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

My take on ISIS and why we should STOP PRETENDING watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    I understand. But both are serious. We should care about all types of oppression and suffering hopefully.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    They are doing it for a reason, but its not for Islam. These people know that committing these atrocities makes Muslims feel hated, that they damage the Muslim community and make westerners hate Islam.

    They're doing it because their lives have been turned upside down and they want to harm as many people as possible.

    A quick glance of the profiles of these perpetrators often shows that they binge drink, use drugs, commit petty crimes and are generally irreligious - but apparently Islam is to blame still.
    For gods sake, you have at best discredited two quotes. Tell you what, if Islam doesn't condone terrorism, massacres, and conquest, why did Muhammad himself conquer most if not all the Arabian peninsula in his lifetime? Also, why did the Rashidun caliphs who succeeded him conquer from Tunisian to china, and the Umayyads to Portugal and Tours?

    You know, there is a possibility many turn to religions in bad times. I know I have turned back to Christianity in bad times of my life (against my better judgement perhaps, but that is the past), but I didn't go as far as to conquer in the name of Jesus, some people may go that far. It is probably easier for Muslims to do this since there is so much scripture and history behind this course of action.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    The answer to your facetious question is simple. Europe, North America and most of Eastern Asia are supposed to be safe countries. We dont expect terror attacks here on a daily basis. We DO expect terrorist attacks in the middle east and africa, so there is less of a surprise.

    So obviously we care more when attacks happen where they are not expected.

    Hope that answers your "question".
    Gulf Middle Eastern countries are supposed to be safe (much lower crime rate than America without people going on shooting sprees every other week), yet when terror attacks happen in those countries once in a while, as they do in the west, no one cares. No one cared when it happened in China or Malaysia. And to lump Africa (an entire continent) together as though it is one country is pure ignorance.

    Most people care about what affects them or what could affect them. At least be honest about it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    For gods sake, you have at best discredited two quotes. Tell you what, if Islam doesn't condone terrorism, massacres, and conquest, why did Muhammad himself conquer most if not all the Arabian peninsula in his lifetime? Also, why did the Rashidun caliphs who succeeded him conquer from Tunisian to china, and the Umayyads to Portugal and Tours?

    You know, there is a possibility many turn to religions in bad times. I know I have turned back to Christianity in bad times of my life (against my better judgement perhaps, but that is the past), but I didn't go as far as to conquer in the name of Jesus, some people may go that far. It is probably easier for Muslims to do this since there is so much scripture and history behind this course of action.
    Because the Quran was written 1500 years ago, back when conquest was the norm. The Romans conquered all of Europe and more, Genghis Khan conquered a massive part of Asia, why is Islam / Muhammad suddenly the one who needs to be brought to account?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    This is ridiculous, you don't just do something for no reason, and this seems like a very strong reason. Just because the majority of muslims do nothing doesn't mean that islam isn't responsible
    Islam is not an entity; it's not a monolith, thus the emboldened text makes no sense. If Islam was the "primary factor", we'd actually expect the vast majority of its devout adherents to commit act of terror, eradicate all non-Muslims from their countries, and general make life difficult for non-Muslims. Instead, we usually get mentally unstable, non-practising Muslims committing these acts.

    since, as I have stated, the Ideas and the history of islam shows very adequate justification for this action.
    Are you familiar with the Constitution of Medina?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Gulf Middle Eastern countries are supposed to be safe (much lower crime rate than America without people going on shooting sprees every other week), yet when terror attacks happen in those countries once in a while, as they do in the west, no one cares. No one cared when it happened in China or Malaysia. And to lump Africa (an entire continent) together as though it is one country is pure ignorance.

    Most people care about what affects them or what could affect them. At least be honest about it.
    I've lumped Europe, Eastern Asia and North America together as well, and yet you decide to focus on me "lumping" Africa together as if it were a single country? Thats quite peculiar, dont you think? Intersting selective perception problem.

    Speaking of ignorance, you do realise that many Gulf countries are considered safe because the state does the killing, rather than some random terrorist? Saudi Arabia is a terrorist haven, and to a large extent a terrorist state institution.

    At least you got the "most people care about what affects them" part correct.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    Because the Quran was written 1500 years ago, back when conquest was the norm. The Romans conquered all of Europe and more, Genghis Khan conquered a massive part of Asia, why is Islam / Muhammad suddenly the one who needs to be brought to account?
    Because he is telling the muslims in order to be closer to god and get to heaven they must follow what he or the caliphs said. I think the direct quotation for that is somewhere in Bukhari, cannot recall which one.

    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Islam is not an entity; it's not a monolith, thus the emboldened text makes no sense. If Islam was the "primary factor", we'd actually expect the vast majority of its devout adherents to commit act of terror, eradicate all non-Muslims from their countries, and general make life difficult for non-Muslims. Instead, we usually get mentally unstable, non-practising Muslims committing these acts.

    Are you familiar with the Constitution of Medina?
    Alright, allow me to be more clear. There is adequate room to interpret these texts in the manner. I am aware that the Sufis etc. aren't into that at all. A large proportion of the radical islamists do, and support it, although these people have different personalities too. Some simply lack the courage, some respect the law more, some don't wish to die etc. It takes some insanity and/or huge courage to do something that will result in your death, something the vast vast majority of people lack.

    No I am not. However, I never said that Jews and Christians couldn't coexist in Islamic countries either provided they paid the Jizya.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22935692
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Because he is telling the muslims in order to be closer to god and get to heaven they must follow what he or the caliphs said. I think the direct quotation for that is somewhere in Bukhari, cannot recall which one.



    Alright, allow me to be more clear. There is adequate room to interpret these texts in the manner. I am aware that the Sufis etc. aren't into that at all. A large proportion of the radical islamists do, and support it, although these people have different personalities too. Some simply lack the courage, some respect the law more, some don't wish to die etc. It takes some insanity and/or huge courage to do something that will result in your death, something the vast vast majority of people lack.

    No I am not. However, I never said that Jews and Christians couldn't coexist in Islamic countries either provided they paid the Jizya.
    1500 years ago...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    1500 years ago...
    It could be 5000 years ago, it doesn't matter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    It could be 5000 years ago, it doesn't matter.
    Was it really that troublesome to explain why?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    You're right. We should stop pretending. People care about ISIS because it's too close to home. Nobody cares about a famine in Sudan, or prison camps in North Korea, the Mexican drug war murders because it's far removed and human beings are wholly self interested.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    Was it really that troublesome to explain why?
    Because it has been written down as the correct thing to do. There is a reason why jews still follow the old testament in spite of parts being more than 3000 years old.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Because it has been written down as the correct thing to do. There is a reason why jews still follow the old testament in spite of parts being more than 3000 years old.
    This makes no sense to the original point about conquest, 1500 years ago, as I said, conquest and empires was normal and its an entirely different world to the 21st century environment. But apparently some prophet who told his people that what they were doing was in the name of God, is more accountable than the Romans or Genghis Khan or any of these other conquerers. Apparently the religious motivation means that Muhammad should be brought to justice and no one else. Why exactly is a religious motive suddenly more important?

    And even if it was, what about the crusades and all of the other non-Islamic, religious wars. Why is Islam the one to be attacked?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Galaxie501)
    I've lumped Europe, Eastern Asia and North America together as well, and yet you decide to focus on me "lumping" Africa together as if it were a single country? Thats quite peculiar, dont you think? Intersting selective perception problem.

    Speaking of ignorance, you do realise that many Gulf countries are considered safe because the state does the killing, rather than some random terrorist? Saudi Arabia is a terrorist haven, and to a large extent a terrorist state institution.

    At least you got the "most people care about what affects them" part correct.
    Saudi Arabia, yes, the other Gulf states rarely carry out the death penalty and still have low crime rates. I am against the rulers of those countries, especially the Saud family, but don't pretend that this is about which countries are or aren't safe.

    That was also ignorant but you did not do so negatively. Countries like Botswana, Tanzania and Malawi are safe countries, with a lower threat of terrorism than some of the countries in the regions you referred to. Yet you would "expect" terrorism in those countries because they are African.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    This makes no sense to the original point about conquest, 1500 years ago, as I said, conquest and empires was normal and its an entirely different world to the 21st century environment. But apparently some prophet who told his people that what they were doing was in the name of God, is more accountable than the Romans or Genghis Khan or any of these other conquerers. Apparently the religious motivation means that Muhammad should be brought to justice and no one else. Why exactly is a religious motive suddenly more important?

    And even if it was, what about the crusades and all of the other non-Islamic, religious wars. Why is Islam the one to be attacked?
    The fact it is conquest is irrelevant, and the world isn't that much different at a fundamental level. Is it really that hard to understand that maybe the messenger of god who cannot lie is followed to the letter? The religious motivation is more important as we have a concrete idea that can be targetted and criticised, like we did with nazism and fascism.

    The crusades to the middle east were fundamentally defensive against islam, and christianity is constantly attacked, are you blind?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    The fact it is conquest is irrelevant, and the world isn't that much different at a fundamental level. Is it really that hard to understand that maybe the messenger of god who cannot lie is followed to the letter? The religious motivation is more important as we have a concrete idea that can be targetted and criticised, like we did with nazism and fascism.

    The crusades to the middle east were fundamentally defensive against islam, and christianity is constantly attacked, are you blind?
    You brought up conquest in the first place roflmao.

    You said:

    "For gods sake, you have at best discredited two quotes. Tell you what, if Islam doesn't condone terrorism, massacres, and conquest, why did Muhammad himself conquer most if not all the Arabian peninsula in his lifetime? Also, why did the Rashidun caliphs who succeeded him conquer from Tunisian to china, and the Umayyads to Portugal and Tours?"

    Oh and don't forget to throw in a classic "are you blind" attack at the end


    We're done here, you've clearly got no substance to your uninformed argument.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nexttimeigetvpn)
    You brought up conquest in the first place roflmao.

    You said:

    "For gods sake, you have at best discredited two quotes. Tell you what, if Islam doesn't condone terrorism, massacres, and conquest, why did Muhammad himself conquer most if not all the Arabian peninsula in his lifetime? Also, why did the Rashidun caliphs who succeeded him conquer from Tunisian to china, and the Umayyads to Portugal and Tours?"

    Oh and don't forget to throw in a classic "are you blind" attack at the end


    We're done here, you've clearly got no substance to your uninformed argument.
    Alright, but that doesn't matter to the point why is it still followed 1500 years later, does it?

    Also, that wasn't meant as an insult, it was a genuine question since people are constantly dismantling christianity and have been doing so for a few decades.

    Can you not even give me the courtesy of responding to my argument?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WBZ144)
    Saudi Arabia, yes, the other Gulf states rarely carry out the death penalty and still have low crime rates. I am against the rulers of those countries, especially the Saud family, but don't pretend that this is about which countries are or aren't safe.

    That was also ignorant but you did not do so negatively. Countries like Botswana, Tanzania and Malawi are safe countries, with a lower threat of terrorism than some of the countries in the regions you referred to. Yet you would "expect" terrorism in those countries because they are African.
    Yes, please accept my apologies for not pointing out that not all african countries are dangerous when it comes to terrorism. I assumed that would be obvious.

    On a side note, what is it with your inflationary - near meaningless- use of "ignorance"? Is that a running gag im missing out on?

    No offence.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TercioOfParma)
    Alright, allow me to be more clear. There is adequate room to interpret these texts in the manner.
    When one takes into account the difference between the narrations of historical events and prescriptive commands within the Qur'an, along with explicit verses enjoining peace, as well as the scholarly consensus amongst the mainstream ulema, there really is no adequate room to interpret the texts in that manner. Of course, that won't stop hateful preachers from deliberately interpreting the texts in that manner and then passing on these interpretations to gullible followers, who are especially susceptible to extremism when they've witnessed unjustified, illegal acts of aggression from the "West" towards Muslim-majority countries - acts of aggression on their ethno-religious identity. Every group has its own share of crazies. It's not exclusive to Islam. Hell, in US at least I'd say it's the fanatic Christians who are more of a threat to civilians than Islamists.

    I am aware that the Sufis etc. aren't into that at all. A large proportion of the radical islamists do, and support it, although these people have different personalities too. Some simply lack the courage, some respect the law more, some don't wish to die etc. It takes some insanity and/or huge courage to do something that will result in your death, something the vast vast majority of people lack.
    Funnily enough, Muslims are required to obey the laws of the land unless the laws prevent them from practising their religion in terms of praying, fasting, etc.

    No I am not. However, I never said that Jews and Christians couldn't coexist in Islamic countries either provided they paid the Jizya.
    Give it a read then. You'll be surprised at how tolerant it is. But wait a minute, I thought there were verses in the Qur'an commanding Muslims to commit terror attacks and kill non-Muslims indiscriminately?! I thought our entire way of living was under threat due to Islam urging its followers to kill innocent civilians?! Putting aside the fact that no Muslim-majority country imposes the jizya tax on non-Muslims today, and that many scholars argue it is obsolete, don't you think having the very concept of dhimmitude contradicts any pseudo-Islamic justification for killing innocent civilians indiscriminately?
 
 
 
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.