me somehow when in fact all you did was give six theories as to why some Muslims cause violence in the form of 7 long-winded paragraphs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sainsburys wraps)
    If you quote my post and respond to it properly instead of defending your ego, you would appreciate that your 'six reasons' are disputable.
    Oh the irony! The one who took an, until then, perfectly courteous conversation and started making highly emotional personal attacks, and bemoaning the substantive and methodical character of my post, now demands a comprehensive response.

    Islam is quite obviously not the sole cause in incidents like this
    This sentence of yours simply confirms my suspicions about your intellectual defects. I outlined quite comprehensively in my post that Islam was not the sole cause of the incident; in fact, characterising the distinction between religion as a sole cause (an explanation I patently rejected) and Islam as a possible relevant factor was a substantial portion of my post.

    It is quite clear that you have difficulties with reading comprehension; that fine distinctions in this subject elude your ham-fisted grasp and that no matter what I write, you will insist on bringing the subject back to the same strawman argument that allows you to perpetuate the grievance culture. Your subsequent accusations about my intentions perfectly dovetail with your paranoia and highly emotional approach to the subject overall.

    As such, there is no point in further debating with you. Even if you possessed the intellectual capacity to grapple with the points I was making, your victimhood obsession and emotional disposition would still prevent any reasoned discussion. This will be my last post to you on this thread.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thutmose-III)
    Oh the irony! The one who took an, until then, perfectly courteous conversation and started making highly emotional personal attacks, and bemoaning the substantive and methodical character of my post, now demands a comprehensive response.



    This sentence of yours simply confirms my suspicions about your intellectual defects. I outlined quite comprehensively in my post that Islam was not the sole cause of the incident; in fact, characterising the distinction between religion as a sole cause (an explanation I patently rejected) and Islam as a possible relevant factor was a substantial portion of my post.

    It is quite clear that you have difficulties with reading comprehension; that fine distinctions in this subject elude your ham-fisted grasp and that no matter what I write, you will insist on bringing the subject back to the same strawman argument that allows you to perpetuate the grievance culture. Your subsequent accusations about my intentions perfectly dovetail with your paranoia and highly emotional approach to the subject overall.

    As such, there is no point in further debating with you. Even if you possessed the intellectual capacity to grapple with the points I was making, your victimhood obsession and emotional disposition would still prevent any reasoned discussion. This will be my last post to you on this thread.
    If you're going to bring up irony, then talk about courtesy and then say I have 'intellectual defects' for comprehending that extremists within Islam isn't a one-dimensional problem as you think it is, then get lost. I thought you were going anyway?

    But its really quite obvious you're stuck up yourself using fancy words in massive paragraphs as weapons rather than reinforcing a solid point and constantly bringing up intellect like its the only measure of a man.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HanSoloLuck)
    I made the very same thread earlier, it got removed because I mentioned he was a Muslim. Feeds the idea that there is a media blackout in effect, as with most Muslim perpetrated crime against non-Muslims.
    Because you guys keep talking about Muslims!
 
 
 
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: June 8, 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.