Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now

Why are Muslim's portrayed as terrorist's in today's society? Watch

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    in a nutshell, again :

    there is no reason whatsoever to consider "Islamic scholars" as being more unbiased than "non-Islamic scholars" with regard to Islam

    of course, non-Muslims may have a negative bias towards Islam, but you can be sure that Muslim scholars will have a positive bias in favour of Islam

    In other words : you can rely only on yourself, your rationality, your intelligence, your honesty

    the best course is to widen the scope of your personal experiences and of your sources of information, and judge by yourself


    all this "learning at the feet of" some alim, guru, beloved leader etc is something from another age

    best
    I'm afraid this is a very different point being intermingled with what I said. As a non-Muslim, nobody can blame you for having the opinion that a Muslim scholar would be positively biased. HOWEVER, my point is that a Muslim scholar is more informed, biased or not, and show a wider, more comprehensible reasoning. This is my point.

    And then the either bias may exaggerate or fabricate - but the positive bias has the advantage of credibility here as innovation in the religion (whether positive or negative in result) is strongly rejected.

    Regarding the boldened text, I agree. But this doesn't, by any means, mean that everyone else is incorrect.

    I don't "learn at the feet of some alim, guru, beloved leader, etc." as I am not a formal student of Islam (especially in terms of fiqh and madhaahib). I learn what I learn and attempt to understand with reasoning/logic, as well as trying to find out the views of scholars. This is VERY different to "blind following".
    In any case, one always needs to learn from a more knowledgeable figure, regardless of the subject - as this person provides the information as well as the understanding of it.

    Best


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mariachi)
    the evil lizards from planet Mongo ?
    perhaps !
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    Huh? I never denied there was such a hadeeth! :confused: I simply asked you to provide it so we could discuss it!I think it is quite clear that I raised a few points with my post: 1) that it is clear this was a question asked to Muhammad (peace be upon him) if it was sinful (ie killing exempt from lawful war) if the women and children cannot be distinguished from the men (eg if battle is to be done in the dark) and are killed (unintentionally) as a result, 2) that it is not sinful because a) the women and children in that case would be with the men (outside of their homes, in the battlefield) and b) it isn't done so with the intention of killing women and children, 3) that some hadeeth would suggest that it was usual for Muhammad (peace be upon him) to attack at times after the night, and4) this is recorded only through Sab bin Jaththama - not more prominent hadeeth narrators such as Abu Huraira, Ibn Abbaas, ibn Umar, Ibn Anas, Umar, Anas, Abu Sa'id al Khudri, etc. (ra) nor A'isha and Umm Salama (ra). For such an important matters, either an incredibly strong, undeniable chain of narration is required, or if possible, 2 different ones that are both reliable. 5) other hadeeth (eg by Sulaiman bin Buraid AND Ibn Umar, the latter of which is a narrator of many ahadeeth) clearly state the correct practice of war elaboratively, and prohibit the killing if children and women - denoting that the hadeeth by Sab bin Jaththama was exceptionally conditional. 6) 2 of the most prominent scholars of (Sunni) Islam (remember these hadeeth you quote are also of Sunni Islam), Imam Ibn Hajar and Imam Nawawi, commented very clearly on this - and these are people renowned for their lifelong devotion to the study of ahadeeth and Quran. For politeness and your own convenience, I'll post it again below:
    seems odd you attempt to sound so authorative on your answers when you werent even aware of the wording of haddith and require me to post them for you.- equally you above trying to tell me what it 'clearly means' having only just read it for the first time.your answers to 1) and 2) dmeonstrate a massive degree of self interpretation and additon of personal 'logic'- at no point in the quotes i gave did mohammed mention 'sin of intention' or women and children 'outside their homes' - you are simply adding words to mohammed quotes to justify execution of civilians (which is a common proceedure in islam) . i can partially accept the idea of attacking int he dark (even though i dont beleive it was mentioned in the quote either) but moahmmed attacked people in night and day as per record.4) 5) and 6) is back to your ususall off topic irrelevant drivel - again nothin to do with the quited hadith that we were talking about. when will you get it into your skull its not relevant what some self important narrator thinks he knows about mohammeds intentions- that can be established (on this topic) entirely by mohammeds own words and actions. If mohammed had the intention of avoiding women and children being killed- he would have ordered his men to stand down. instead he was happy to attck and also kill civlians, his reasoing? "they are of them" ie women and childen of his enemy are stil the enemy and therefore can be killed without risk of sin.As stated to you in other posts, mohammed didnt regard things that we in a modern moral society as sins, ahe himslef encoraged them, ie killing of women, capturing slaves etc. Moslems follow his example (that is the principle of islam, even if his pricniples were essentially medeival) both moderate and extremem moslems do so, SO if mohmmed had no issue with killing women and kids, why would any islamist terrorists?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    I'm afraid I must say that a large part of your post is unsubstantiated gibberish. A guy I used to know would claim that penguins are going to rule the world...and?If they marched the streets just to say this, they need to wake up and smell reality. Nobody would benefit from such an ambiguous march. If they want this to happen, common sense would say that they would 'pray' for it to happen - not march around. Striving to instate shari'ah? They would do better to sort out majority Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia first. I wouldn't waste the effort marching against it, I'd just give them a reality check and ask what on Earth they wish to gain by marching. Sorry, but nobody can understand your 2nd paragraph. But no, they are not very much the same because they have their own cultural, social and educational influences. I don't know why you mentioned your penultimate paragraph. All in all, I'm afraid your post wasn't very productive. It was just an opinionated, unsubstantiated view. And it seems to ignore my post. But yes, the motives of the US are debatable, and in some of these areas (but not all), quite obvious. This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    think his point was that islam is ingrained witht he idea that islam must be propagated - islamists complain that the usa is propagating its influence over the globe, but islam has tried to do this for centuries. SO its not an idelogical objection, its simply jealousy. moslems are taught convert others to islam is a 'virtue' and leaving islam is a sin- this is simply a primitive self-preservation mechanism, which was presumably improtant in mohammeds time, which was domiated by war murder and invasion of one tribe over antoher- islam was imply jaust another tribe trying to get a foothold in arabia, mohammed being the tribal leader. his aims have no relevance to people in the modern world. Islamists view a way for islam to become more prominent in the world is to force people to become moslem in the poorest parts of the world and essentially violently attack the west. however the rather ignorant hypocracy they demonstrate is the only reson they and they famileis have historically been moselm, is down to islamic imperialism (ie armies) arriving in their country. Long before US armies were there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scarface-Don)
    So surely if the Quran and teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) taught to kill and terrorise others, it would have been happening for centuries. Why did all this terrorism/AlQaeda business only occur after 9/11? Use a bit of logic people. Don't fall victim to the media's propaganda. What happened to the times when one would go to the library and get a book if someone required information on a particular topic? All knowledge nowadays seems to come from google, forums, wikipedia and the media.
    i think you need to educate yourself a little, if you islamic terrorism stated in 2001- it has a long history- 9/11 simply marked the first time they hit US soil, and therefore brought the most havy response.Much further into the past, prior to terrorism, islamists simply excercised their aims by marching their armies into your country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think it is the media that is presenting islam in a wrong way. All i know that islam is the religion of nature and it teach only peace and love.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because people generalise everything. Terrorists aren't even real Muslims they're just extremists. I'm a Muslim and I'm not a terrorist.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    So they are not terrorists until they attack the US. I think the Russians may feel differently. If you are naive enough to believe the connection ended when Russia withdrew, you may be the one who needs to learn more:rolleyes:
    i didnt say they werent terrorists, i said usa didnt fund al queda, youd be stupid to suggest that. usa funded islamists when they ahd a mutal enemy - it works both ways, the moslems had no problem siding with imperialist west, when they were saving them from being invaded by communists. Equally islamists have been begging the west for intervention in syria (as they did in afganistan), thankfully apart from supplying some rifles etc, usa havent been drawn into proving military assitance this time. if you look over the last 100 or so years, you will see successions of islamic militia, all over the globe. - that is the nature of islam, to spark confilct, didnt moahmmed spend most of his life as a 'prophet' in conflict?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aliccam)
    So they are not terrorists until they attack the US. I think the Russians may feel differently. If you are naive enough to believe the connection ended when Russia withdrew, you may be the one who needs to learn more:rolleyes:
    i didnt say they werent terrorists, i said usa didnt fund al queda, youd be stupid to suggest that. usa funded islamists when they ahd a mutal enemy - it works both ways, the moslems had no problem siding with imperialist west, when they were saving them from being invaded by communists.USA chose lessor of two evils, given that russia was a far more capable enemy than a few extremeist moslems. Equally islamists have been begging the west for intervention in syria (as they did in afganistan), thankfully apart from supplying some rifles etc, usa havent been drawn into proving military assitance this time. if you look over the last 100 or so years, you will see successions of islamic militia, all over the globe. - that is the nature of islam, to spark confilct, didnt moahmmed spend most of his life as a 'prophet' in conflict?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    i think you need to educate yourself a little, if you islamic terrorism stated in 2001- it has a long history- 9/11 simply marked the first time they hit US soil, and therefore brought the most havy response.Much further into the past, prior to terrorism, islamists simply excercised their aims by marching their armies into your country.
    TV channels and satellite has been around longer than 2001. So if Muslims commited acts of terrorism, it would have been reported on western media, even if they did not occur on western soil. Those Muslims that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s were described as ''freedom fighters'' by the West and also those rebel thiefs that are fighting in Syria now under the name of liberalism and freedom whilst the only reason they're fighting is for power and cash.
    Those groups that toppled Mubarak in Egypt had strong links to Al Qaeda and the West even admitted this, however they were praised as ''liberators'' by Western media. What happened to Egypt after this so-called revolution? How did the election go? What kind of government did they form? The fact is that the situation in Egypt is now worse than it was during Mubarak which is why we don't hear about it. Same goes for Libya.
    If a Muslim does something which benefits the West he's labelled as a liberator, freedom-fighter, national hero, revolutionist.
    Its you that needs to get educated and open your eyes.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    seems odd you attempt to sound so authorative on your answers when you werent even aware of the wording of haddith and require me to post them for you.- equally you above trying to tell me what it 'clearly means' having only just read it for the first time.your answers to 1) and 2) dmeonstrate a massive degree of self interpretation and additon of personal 'logic'- at no point in the quotes i gave did mohammed mention 'sin of intention' or women and children 'outside their homes' - you are simply adding words to mohammed quotes to justify execution of civilians (which is a common proceedure in islam) . i can partially accept the idea of attacking int he dark (even though i dont beleive it was mentioned in the quote either) but moahmmed attacked people in night and day as per record.4) 5) and 6) is back to your ususall off topic irrelevant drivel - again nothin to do with the quited hadith that we were talking about. when will you get it into your skull its not relevant what some self important narrator thinks he knows about mohammeds intentions- that can be established (on this topic) entirely by mohammeds own words and actions. If mohammed had the intention of avoiding women and children being killed- he would have ordered his men to stand down. instead he was happy to attck and also kill civlians, his reasoing? "they are of them" ie women and childen of his enemy are stil the enemy and therefore can be killed without risk of sin.As stated to you in other posts, mohammed didnt regard things that we in a modern moral society as sins, ahe himslef encoraged them, ie killing of women, capturing slaves etc. Moslems follow his example (that is the principle of islam, even if his pricniples were essentially medeival) both moderate and extremem moslems do so, SO if mohmmed had no issue with killing women and kids, why would any islamist terrorists?
    Wasn't aware of? lol. When did I telepathically suggest this, now?! I told you to PUT FORWARD YOUR REASONING CLEARLY by providing your proofs.

    Can I request that you implement the proper use of English to structure your post by paragraphing? I know it's a big ask as you seem to have some sort of disagreement with paragraphs, but I honestly cba to read such a block of text.

    And it's good to see there was no quoting issue, so thanks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scarface-Don)
    TV channels and satellite has been around longer than 2001. So if Muslims commited acts of terrorism, it would have been reported on western media, even if they did not occur on western soil. Those Muslims that fought the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s were described as ''freedom fighters'' by the West and also those rebel thiefs that are fighting in Syria now under the name of liberalism and freedom whilst the only reason they're fighting is for power and cash.
    Those groups that toppled Mubarak in Egypt had strong links to Al Qaeda and the West even admitted this, however they were praised as ''liberators'' by Western media. What happened to Egypt after this so-called revolution? How did the election go? What kind of government did they form? The fact is that the situation in Egypt is now worse than it was during Mubarak which is why we don't hear about it. Same goes for Libya.
    If a Muslim does something which benefits the West he's labelled as a liberator, freedom-fighter, national hero, revolutionist.
    Its you that needs to get educated and open your eyes.

    wow i dont know if you are being ironic or are genuinely brainwashed or jsut thick. Are you actually suggesting there were no islamist attacks anyway before 9-11? ever heard of the Nairobi bombing? USS cole? munich killings? i could go on, but youd be all night looking these up. How can you take part on a forum on terrosim and be so pathetically ignorant on the history?


    and i dont know what the reast of your rant is about- didnt i just say earlier that islamists have existed for decades, in the past they asked usa for help, now they target the usa. it jsut shows they have no loyaties (apart from advanceing 'islamic aims' whatever they might be)

    evetyhting you list onward from this was described as the arab spring- it was a moslem movement not a western one, ( a lot of rioting, bombing anbd killing, which is typical in islam) the usa did little to get invloved, and i doubt they were happy with islamists getting into power in egpyt either but it was out of their hands. The point is a moslem doesnt have to consistently be in conflict with everyone all the time- noone else is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ash92:))
    Wasn't aware of? lol. When did I telepathically suggest this, now?! I told you to PUT FORWARD YOUR REASONING CLEARLY by providing your proofs.

    Can I request that you implement the proper use of English to structure your post by paragraphing? I know it's a big ask as you seem to have some sort of disagreement with paragraphs, but I honestly cba to read such a block of text.

    And it's good to see there was no quoting issue, so thanks.


    actually you demanded i provide the source of my quote- suggessting you didnt recognise it. nor were you able to vouch for its authneticty orginally.

    now that has all been provided you agin for the umptenth time doge all the subsequetions directed at you- i again pointed out to you the undisputed fact that mohamed had no issue with killing of women and children in oder to futher his military aims and also that he regarded civlians as of the enemy. So back to the orignal question dont really see how you can miss between that and the islamist terrosit postion. if this thread ran and ran, there would be almost daily an islamist atrocity that could be repotred on the thread for you to comment on, from almost any part of the world. Waht does that indicate to you?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FCI)
    actually you demanded i provide the source of my quote- suggessting you didnt recognise it. nor were you able to vouch for its authneticty orginally.

    now that has all been provided you agin for the umptenth time doge all the subsequetions directed at you- i again pointed out to you the undisputed fact that mohamed had no issue with killing of women and children in oder to futher his military aims and also that he regarded civlians as of the enemy. So back to the orignal question dont really see how you can miss between that and the islamist terrosit postion. if this thread ran and ran, there would be almost daily an islamist atrocity that could be repotred on the thread for you to comment on, from almost any part of the world. Waht does that indicate to you?
    Actually, I requested/asked. Never did I "demand" - see the thread history.

    Suggesting I was unaware of it?! Extrapolation, much? In discussions, you often provide vague snippets that aren't referenced, etc. I wanted you to provide it so A) I would know which statements you woul distort in the context , B) I do not discuss the same narration from a different isnad, C) Anyone following the discussion knows what you distort (if anything).

    Thank the Lord, we see 2 paragraphs in your post!

    It hasn't been answered? You still claim Islam has no issue with killing women and children?! You like repetition, don't you?


    (Original post by ash92:))
    It would've been easier for you to edit the post rather than re-post. I request that when you provide a hadeeth you state a)the narrator and b)collection of ahadeeth it is recorded in - I'm not a muhaddith, I haven't memorised thousands of ahadeeth, their isnads, and the verification of them.

    OK, so now we have a proper question/discussion proposed. To point out this single hadeeth by itself is portraying the sunnah as an atrocity and cruelty. But that is the weakness of such conclusions from people that do not study ahadeeth. Whenever one does conclude from a hadeeth, he must seek to find dischord in any other hadeeth, and then seek to distinguish the reason for this - eg 2 hadeeth, both authenticated yet seem to contradict, find out why there is a difference.

    Now this hadeeth is recorded once each in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim. However, it is recorded only on the authority of one narrator, Sab bin Jaththama. It seems contrary to others, such as:


    Sahih Muslim Book 19. Jihad and Expedition Hadith Number 4294.
    It has been reported from Sulaiman b. Buraid through his father that when the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) appointed anyone as leader of an army or detachment he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and to be good to the Muslims who were with him. He would say: Fight in the name of Allah and in the way of Allah. Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war, do not embezzle the spoils ; do not break your pledge; and do not mutilate (the dead) bodies; do not kill the children. When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. Then invite them to migrate from their lands to the land of Muhairs and inform them that, if they do so, they shall have all the privileges and obligations of the Muhajirs. If they refuse to migrate, tell them that they will have the status of Bedouin Muslims and will be subjected to the Commands of Allah like other Muslims, but they will not get any share from the spoils of war or Fai' except when they actually fight with the Muslims (against the disbelievers). If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.

    Sahih Bukhari Volume 004, Book 052, Hadith Number 258.
    Narated By Ibn 'Umar : During some of the Ghazawat of Allah's Apostle a woman was found killed, so Allah's Apostle forbade the killing of women and children.

    Sahih Muslim Book 019, Hadith Number 4319.
    It is narrated on the authority of 'Abdullah that a woman was found killed in one of the battles fought by the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He disapproved of the killing of women and children.

    Sahih Muslim Book 019, Hadith Number 4320.
    It is narrated by Ibn 'Umar that a woman was found killed in one of these battles; so the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) forbade the killing of women and children.


    So then why is this seemingly contradictory?
    - A hadeeth is a recorded statement. A statement is said in a certain situation, not all statements are applicable to all situations.
    - Imam Ibn Hajar Al Asaqalani says in Fath Al- Baari that the point is not to target the women and children intentionally but if there is absolutely no other way to kill the enemy than by injuring the women and children because they are mixed with the men then there is no other choice (of course being in the state of war)
    [Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani's Fathul Bari, Kitab: Al Jihad wal Sayr, Bab: Ahlul Daar Yabeetoon Fa Yusaab Al Waldaan wal Zharaari, Commentary on Hadith no. 2790]
    He also seems to have said that another possibility is that the hadith has been abrogated (cannot be ruled out as their is only one narrator/isnad) and that even if women and children accompany the enemy during war then they still should not be killed.
    - Imam Nawawi says in his tafseer of Saheeh Muslim that women and children are only killed only if they cannot be distinguished. But because it was so dark and they could not be distinguished, the Muslims had not choice (in the state of war). [Imam Nawawi's Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Jihad wal Sayr, Bab: Jawaz Qatl Al Nisaa' wal Sabyaan fi Al Biyaat Min Ghayr Ta'amud, Commentary on Hadith no. 3281]

    In fact:
    Sahih Bukhari Volume 005, Book 059, Hadith Number 510.
    Narrated By Anas : Allah's Apostle reached Khaibar at night and it was his habit that, whenever he reached the enemy at night, he will not attack them till it was morning. When it was morning, the Jews came out with their spades and baskets, and when they saw him(i.e. the Prophet), they said, "Muhammad! By Allah! Muhammad and his army!" The Prophet said, "Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned."

    and:
    Saheeh Muslim Book 004, Hadith Number 0745.

    Chapter : There can be two pronouncers of Adhan for one mosque.
    Anas b. Malik reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) used to attack the enemy when it was dawn. He would listen to the Adhan; so if he heard an Adhan, he stopped, otherwise made an attack. Once on hearing a man say: Allah is the Greatest, Allah is the Greatest, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) remarked: He is following al-Fitra (al-Islam). Then hearing him say: I testify that there is no god but Allah. there is no god but Allah, the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: You have come out of the Fire (of Hell). They looked at him and found that he was a goatherd.
    This shows that if the difficulty was distinguishing the children/women from the men in the tents at night, Muhammad صلى الله عليه و سلم made efforts to prevent the consequences of the confusion.

    Of course, nowadays we have electricity for light, as well as night-vision goggles, etc. so it is to be maintained that children and women are not attacked in war.

    I hope you found this to be satisfactory as an answer to your question.


    (Original post by ash92:))
    Huh? I never denied there was such a hadeeth! :confused: I simply asked you to provide it so we could discuss it!
    I think it is quite clear that I raised a few points with my post:
    1) that it is clear this was a question asked to Muhammad (peace be upon him) if it was sinful (ie killing exempt from lawful war) if the women and children cannot be distinguished from the men (eg if battle is to be done in the dark) and are killed (unintentionally) as a result,
    2) that it is not sinful because a) the women and children in that case would be with the men (outside of their homes, in the battlefield) and b) it isn't done so with the intention of killing women and children,
    3) that some hadeeth would suggest that it was usual for Muhammad (peace be upon him) to attack at times after the night, and
    4) this is recorded only through Sab bin Jaththama - not more prominent hadeeth narrators such as Abu Huraira, Ibn Abbaas, ibn Umar, Ibn Anas, Umar, Anas, Abu Sa'id al Khudri, etc. (ra) nor A'isha and Umm Salama (ra).
    For such an important matters, either an incredibly strong, undeniable chain of narration is required, or if possible, 2 different ones that are both reliable.
    5) other hadeeth (eg by Sulaiman bin Buraid AND Ibn Umar, the latter of which is a narrator of many ahadeeth) clearly state the correct practice of war elaboratively, and prohibit the killing if children and women - denoting that the hadeeth by Sab bin Jaththama was exceptionally conditional.
    6) 2 of the most prominent scholars of (Sunni) Islam (remember these hadeeth you quote are also of Sunni Islam), Imam Ibn Hajar and Imam Nawawi, commented very clearly on this - and these are people renowned for their lifelong devotion to the study of ahadeeth and Quran. For politeness and your own convenience, I'll post it again below:



    The answer is clear, if you wish to see it. As usual, you will do either of the following: repeat your question, deny any explanation, refuse to read the above, say that the question (of killing women and children in war as per ahadeeth) has not been answered, say that I have dodged the question. You may choose upto 2 options from the aforementioned - lol.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
    I just realised you've been banned again...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It doesn't, women and children are probably the most protected an in places such as Afghanistan, the Taliban focus on soldiers for example, who are usually men.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    because many are terrorists from many terrorist groups. seems like your bittter because its giving muslim a negative image.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danya1)
    In my opinion, it was America that carried out the World Trade Center bombings, and Muslim's were the scape goats for it. Thought this is relevant as it is one of the main reasons that Muslims are called terrorists. Secondly, Islam is a religion of peace, therefore surely a terrorist shall not be called or considered a Muslim even though they usually claim to be doing their actions in the name of Islam.

    Please stop disliking, we are all entitles to our own opinions.

    Is this a troll, because you are blatantly contradicting yourself.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    Is this a troll, because you are blatantly contradicting yourself.
    Elaborate, I do not see any way in which I am contradicting myself, maybe you made a mistake, like you did, with not putting a question mark at the end of your question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Danya1)
    Elaborate, I do not see any way in which I am contradicting myself, maybe you made a mistake, like you did, with not putting a question mark at the end of your question.

    " Please stop disliking, we are all entitled to our own opinions"
    This is what you said ^


    Can you not see the hypocrisy? It's painfully obvious, I'm going to let you try and work it out for yourself. If you need help then ask again.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It's propaganda potrayed by the media and islamic religion is taking the full brunt of it.
 
 
 
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: December 30, 2016
Poll
If you won £30,000, which of these would you spend it on?

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.