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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Not true, Islamic radicalisation derives from hatred and conflict. These Muslims don't wake up one morning thinking "oh **** I should bomb somewhere for islam" . You have no perspective on these people's motives, they do it because conflict and war is what they've lived through. The fact that these conflicts have majorly affected Muslims is a coincidence because Islam spread in these particular locations. If Christianity spread there, we would see Christian terrorists of the same form
    So, if a region that was mainly Christian (or religion other than Islam) experienced conflict and political unrest, we should expect to see Christian (or other) terrorist attacks on Western civilian targets in the same way that we see Islamist terror attacks?

    You mean like with South America, Central and South Africa, the Balkans, Sri Lanka, Tibet, etc?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    So, if a region that was mainly Christian (or religion other than Islam) experienced conflict and political unrest, we should expect to see Christian (or other) terrorist attacks on Western civilian targets in the same way that we see Islamist terror attacks?

    You mean like with South America, Central and South Africa, the Balkans, Sri Lanka, Tibet, etc?
    Given the treatment of Christians and other Minorities in muslim majority countries why don't we see similar attacks there

    Because if what the poster claims is true there should be daily attacks
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Why is everyone blaming Islam on this occasion when the attacker had mental health problems such as depression? He also had no known links to terrorist groups
    Source?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AngryRedhead)
    Why is everyone blaming Islam on this occasion when the attacker had mental health problems such as depression? He also had no known links to terrorist groups
    I am not blaming Islam for this particular attack as there is insufficient information at present (although early reports would suggest that there is a link, and since when did depression stop someone from subscribing to an ideology?).

    The issue here is why do people blame Islam for Islamist terrorism.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    The verse has been quoted out of context. I didn't expect you to be so disingenuous.
    How is it relevant? You think that these guys, who find a strong justification of violence in the Quran, bother to replace violent verses in their context?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Joke right? They're averaging like one attack per year, and even then they point is that surely if your bigoted Islam theory were correct , they would be averaging like one attack per day?
    Your theory might explain why so many Muslims are killing other Muslims in the Middle East (although, it does seem that most of the killing does seem to be Islamic sectarian in nature) but it does not explain why educated western Europeans are killing other western Europeans, or travelling to fight for an Islamic caliphate, especially when the perpetrators specifically cite Islam as justification.

    As I said, thinking things through obviously not one of your strong points.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    If you don't call it terrorism and ignore the motive then how can you try to stop it in future?*

    I don't think it is possible to stop it, at least in the short term, but politicians like to be seen to be acting or at least talking about acting.*
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Tunisian revolution constitutes to political instability
    But there has been far less instability in Tunisia than in Palestine, yet there are many times more Tunisian fighters in ISIS than Palestinian. Or Lebanese. Or Egyptian. Tunisia was the least disrupted of all the Arab Spring countries.

    Basically, the more you try to defend your argument, the more it dismantles itself.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Nope I didn't because radical Islam is simply the veil that they hide behind. Islam is not the main cause, is there something odd about the stability of Indonesia, india, Morocco, etc, the first of which has the highest Muslim pop in the world and there are very few attacks. Hatred deriving from conflict such as the Tunisian conflict or Middle East conflict radicalised these people, not their loyalty to islam
    I think a country in conflict is quite a different set of circumstances. But if we are to look at stable states not currently undergoing and having recently undergone war or civil war, there are some worrying statistics that can be observed. For example, if we observe the number of Muslims in each country and look at the number of Muslims from that country who have joined ISIS, we get some rather astonishing figures:

    France
    1,200 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 5 million
    240 ISIS members per million Muslims in France

    Belgium
    440 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 660,000
    667 ISIS members per million Muslims in Belgium

    Indonesia
    500 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 205 million
    2.4 ISIS members per million Muslims in Indonesia

    India
    18 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 172 million
    0.1 ISIS members per million Muslims in India


    The problem is that many Western European nations with large Muslim populations are that their Islamic organisations and mosques are largely funded from abroad. However, other countries like Austria have taken method to limit foreign funding which might be worth looking into. The Austrian method would be to limit the funding of any mosques to a single one-off payment, and restricting continuous funding. So mosques can still be funded and built within the UK. The only difference between the current system here and the Austrian system is that we currently permit continuous funding. It is quite evident that we have an issue with radicalism and it is also the case that who funds a mosque or Islamic group has control over what it preaches. So I don't see why it should be controversial to limit the influence of foreign Salafi and Wahhabi groups and encouraging the growth of a more British Islam.

    I think everyone will agree that these figures above are astounding. I think the major difference is that countries like India and Indonesia already have well developed national Islamic organisations and groups and so there is less room or need for foreign funding and thus Salafi groups struggle more to gain a foothold. For example, the Indonesian Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulama has some 40 million members. The same is not true in Western nations like France, Belgium and the UK, hence our need to take action against such foreign funding to limit influence of Salafi and Wahhabi groups.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    How is it relevant? You think that these guys, who find a strong justification of violence in the Quran, bother to replace violent verses in their context?
    Of course it's relevant. The surrounding verses make it clear that the command to completely annihilate the enemy was given for a specific battle in the 7th century, as opposed to being a prescription for Muslims wherever they come across non-Muslims.

    If an Israeli Jew were to use Deuteronomy 20 to justify slaughter of Palestinians for example, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe the injunctions therein apply today, would it make sense to condemn the scripture itself, or the fools who misinterpret to propagate their own, nefarious agenda?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I think a country in conflict is quite a different set of circumstances. But if we are to look at stable states not currently undergoing and having recently undergone war or civil war, there are some worrying statistics that can be observed. For example, if we observe the number of Muslims in each country and look at the number of Muslims from that country who have joined ISIS, we get some rather astonishing figures:

    France
    1,200 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 5 million
    240 ISIS members per million Muslims in France

    Belgium
    440 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 660,000
    667 ISIS members per million Muslims in Belgium

    Indonesia
    500 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 205 million
    2.4 ISIS members per million Muslims in Indonesia

    India
    18 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 172 million
    0.1 ISIS members per million Muslims in India


    The problem is that many Western European nations with large Muslim populations are that their Islamic organisations and mosques are largely funded from abroad. However, other countries like Austria have taken method to limit foreign funding which might be worth looking into. The Austrian method would be to limit the funding of any mosques to a single one-off payment, and restricting continuous funding. So mosques can still be funded and built within the UK. The only difference between the current system here and the Austrian system is that we currently permit continuous funding. It is quite evident that we have an issue with radicalism and it is also the case that who funds a mosque or Islamic group has control over what it preaches. So I don't see why it should be controversial to limit the influence of foreign Salafi and Wahhabi groups and encouraging the growth of a more British Islam.

    I think everyone will agree that these figures above are astounding. I think the major difference is that countries like India and Indonesia already have well developed national Islamic organisations and groups and so there is less room or need for foreign funding and thus Salafi groups struggle more to gain a foothold. For example, the Indonesian Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulama has some 40 million members. The same is not true in Western nations like France, Belgium and the UK, hence our need to take action against such foreign funding to limit influence of Salafi and Wahhabi groups.
    Good analysis, I agree.
    Online

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, its Islam that teaches people to bomb mosques.

    Strong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If Islam did not exist this attack would not of happened including thousands of other attacks, millions would still be alive and the world would be a happier and safer place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dima-Blackburn)
    Of course it's relevant. The surrounding verses make it clear that the command to completely annihilate the enemy was given for a specific battle in the 7th century, as opposed to being a prescription for Muslims wherever they come across non-Muslims.

    If an Israeli Jew were to use Deuternomy 20 to justify slaughter of Palestinians for example, despite the fact that there's no reason to believe the injunctions therein apply today, would it make sense to condemn the scripture itself, or the fools who misinterpret to propagate their own, nefarious agenda?
    The Quran is supposed to be timeless and the true word of God. Such violent verses will have a terrible effect on violent individuals, who will identify with Mohamed's fighters and follow his commands.

    If there were a continuous streak of attacks involving Jews or Christians finding their inspiration in their holy book, I would say that these religions need a reformation to end their inherent violence. Muslims must either drop the "Quran is the timeless word of god", or remove its nasty parts, as most Christians and Jews did. They can't keep both of them.
    Online

    11
    ReputationRep:
    The terrorist didn't seem to follow/know much about Islam.....like the vast majority of other so called 'Islamic' terrorists. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rticle-3691895

    Stop making Islam a scapegoat
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Muslims have nothing to apologise for, because the majority of muslims abhor all forms of terrorism.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Being a muslim-christian convert at a young age what i find is that while "christian" terrorist attacks cannot be justified by the Bible, muslim terrorist attacks can be justified by the Quran. After all, Muhammad's final chapter in the Quran before he died was the most violent chapters out of all them inspiring violence against those against Islam.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sara_t)
    The terrorist didn't seem to follow/know much about Islam.....like the vast majority of other so called 'Islamic' terrorists. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rticle-3691895

    Stop making Islam a scapegoat
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    I think a country in conflict is quite a different set of circumstances. But if we are to look at stable states not currently undergoing and having recently undergone war or civil war, there are some worrying statistics that can be observed. For example, if we observe the number of Muslims in each country and look at the number of Muslims from that country who have joined ISIS, we get some rather astonishing figures:

    France
    1,200 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 5 million
    240 ISIS members per million Muslims in France

    Belgium
    440 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 660,000
    667 ISIS members per million Muslims in Belgium

    Indonesia
    500 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 205 million
    2.4 ISIS members per million Muslims in Indonesia

    India
    18 have joined ISIS
    Estimated Muslim population is 172 million
    0.1 ISIS members per million Muslims in India


    The problem is that many Western European nations with large Muslim populations are that their Islamic organisations and mosques are largely funded from abroad. However, other countries like Austria have taken method to limit foreign funding which might be worth looking into. The Austrian method would be to limit the funding of any mosques to a single one-off payment, and restricting continuous funding. So mosques can still be funded and built within the UK. The only difference between the current system here and the Austrian system is that we currently permit continuous funding. It is quite evident that we have an issue with radicalism and it is also the case that who funds a mosque or Islamic group has control over what it preaches. So I don't see why it should be controversial to limit the influence of foreign Salafi and Wahhabi groups and encouraging the growth of a more British Islam.

    I think everyone will agree that these figures above are astounding. I think the major difference is that countries like India and Indonesia already have well developed national Islamic organisations and groups and so there is less room or need for foreign funding and thus Salafi groups struggle more to gain a foothold. For example, the Indonesian Islamic organisation Nahdlatul Ulama has some 40 million members. The same is not true in Western nations like France, Belgium and the UK, hence our need to take action against such foreign funding to limit influence of Salafi and Wahhabi groups.
    india is perhaps the exception to the rule in that despite having so many muslims, they dont in isolate themselves from mainstream society - they have actually adopted much of non islamic indian culture - this makes them unpopular with muslims accorss the border in paksitan - and obviusly recent issues with islamists have come from accross the border where pakistan sends its islamists, with a primary goal to gain kashmir from india. but certainly india has been more succesful than others in blocking salafist culutre and arab oil money into the muslim populations. In the UK it seems there has been no restrcition on this as most mosques are built with black market money thats found its way here form dubai. then you wonder uk muslims are beig radicalised so easily..
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Gaben)
    Muslims have nothing to apologise for, because the majority of muslims abhor all forms of terrorism.
    28% of Muslims in Nigeria believed it could never be justified, 23% believed it could be justified rarely, 38% sometimes, and 8% thought it could be justified often.

    http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old...ns.pdf#page=97
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    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.