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

Why does the left REFUSE to acknowledge Islams role in TERRORism? Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zayn is Bae)
    Well, we can start with the fact they just targeted Medina a few weeks ago.
    That does nothing to indicate that ISIS aren't Muslims.

    As Nawaz pointed out, fanatics will often try and "purge" their own religion before targeting the outside world. ISIS are adamant that their brand of Islam is the right one, and so will target what they see as perversions of their ideology.

    That does not lessen the fact that they consider themselves Muslims.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    That does nothing to indicate that ISIS aren't Muslims.

    As Nawaz pointed out, fanatics will often try and "purge" their own religion before targeting the outside world. ISIS are adamant that their brand of Islam is the right one, and so will target what they see as perversions of their ideology.

    That does not lessen the fact that they consider themselves Muslims.
    Well, it does. There's multiple scriptures and academia, accepting globally by ALL sects of Islam, referring to the sanctity of Medina which they've broken. 99.9% of scholars will (and have) denounced them as mushriks. Then there's some things they do which are plain wrong and need no interpretation (immolation to name one).
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zayn is Bae)
    Well, it does. There's multiple scriptures and academia, accepting globally by ALL sects of Islam, referring to the sanctity of Medina which they've broken. 99.9% of scholars will (and have) denounced them as mushriks. Then there's some things they do which are plain wrong and need no interpretation (immolation to name one).
    But there is no absolute authority in Islam, and anyone who proclaims themselves to be a follower of the qu'ran can be said to be Muslim.

    To say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam ignores the fact that they are the practical manifestation of the extreme salafist branch of Islam. It is to ignore the fact that certain Saudi-funded mosques preach the same poisonous ideology which inspires ISIS.

    ISIS is rooted in Salafism, and to ignore this is to ignore what drives their recruitment and consequently to refuse to take any action to stop it. It is a cowardly action, stemming from the fear of causing offence.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    But there is no absolute authority in Islam, and anyone who proclaims themselves to be a follower of the qu'ran can be said to be Muslim.

    To say that ISIS has nothing to do with Islam ignores the fact that they are the practical manifestation of the extreme salafist branch of Islam. It is to ignore the fact that certain Saudi-funded mosques preach the same poisonous ideology which inspires ISIS.

    ISIS is rooted in Salafism, and to ignore this is to ignore what drives their recruitment and consequently to refuse to take any action to stop it. It is a cowardly action, stemming from the fear of causing offence.
    Agree with the whole post to a large extent. Salafism is a branch which, if interpreted by braindead morons with no brain cells can foster terrorism. Saudi's do probably fund ISIS. Having said that, I don't think ISIS can be regarded as even extremist Muslims. Al-Qaeda would be a different kettle of fish (they target what they perceive to be enemies of Islam, i.e. The U.S. There's no real justification for purging other sects of Islam, especially when it's said calling someone a non-Muslim who is in fact a Muslim makes you the non-Muslim, let alone killing them.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zayn is Bae)
    Agree with the whole post to a large extent. Salafism is a branch which, if interpreted by braindead morons with no brain cells can foster terrorism. Saudi's do probably fund ISIS. Having said that, I don't think ISIS can be regarded as even extremist Muslims. Al-Qaeda would be a different kettle of fish (they target what they perceive to be enemies of Islam, i.e. The U.S. There's no real justification for purging other sects of Islam, especially when it's said calling someone a non-Muslim who is in fact a Muslim makes you the non-Muslim, let alone killing them.
    I do see what you're saying in that ISIS veer so far from mainstream Islamic thought that it's hard to classify them as Muslims, but the problem with refusing to do so is that it leads to inaction.

    Saying "ISIS aren't Muslims" means we're not trying to stamp out this extremist Salafist thinking which inspires various terrorists and terror groups. Whether ISIS have departed so far from mainstream Islam that they are unrecognisable as Muslims is almost besides the point, because they do pick up these ideas from certain mosques and imams. And we should be ensuring that does not happen, rather than pretending there is no link at all between them and terrorism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tengentoppa)
    I do see what you're saying in that ISIS veer so far from mainstream Islamic thought that it's hard to classify them as Muslims, but the problem with refusing to do so is that it leads to inaction.

    Saying "ISIS aren't Muslims" means we're not trying to stamp out this extremist Salafist thinking which inspires various terrorists and terror groups. Whether ISIS have departed so far from mainstream Islam that they are unrecognisable as Muslims is almost besides the point, because they do pick up these ideas from certain mosques and imams. And we should be ensuring that does not happen, rather than pretending there is no link at all between them and terrorism.
    Agree 100%. I do believe that Salafi's leave themselves open to being interpreted as condoning terrorism. Their condemning of basically everything western (even going as far as saying we shouldn't vote in general elections and the EU referendum ffs) make no sense to us Sunni's. Don't want to say too much and expose myself here/ give away confidentials so you can PM if interested but I've worked closely with *senior* government officials on educating people agains extremism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    You answered it yourself. We don't acknowledge Islam to be the problem, because extreme Islam is the problem.
    Can you make a meaningful distinction between "extreme Islam" and "Islam", to the point whereby it is more practical and useful to criticize the former rather than the latter?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zayn is Bae)
    Agree 100%. I do believe that Salafi's leave themselves open to being interpreted as condoning terrorism. Their condemning of basically everything western (even going as far as saying we shouldn't vote in general elections and the EU referendum ffs) make no sense to us Sunni's. Don't want to say too much and expose myself here/ give away confidentials so you can PM if interested but I've worked closely with *senior* government officials on educating people agains extremism.
    You should talk to the ISOC; salafis are still sunni.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    The problem is not sourced as Islam. These people don't wake up one day and suddenly want to help Islam by killing foreigners. They become radicalised slowly over time because of their lives changing - this change manifests in conflict, political instability and various other things. A simple look at the case studies of Rezgui (Tunisia beach attacker), Salah Abdeslam, Kouachi brothers, etc... would all show that these people became radicalised either by a) war or b) being put in prison.

    Islam isn't the singular trigger which makes these people kill. Its hatred. Therefore blaming Islam is as stupid as blaming the computer monitors through which they probably heard about IS in the first place.
    So by your logic, text telling people to go and chop people's fingers off could be considered as negatively influential as the monitor or paper it is read on?

    Which is most worth criticizing though?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    So by your logic, text telling people to go and chop people's fingers off could be considered as negatively influential as the monitor or paper it is read on?

    Which is most worth criticizing though?
    This is why I hate it when people put words in my mouth, come back when your reading comprehension is a couple of notches higher.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by champ_mc99)
    You should talk to the ISOC; salafis are still sunni.
    You knew what I meant ******
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zayn is Bae)
    You knew what I meant ******
    Lol I genuinely thought you believed the salafis were not sunni (I'm not salafi btw).

    Thanks for the insult. You're a quite a lad to get riled up over a tiny thing like that lmao.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Can you make a meaningful distinction between "extreme Islam" and "Islam", to the point whereby it is more practical and useful to criticize the former rather than the latter?
    Not that the burden of proof is on me, since it is OP making the claims, but extreme Islam to me is Islamic ideologies being taken too literally. When a practising Muslim has no interest in being openly homophobic or sexist in the way that the Q'uran teaches it, but all peaceful verses about spirituality, cleanliness, devotion to family etc. pertain to said Muslim's everyday life, then this is very different to Sharia law in Saudi Arabia permitting the imprisonment, beating and death of openly gay people. I don't know how you can't make the distinction between a peaceful Muslim and an extremist Muslim - it's really not that hard.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    Not that the burden of proof is on me, since it is OP making the claims,
    If you make a claim, which you did, you should be able to explain it and back it up. The "burden of proof" does not come into it.

    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    but extreme Islam to me is Islamic ideologies being taken too literally. When a practising Muslim has no interest in being openly homophobic or sexist in the way that the Q'uran teaches it, but all peaceful verses about spirituality, cleanliness, devotion to family etc. pertain to said Muslim's everyday life, then this is very different to Sharia law in Saudi Arabia permitting the imprisonment, beating and death of openly gay people. I don't know how you can't make the distinction between a peaceful Muslim and an extremist Muslim - it's really not that hard.
    So what you're saying is that an "extremist" is someone who follows the religion more closely? Therefore, Islam in itself is "extreme"?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    If you make a claim, which you did, you should be able to explain it and back it up. The "burden of proof" does not come into it.



    So what you're saying is that an "extremist" is someone who follows the religion more closely? Therefore, Islam in itself is "extreme"?
    An extremist is someone who takes the religion too literally and acts on the violent verses of the Q'uran in harmful ways, and I'm sure you'll appreciate that a normal practising Muslim will not go around murdering gay people.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    An extremist is someone who takes the religion too literally and acts on the violent verses of the Q'uran in harmful ways, and I'm sure you'll appreciate that a normal practising Muslim will not go around murdering gay people.
    But in a book which is said to be literally God's word, how is it possible to interprete it 'too literally'?

    My point being in a text which, by its very nature, is massively open to interpretation, it is simply preposterous to suggest that one can interpret it incorrectly. ISIS take a very extreme and literal interpretation. Most Western Muslims (although a surprising amount still harbour rather backwards views) read into it a bit, don't take it too literally and appropriate it for the times. Much like the US Constitution (this time loose vs strict constructionist), there is no 'incorrect' interpretation of it as it's purely subjective. You may not agree with any given person's interpretation, but that doesn't make it less valid (i.e. it doesn't mean that IS aren't 'real' Muslims).

    One could even pose the argument that far from being extreme Muslims, IS are interpreting the Quran in the way in which it was originally intended to be by not interpreting it with their 'human views' and instead referring directly to the way in which their God articulated himself. Don't get me wrong, they certainly are VERY extreme views when put against those that most Westerners hold, but at the end of the day all they are doing to determine their ideology is reading a book and acting it out to the letter - that certainly doesn't justify their actions, I'm just trying to put light on the fact that the view of what a 'real' Muslim looks like is subjective. Just as western Muslims accuse them of being fake, they too preach the converse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They want their votes
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swiss_cheese)
    Islam isn't the singular trigger which makes these people kill. Its hatred.
    But as some literalist, retentionist, reactionary interpretations involve hating certain out-groups (which, coincidentally, are always the ones attacked), and as the perpetrators often make a point of explaining that their actions are partly due to their Islamic belief, it doesn't really seem unreasonable in such cases, to apportion at least some of the blame to Islamic ideology.

    TBH, even without the medievalist interpretation, the Quran and sunnah doesn't really leave you in any doubt about Allah's feelings towards the kuffar. And as for any munafiq, ouch!
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tanyapotter)
    You answered it yourself. We don't acknowledge Islam to be the problem, because extreme Islam is the problem.
    That's a bit like saying that lager bears no responsibility for alcoholism, only vodka.
    Online

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Charzhino)
    As much as Islam is to blame for inspiring these attacks, equal blame has to be solely directed at George Bush and Tony Blair, wreaking havoc in the middle east and creating the new generation of youth who hate The West and The Americans.
    So 9/11, the Beirut US Embassy bombing, the USS Cole attack, the World Trade Centre bomb, etc, etc, were all exclusively down to Islam then? They must be, as they all predate the Coalition's military intervention in the ME.
 
 
 
  • 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.