British Muslims: 'You are lazy if you say extremism is not Islamic'
Scroll to see replies
Original post by emski
Quite a lot of people are actually blaming the whole faith for a few people's views. Would the reaction still be the same if we had extremists christians? The isssue I have is why do people have issues with other faiths, I'm an atheist, my mum is a christian and I have several mates who are muslims and jews so why can't everyone just accept each other for what they believe in, nobody knows which religion is the correct one because otherwise we would all believe it. It's a shame there are other more important issues that should be dealt with but all of the focus is going on the wrong things.
If you don't know 'which religion is the correct one' then you aren't an atheist. The faith is not what I was discussing. Of course the Islamic faith is responsible for Islamic fundamentalism, at least in part. You would have to be incredibly obtuse or stupid to deny this.
Original post by tomfailinghelp
If you don't know 'which religion is the correct one' then you aren't an atheist. The faith is not what I was discussing. Of course the Islamic faith is responsible for Islamic fundamentalism, at least in part. You would have to be incredibly obtuse or stupid to deny this.
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God which I don't, I was saying that no one knows which is factually the correct faith as we would all believe it, that's just logical reasoning. The point I'm trying to make is that its stupid to blame everyone of one faith for the extremists point of view and they shouldn't be forced to condemn the extremists behaviour just because they share the same faith.
Original post by emski
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God which I don't, I was saying that no one knows which is factually the correct faith as we would all believe it, that's just logical reasoning. The point I'm trying to make is that its stupid to blame everyone of one faith for the extremists point of view and they shouldn't be forced to condemn the extremists behaviour just because they share the same faith.
An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, this is true. But if you do not believe that it it is 'factually correct' that there is no God, then how are you an Atheist? The answer is that you aren't. It isn't true that 'we would all believe' a thing simply because it was factually correct. Plenty of people deny that the holocaust happened, that global warming happens, or that vaccinations work: these are all factually correct things.
There is no God, this is factually correct. If your defense of religious freedom finds its basis in our failure to draw a factual conclusion about the existence of God, I am worried. Do you think that, if we knew the existence of God for certain, people would not be, or should not be in that case, free to believe what they wish?
Right, okay, but it is also stupid to conflate legitimate criticisms of Islam with criticisms of and attacks on individual Muslims, which is what many people of your particular disposition do.
Original post by tomfailinghelp
An Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, this is true. But if you do not believe that it it is 'factually correct' that there is no God, then how are you an Atheist? The answer is that you aren't. It isn't true that 'we would all believe' a thing simply because it was factually correct. Plenty of people deny that the holocaust happened, that global warming happens, or that vaccinations work: these are all factually correct things.
There is no God, this is factually correct. If your defense of religious freedom finds its basis in our failure to draw a factual conclusion about the existence of God, I am worried. Do you think that, if we knew the existence of God for certain, people would not be, or should not be in that case, free to believe what they wish?
Right, okay, but it is also stupid to conflate legitimate criticisms of Islam with criticisms of and attacks on individual Muslims, which is what many people of your particular disposition do.
There is no God, this is factually correct. If your defense of religious freedom finds its basis in our failure to draw a factual conclusion about the existence of God, I am worried. Do you think that, if we knew the existence of God for certain, people would not be, or should not be in that case, free to believe what they wish?
Right, okay, but it is also stupid to conflate legitimate criticisms of Islam with criticisms of and attacks on individual Muslims, which is what many people of your particular disposition do.
It's logical reason! If everyone knew which was the correct religion or if it didn't exist at all then we would all believe in the same thing, nobody knows what the correct one is therefore we are all believing or not believing in different things. How do you not understand that? With regards to the holocaust non believing, they choose not to believe it for whatever reason (although logically I don't know why they don't).
Surely if there was proof of a God we would all believe it, just like Santa doesn't exist and we would all believe it for the rest of our lives if he did. My view point is that people should not blame everyone in a religion for some stupid people's mistake, that's not conflating I'm just stating my opinion. I also can't see why non extremists of different faiths don't acknowledge other people's faiths, I'm fortunate to be mates with people from a variety of religions and ethnicity and I don't see why other people have a problem (apart from radical/ extremists.)
Original post by emski
It's logical reason! If everyone knew which was the correct religion or if it didn't exist at all then we would all believe in the same thing, nobody knows what the correct one is therefore we are all believing or not believing in different things. How do you not understand that? With regards to the holocaust non believing, they choose not to believe it for whatever reason (although logically I don't know why they don't).
Surely if there was proof of a God we would all believe it, just like Santa doesn't exist and we would all believe it for the rest of our lives if he did. My view point is that people should not blame everyone in a religion for some stupid people's mistake, that's not conflating I'm just stating my opinion. I also can't see why non extremists of different faiths don't acknowledge other people's faiths, I'm fortunate to be mates with people from a variety of religions and ethnicity and I don't see why other people have a problem (apart from radical/ extremists.)
Surely if there was proof of a God we would all believe it, just like Santa doesn't exist and we would all believe it for the rest of our lives if he did. My view point is that people should not blame everyone in a religion for some stupid people's mistake, that's not conflating I'm just stating my opinion. I also can't see why non extremists of different faiths don't acknowledge other people's faiths, I'm fortunate to be mates with people from a variety of religions and ethnicity and I don't see why other people have a problem (apart from radical/ extremists.)
'Surely if there was proof of a God we would all believe it'?
I've given you numerous examples of things that have been 'proved' (as far as anything empirical can be), which people nevertheless deny. Just because something has been established as the truth, doesn't mean that everyone would believe it.
You're really sort of extending yourself into 'not even wrong' territory here.
Some things are right, some things are wrong. What people believe is related to what is right and what is wrong, but they don't match perfectly. A symptom of this is that some people are religious. This fact doesn't entail that religion is either right, or not wrong.
I could, as I'm sure you'll recognize, give several reasons why the Abrahamic God is logically impossible. This is proof that he doesn't exist. There are a number of reasons why people believe these things, but they are not relevant. What is relevant is that people sometimes believe things which are manifestly false. So why are you defending religious freedom by saying, essentially, 'we don't know who is right'? That's not a good reason to tolerate religious diversity.
To approach your other point, I obviously don't believe and have not advocated the position that every member of a faith is responsible for all the consequences of that faith. What I do believe is that it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to vocally repudiate the extremism with their religion, or otherwise to challenge it.
Original post by tomfailinghelp
'Surely if there was proof of a God we would all believe it'?
I've given you numerous examples of things that have been 'proved' (as far as anything empirical can be), which people nevertheless deny. Just because something has been established as the truth, doesn't mean that everyone would believe it.
You're really sort of extending yourself into 'not even wrong' territory here.
Some things are right, some things are wrong. What people believe is related to what is right and what is wrong, but they don't match perfectly. A symptom of this is that some people are religious. This fact doesn't entail that religion is either right, or not wrong.
I could, as I'm sure you'll recognize, give several reasons why the Abrahamic God is logically impossible. This is proof that he doesn't exist. There are a number of reasons why people believe these things, but they are not relevant. What is relevant is that people sometimes believe things which are manifestly false. So why are you defending religious freedom by saying, essentially, 'we don't know who is right'? That's not a good reason to tolerate religious diversity.
To approach your other point, I obviously don't believe and have not advocated the position that every member of a faith is responsible for all the consequences of that faith. What I do believe is that it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to vocally repudiate the extremism with their religion, or otherwise to challenge it.
I've given you numerous examples of things that have been 'proved' (as far as anything empirical can be), which people nevertheless deny. Just because something has been established as the truth, doesn't mean that everyone would believe it.
You're really sort of extending yourself into 'not even wrong' territory here.
Some things are right, some things are wrong. What people believe is related to what is right and what is wrong, but they don't match perfectly. A symptom of this is that some people are religious. This fact doesn't entail that religion is either right, or not wrong.
I could, as I'm sure you'll recognize, give several reasons why the Abrahamic God is logically impossible. This is proof that he doesn't exist. There are a number of reasons why people believe these things, but they are not relevant. What is relevant is that people sometimes believe things which are manifestly false. So why are you defending religious freedom by saying, essentially, 'we don't know who is right'? That's not a good reason to tolerate religious diversity.
To approach your other point, I obviously don't believe and have not advocated the position that every member of a faith is responsible for all the consequences of that faith. What I do believe is that it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to vocally repudiate the extremism with their religion, or otherwise to challenge it.
So because I'm a girl I have to condemn the murders by female murderers?
Original post by emski
So because I'm a girl I have to condemn the murders by female murderers?
No, because the Female gender and Islam are in no way analogous. One is an ideology, one is a gender.
The reason it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to condemn violent Islam is that it would perhaps turn some Muslims away from it, but also (and primarily) because it would create and clarify a conceptual divide between two different facets of the religion.
Original post by SmallDuck
"The Prime Minister's official spokesman confirmed Mr Cameron agreed with Culture Secretary Sajid Javid who yesterday said it was "absolutely fair to say that there is a special burden on Muslim communities because, whether we like it or not, these terrorists call themselves Muslims".
"Speaking on Radio 5 Live, Mr Javid added that it was "lazy" and "wrong" to say that France's terror attacks had nothing to do with Muslims."
I tend to agree with Mr Javid. It is concerning that not all muslims are condemning extremism, despite it being in their best interest to distance themselves from it.
Is it the case that many muslims secretly sympathise with the terrorists?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/paris-terror-attacks-muslims-have-a-special-burden-to-track-down-islamist-extremists-says-david-cameron-9972878.html
"Speaking on Radio 5 Live, Mr Javid added that it was "lazy" and "wrong" to say that France's terror attacks had nothing to do with Muslims."
I tend to agree with Mr Javid. It is concerning that not all muslims are condemning extremism, despite it being in their best interest to distance themselves from it.
Is it the case that many muslims secretly sympathise with the terrorists?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/paris-terror-attacks-muslims-have-a-special-burden-to-track-down-islamist-extremists-says-david-cameron-9972878.html
Sounds like populist bull**** tbh
The way I see it is, terrorists tend not to broadcast their views to people, and often if they do, they're banned from mosques, and the police are contacted
It's ridiculous to think that Muslims all live in one big community, and all go to the same places, where absolutely every one knows exactly what every one is thinking. Are Muslims meant to be telepathic now??
We have a good justice system in this country, and the police are paid to stamp this out. Of course, Muslims should report when they can, but if someones planning on bombing London, they're hardly going to say to every one "Hey Im going to detonate a bomb in London"
I think that Mr Javaid is just making populist comments tbh
One thing I do think however is that madrassahs and the like should teach more tolerance, and a sense of belonging to the UK as well as to religion, because afaik that isn't un-Islamic (not unless you're a Wahabi)
(edited 9 years ago)
It's really frustrating because ordinary Muslims are expected to speak out and when they do they are ignored. So what do people expect them to do? Go knocking on peoples' doors and telling them that they don't agree?
The vast majority of normal, non-radical Muslims do not agree with terrorism but are viewed in that light because of the people who use Islam as a shield for their own f*cked up reasons
The vast majority of normal, non-radical Muslims do not agree with terrorism but are viewed in that light because of the people who use Islam as a shield for their own f*cked up reasons
Original post by Mahbuba1997
It's really frustrating because ordinary Muslims are expected to speak out and when they do they are ignored. So what do people expect them to do? Go knocking on peoples' doors and telling them that they don't agree?
This. The media are hardly going to print press about your normal average person, regardless of what their religion is or isn't.
[video="youtube;WpYeekQkAdc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc[/video]
From the song, a couple of song lyrics, that I think apply to today
"Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria"
Now I don't mean to be like "Oh it's the media maaaaaaaan" but I think with the likes of the Daily Fail, people have warped views
Original post by MatureStudent36
Agreed.
The problem is that we haven't seen Christian, Hindu, Seikh, Buddhist or any other religious nutters operating in the UK, Europe or North America
The problem is that we haven't seen Christian, Hindu, Seikh, Buddhist or any other religious nutters operating in the UK, Europe or North America
RE: Christianity - Christianity has mellowed over the years. Some sects of Islam have became more prominent, with the rise of certain countries (Cough Saudi Arabia) Go back a few hundred years ago, you'd have puritanical Christians as well.
Not much on Hindu terrorism, but there's certainly a few reports on Sikh terrorism:
https://encrypted.google.com/search?{google:acceptedSuggestion}oq=Hindu+terrorists+in+the+UK&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Hindu+terrorists+in+the+UK#q=Sikh+terrorists+in+the+UK
And various EDL members who'd happily "burn all the Muslims because they reject Jesus" i'd also call that terrorism tbh
Original post by The_Internet
This. The media are hardly going to print press about your normal average person, regardless of what their religion is or isn't.
[video="youtube;WpYeekQkAdc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc[/video]
From the song, a couple of song lyrics, that I think apply to today
"Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria"
Now I don't mean to be like "Oh it's the media maaaaaaaan" but I think with the likes of the Daily Fail, people have warped views
[video="youtube;WpYeekQkAdc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc[/video]
From the song, a couple of song lyrics, that I think apply to today
"Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria"
Now I don't mean to be like "Oh it's the media maaaaaaaan" but I think with the likes of the Daily Fail, people have warped views
This.
I really wanna rep that but I have apparently used them all up
You are quite correct, I think people should be judged by the way they act on a personal level with other people rather than what is shown by these oh so 'accurate' sources
P.S. Love that song
Original post by tomfailinghelp
No, because the Female gender and Islam are in no way analogous. One is an ideology, one is a gender.
The reason it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to condemn violent Islam is that it would perhaps turn some Muslims away from it, but also (and primarily) because it would create and clarify a conceptual divide between two different facets of the religion.
The reason it would be morally good for moderate Muslims to condemn violent Islam is that it would perhaps turn some Muslims away from it, but also (and primarily) because it would create and clarify a conceptual divide between two different facets of the religion.
okay let me rephrase that if I was a christian would I have to condemn terrorist attacks by extremists christians?
Original post by emski
as far as I'm aware most religions have extremism, its unfair that the rest of the faith get blamed for the extremists stupid behaviour
Yeah
There's been like loads of christian, hindu and sikh terrorist attacks in the last week that gets no coverage
Original post by Snagprophet
Yeah
There's been like loads of christian, hindu and sikh terrorist attacks in the last week that gets no coverage
There's been like loads of christian, hindu and sikh terrorist attacks in the last week that gets no coverage
And you don't see pope condeming those now do you....
Original post by The_Internet
This. The media are hardly going to print press about your normal average person, regardless of what their religion is or isn't.
"Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria"
Now I don't mean to be like "Oh it's the media maaaaaaaan" but I think with the likes of the Daily Fail, people have warped views
"Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria"
Now I don't mean to be like "Oh it's the media maaaaaaaan" but I think with the likes of the Daily Fail, people have warped views
[video="youtube;_GRZmd8mBgY"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GRZmd8mBgY[/video]
Ok so this is old but it still works this way. For the record I found this hilarious
(edited 9 years ago)
This issue seems to be vastly misunderstood by the more left-wing-inclined among us.
The problem with Islamic extremism is that it is a radical political ideology that has built itself entirely and solely around the tenets of Islam (Or, at least, an interpretation of those tenets). These extremists are murdering, committing atrocities, inciting violence, and toppling governments all in the name of what they perceive their religion to be. They have not altered anything to suit them, and they are not abiding by any "Islamist text" that is vastly different to the Qur'an that ordinary Muslims live by. They are taking basic Islamic thoughts, ideas, and messages and perverting them to suit a very hateful cause.
It's certainly quite patronising, I think, for anyone to "demand" that a group of people condemn something that they had no part in. However, there is an expectation - and rightfully so - that Muslims who do not share the views of extremists should fight back and reclaim their religion in the name of peace. There will be no progress if Islam is allowed to be tainted by radicals. If moderate and liberal Muslims can stand up and make the strong case that Islam is, and can be, a broadly positive and inclusive religion, then the entire foundation of the extremists' argument will collapse.
To summarise: Yes, extremism is an Islamic problem that needs to be addressed by Muslims. But no, that does not mean that every Muslim is at fault for the actions of extremists. It simply means that this is a problem that has originated from within Islam, sustains its ideology on twisted Islamic beliefs, and is in dire need of being countered by more progressive voices - though these must also come from within Islam to be truly effective.
The problem with Islamic extremism is that it is a radical political ideology that has built itself entirely and solely around the tenets of Islam (Or, at least, an interpretation of those tenets). These extremists are murdering, committing atrocities, inciting violence, and toppling governments all in the name of what they perceive their religion to be. They have not altered anything to suit them, and they are not abiding by any "Islamist text" that is vastly different to the Qur'an that ordinary Muslims live by. They are taking basic Islamic thoughts, ideas, and messages and perverting them to suit a very hateful cause.
It's certainly quite patronising, I think, for anyone to "demand" that a group of people condemn something that they had no part in. However, there is an expectation - and rightfully so - that Muslims who do not share the views of extremists should fight back and reclaim their religion in the name of peace. There will be no progress if Islam is allowed to be tainted by radicals. If moderate and liberal Muslims can stand up and make the strong case that Islam is, and can be, a broadly positive and inclusive religion, then the entire foundation of the extremists' argument will collapse.
To summarise: Yes, extremism is an Islamic problem that needs to be addressed by Muslims. But no, that does not mean that every Muslim is at fault for the actions of extremists. It simply means that this is a problem that has originated from within Islam, sustains its ideology on twisted Islamic beliefs, and is in dire need of being countered by more progressive voices - though these must also come from within Islam to be truly effective.
Original post by emski
okay let me rephrase that if I was a christian would I have to condemn terrorist attacks by extremists christians?
If they were regular and reflected the teachings of the Bible to a significant sense it would be morally good of you to vocally condemn them and take steps to reduce their influence, so yes, to some degree.
Original post by The_Internet
This. The media are hardly going to print press about your normal average person, regardless of what their religion is or isn't.
[video="youtube;WpYeekQkAdc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc[/video]
From the song, a couple of song lyrics, that I think apply to today
"Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria"
Now I don't mean to be like "Oh it's the media maaaaaaaan" but I think with the likes of the Daily Fail, people have warped views
[video="youtube;WpYeekQkAdc"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpYeekQkAdc[/video]
From the song, a couple of song lyrics, that I think apply to today
"Wrong information always shown by the media
Negative images is the main criteria
Infecting the young minds faster than bacteria"
Now I don't mean to be like "Oh it's the media maaaaaaaan" but I think with the likes of the Daily Fail, people have warped views
But you are being like that.
Pretty much with the exception of DM the British media is excessively careful about avoiding suggesting any connection between Islam and terrorist attacks, far from ever actually identifying them, which is bizarre as there so obviously is a significant connection.
Original post by emski
And because the wealthy places don't get affected people don't realise they don't exist. It was like the Ebola thing no one cared when africans died then the minute they think rich people will get it they start caring
Uh, yes. The "rich" world is the free world, and if bad things happen to the free world it is obviously worse.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- How would most Muslims react if a Muslim girl got married to a non-Muslim?
- Muslim Girl but I want to be a (animal) Vet
- Muslim convert, how do I tell my family?
- Geert Wilders's far-right PVV wins most seats in Dutch election
- .
- OCR GCSE Religious Studies Paper 1 [15 May 2023] Exam Chat
- Is sandhu a muslim name?
- (muslim/hindu advice)
- i took off my hijab, family is crazy
- Am I Muslim if I am choosing not to worship God?
- Can someone please mark my GCSE AQA Religious studies 12 marker :)
- Female British Pakistani interested in marriage, but concerned
- Interfaith and Intercultute Relationships
- She's my best friend, and I want to help her
- Out of all the universities that have been listed, which are more Muslim friendly?
- Is becoming a nurse allowed in Islam?
- How to deal with a strictly religious friend?
- “It’s culture” but people from Islam are from all different cultures
- muslims/asians at UEA
- Who am I supposed to date/marry?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 23 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?Trending
Last reply 23 hours ago
Even Europe’s far-right firebrands seem to sense Brexit is a disaster- The GuardianLast reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 4 days ago
Sunak rejects offer of youth mobility scheme between EU and UKLast reply 1 week ago
Rayner denies wrongdoing over council house sale amid police reviewLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Big Discussion #1: What should be top priority to protect the environment?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Where do you stand on the political spectrum (8values)? – Take a quiz here!Last reply 3 weeks ago
2024 UK general election speculation and build-up threadLast reply 3 weeks ago
No progress made on half of UK government’s levelling-up targetsLast reply 3 weeks ago
Trump needs a $464m bond in six days. What if he can't get it?
