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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Neither are Mohamed's
    I see this is another case of "person with little to no knowledge of Islam attempts to defend the ideology on the basis of limited personal experience".

    Should be fun. I may even join in later.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Are you blind or just stupid? There was no question in the response.
    You said...
    "What about Moses the plague-spreading terrorist?"
    The thing at the end is called a "question mark", "eroteme" or "interrogation point". It is put at the end of a sentence that contains a question.

    Apologies if someone has already pointed this out.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jewish Rac1sm)
    Maybe if the West would stop

    Interfering in the Middle East (who benefits from this?)

    Open door immigration

    None if this would happen?
    Recent conflicts which have caused all this extremism isn't the fault of the western public, it's the people that govern them, the self concerned politicians.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    If Islam is the cause of these things, then why is there such little terrorism in the highest population Muslim countries (India, Indonesia, etc)?
    India and Indonesia have had their fair share of Islamist attacks, certainly more than most European countries.

    Also, the idea of the terrorism is to facilitate a change in the system, so any Islamic state that experienced no attacks by Islamist terrorists would obviously be operating in a way that was acceptable to the Islamists.

    The answer is that Islam isn't the cause. The Quran is open to interpretation, terrorists aren't 'following it to the word', they are manipulating it to justify their actions.
    To claim that Islam was not a major factor in Islamist terrorism is to display sand-based head-burying skills of Olympic levels.

    ISIS are following a literalist, regressive, retentionist interpretations of Islam. They believe that when Allah said x, or Muhammad said y, that x and y are what they meant. They reject any attempts to make Islam more acceptable to modern society and morality, because the Quran ststes that it is perfect and immutable.

    So, when The Quran permits sex with captured females, and Muhammad allowed his troops to have sex with their captured females, ISIS believe that it means that it is permitted to have sex with captive females.
    Yeah, ikr. Where on earth did they get that idea from! Certainly not from Islam, eh?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    His actions still caused the plague, Christians clearly idolise a terrorist who destroyed the lives of many Egyptians.
    I'm quite sure Christians don't idolise Moses. We're forbidden to idolize any man
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    The point is, Indonesia, being 90+% Muslim, surely would be equally or more ****ed up than the Middle East, with more conflict and constant mass terror attacks? But oh, it isn't. It has had one minor terror attack this year, whereas the Middle East has had thousands, and has many active terrorist/militant groups.

    So your theory about Islam being the cause is simply not true. The cause is because the Middle East is an isolated desert with limited connection to the outside world, poor living standards, therefore a fertile environment for corrupt regimes, and a conflict has emerged which has catalysed the whole thing. Islam just happens to reside there. If Syria was 100% Christian, we would be seeing Christian extremist attacks all across the world too.
    You seem to be conflating "Islamist terrorism" and "Islamic sectarian conflict". They are two very different things.

    Indonesia suffers little sectarian conflict because it is 99% Sunni, and Islam was imported, ready-made, in the 13th century rather than developing organically as happened in the Middle East. However, the tiny Shia and Ahmadiyya minorities still experince persecution.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Its because Islam isn't a significant factor, the Assad regime is the main factor in Syria.
    What? So Assad is the reason why ISIS feel justified in using caprive females for sex? And ISIS throw homosexuals from tall buildings and crucify opponents and execute prisoners (all permitted by the Quran or sunnah) because of Assad?

    If you want to know why ISIS act the way they do, why don't you ask them? In the latest issue of Dabiq, they carefully and explicitly explain why, and provide references from the Quran and sunnah to support them. Simply parrotting the "Nothing to do with Islam" mantra is meaningless in the face of all the hard evidence.

    And as for your earlier claims about Islam's peacefulness based on the behavious of some Muslims, why, then, do you not equally base your claims about the nature of Islam on the Muslims of ISIS, or AQ, or Boko Haram? It seems that whoever and however Islam is defended, it is necessary to cherry-pick.

    A dictator who barrel bombed his own civilians, backed by one of the biggest superpowers and a large army - combined with the Arab spring, Syria has turned into a warzone, and not because of Islam.
    A very naive view of the situation. Sectarian divisions were (and are) fundamental in the creating of the warring parties - not just in the current conflict but historically. Why do you think Sunnis in Iraq are bombing Shia mosques, or why ISIS are attacking those that they consider to be apostates or munafiq? Why do you think Shia Iran has sided with the Shia Assad regime against a Sunni rebellion?

    Blaming Islam is a dumb and unrealistic way of helping the situation.
    Indeed, if you claim it is the sole cause. But equally, denying that Islam is a major contributary factor is just as dunb and unrealistic

    But generally Muslims are happy with it and they don't incorporate the bad parts of the Quran into their peaceful lives. Its just that the Syrian Civil War and other conflict have catalysed the existence of groups like ISIS which are radicalised and motivated to manipulate the Quran to suit their own needs.
    If the Quran contains "bad bits", and the Quran is perfect and applicable in its entirety, and to reject any verse is to commit kufr - or leave Islam (as Islam claims), then who is the "true Muslim"? The one who accepts it all or the one who ignores the bits he doesn't like?

    And oh yes, we would see Christian terrorists worldwide if a country in mass of their population underwent a war similar to this. War radicalises people, not a heart-filled desire to save your religion.
    OK. So how do you explain the many Islamist terrorist attacks that took place before the Syrian civil war, or the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan? Why were Islamist groups attacking western targets before any of it happened?
    Remember that military intervention in the ME was a response to Islamist terrorism, so it cannot be the cause of it!

    And why are there so many Islamist terrorists and Muslims travelling to join ISIS who are well educated, second or third generation citizens of secular democracies? What is their motivation?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    What? So Assad is the reason why ISIS feel justified in using caprive females for sex? And ISIS throw homosexuals from tall buildings and crucify opponents and execute prisoners (all permitted by the Quran or sunnah).

    If you want to know why ISIS act the way they do, why don't you ask them? In the latest issue of Dabiq, they carefully and explicitly explain why, and provide references from the Quran and sunnah to support them. Simply parrotting the "Nothing to do with Islam" mantra is meaningless in the face of all the hard evidence.

    And as for your earlier claims about Islam's peacefulness based on the behavious of some Muslims, why, then, do you not equally base your claims about the nature of Islam on the Muslims of ISIS, or AL, or Boko Haram? It seems that whoever and however Islam is defended, it is necessary to cherry-pick.

    A very naive view of the situation. Sectarian divisions were (and are) fundamental in the creating of the warring parties - not just in the current conflict but historically. Why do you think Sunnis in Iraq are bombing Shia mosques, or why ISIS are attacking those that they consider to be apostates or munafiq? Why do you think Shia Iran has sided with the Shia Assad regime against a Sunni rebellion?

    Indeed, if you claim it is the sole cause. But equally, denying that Islam is a major contributary factor is just as dunb and unrealistic

    If the Quran contains "bad bits", and the Quran is perfect and applicable in its entirety, and to reject any verse is to commit kufr - or leave Islam (as Islam claims), then who is the "true Muslim"? The one who accepts it all or the one who ignores the bits he doesn't like?

    OK. So how do you explain the many Islamist terrorist attacks that took place before the Syrian civil war, or the invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan? Why were Islamist groups attacking western targets before any of it happened?
    Remember that military intervention in the ME was a response to Islamist terrorism, so it cannot be the cause of it!

    And why are there so many Islamist terrorists and Muslims travelling to join ISIS who are well educated, second or third generation citizens of secular democracies? What is their motivation?
    please re-read my response without jumping the gun, I can't be bothered to reply to someone who reads half of what I say and types "OH SO YOU MEAN THIS *INSERTS BLATANTLY WRONG STATEMENT*"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Have you ever been to a Muslim community say in India, Indonesia? They are more welcoming and friendly than most Londoners lmao
    Have you ever been to a Muslim community say in Mosul, Raqqa?

    If you are going to use the behaviour of individual Muslims as evidence of the nature of Islam, I can spot a couple of problems...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Have you ever been to a Muslim community say in Mosul, Raqqa?

    If you are going to use the behaviour of individual Muslims as evidence of the nature of Islam, I can spot a couple of problems...
    You're making the assumption that I am basing this on a few individuals.
    You're also being an idiot for choosing the worst Muslim region and thinking thats going to give an accurate view of the whole of Islam, which you seem very eager to generalise as brutes.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    so we have the word of God which is apparently violent, but about 1.5 billion Muslims seem to ignore it

    do you see the idiocy in this logic? either all Muslims aren't true Muslims, or your interpretation of the Quran and the way its followed is lacking in perspective
    I think you should read the Quran and some associated hadith and tafsir before claiming that it does not encourage violence, oppression and discrimination against certain out-groups.

    The "most Muslims don't slaughter disbelievers" argument is meaningless when discussing the nature of Islamic ideology. The majority of Muslims have never read the Quran in a language they understand, and the version that they are taught in schools and mosques is very often highly sanitised and cherry-picked. Or as you stated in an earlier post, they "ignore the bad bits".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Good Doctor)
    This.

    However, we should still withhold judgement of individuals but keep in mind that as a group, Muslims are demonstrably highly prone to such backward beliefs. Much more so than members of the other major religions.
    The "other major religions" being Christianity and Judaism, I presume? Have you heard of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza or the invasion of Iraq?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Source? And I will refute thereligionofpeace.com in advanced, try to use a balanced, fair source and not something that is blatantly anti-Islam.

    Last time I checked, the Quran says "no" to violent conquest / aggressive warfare.
    Fight the disbelievers until there is no more idolatry and all religion is for Allah - 8:39
    The context of this verse is clearly one of violent expansionism.

    So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush - 9:5
    The context of this verse is clearly aggressive and proactive. Besieging, ambushing and finding are not defensive actions. Also, the ability to wait until a specific time before commencing fighting is only available to the aggressor.

    Bear in mind that we are not talking about whether these verses apply to current events, just whether the Quran allows violent aggression or not.

    So, just two verses are all that are needed to demonstrate that the Quran does indeed permit or encourage violent aggression in certain circumstances.

    As I said, probably a good idea to actually read the book you are attempting to defend.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Fight the disbelievers until there is no more idolatry and all religion is for Allah - 8:39
    The context of this verse is clearly one of violent expansionism.

    So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush - 9:5
    The context of this verse is clearly aggressive and proactive. Besieging, ambushing and finding are not defensive actions. Also, the ability to wait until a specific time before commencing fighting is only available to the aggressor.

    Bear in mind that we are not talking about whether these verses apply to current events, just whether the Quran allows violent aggression or not.

    So, just two verses are all that are needed to demonstrate that the Quran does indeed permit or encourage violent aggression in certain circumstances.

    As I said, probably a good idea to actually read the book you are attempting to defend.
    The Quran is open to interpretation, 1.6 billion Muslims evidently don't follow these things, so it is a human decision whether or not to carry out these acts

    isn't it blatant that extremists exploit the vagueness to justify their actions?

    or are 1.6 billion people not true Muslims? I'm not sure
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by irfan98)
    The "other major religions" being Christianity and Judaism, I presume? Have you heard of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza or the invasion of Iraq?
    With 0.2% of the world population, Judaism can hardly be a "major religion".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    With 0.2% of the world population, Judaism can hardly be a "major religion".
    Okay. What about Christianity?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    Not sure where you got the idea that Muhammad was a warlord, and even then, so were many other figures in history? Why is the Muslim one suddenly more worthy of criticism than say Chairman Mao or Hitler?
    Possibly because Mao and Hitler are not revered by 1.6 billion people as "the best of creation" and the perfect moral and practical example for that 1.6 billion to aspire to emulate.

    Mao and Hitler are reviled as manipulative and immoral sociopaths. I guess that as you have used these two as comparative examples, you consider Muhammad to be of similar character?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Possibly because Mao and Hitler are not revered by 1.6 billion people as "the best of creation" and the perfect moral and practical example for that 1.6 billion to aspire to emulate.

    Mao and Hitler are reviled as manipulative and immoral sociopaths. I guess that as you have used these two as comparative examples, you consider Muhammad to be of similar character?
    Equally, their forms of communism and nazism were crystal clear in their views. So it balances out.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    No they don't, a misleading poll or two suggest that x Muslims want Sharia Law, and Sharia Law has no set list of things that have to be followed, and also the majority of Muslims who want Sharia Law do not want it imposed on non-Muslims.

    Get your facts straight.
    By definition, all Muslims consider the Quran to be the absolute and perfect word of god in its entirety, no editing or revidion allowed. Thay also consider Muhammad to be the ultimate exemplar for moral and practical behaviour.

    The fact that the majority are unaware of, or (as you said) choose to ignore the bad bits doesn't mean that the bad bits are not there. They are, and those who choose to act on them are not following some extremist or corrupted interpretation. They are simply following an interpretation.

    It is noticable that while many Muslims will condemn ISIS, they will not condemn the parts of the Quran and sunnah that ISIS use to justify their actions.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CounTolstoy)
    I smell ignorance.
    I smell knee-jerk response.
 
 
 
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: August 23, 2016
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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.