The Student Room Group

The Paris attacks were successful, and it's our fault

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Good bloke
My advice is to read carefully, understand, think, then post.


Because that doesn't sound condescending or anything. :unimpressed:
Original post by Lachel_Ree
Yes. I'm no Qur'an expert but from what I've been told by my close Muslim friends, you're not allowed to oppress innocent people; violence is for defence against enemies.


We have already established that the Koranic definition of "innocent" is not quite what you might expect, haven't we?
Original post by Lachel_Ree
Yes. I'm no Qur'an expert but from what I've been told by my close Muslim friends, you're not allowed to oppress innocent people; violence is for defence against enemies.


So we have established that there are violent verses and violent commands.

Are Muslims supposed to follow the commands in the Qur'an?

Who are they supposed to oppress?

Who are the innocent people and who is an "enemy"? (Ask your friend if you don't know, not other posters)
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Lachel_Ree
Because that doesn't sound condescending or anything. :unimpressed:


In that case I recommend you read it again and heed it.
Original post by Good bloke
We have already established that the Koranic definition of "innocent" is not quite what you might expect, haven't we?


Look I haven't got the time or need to sit here and talk about this when I've made it clear:

Muslim in ISIS does something violent, you say it's in the Qur'an
Normal Muslim does something non-violent, you say they're aren't following the Qur'an

That's a fallacious argument because you've not provided evidence to back these claims. Muslims are nice people in my experience, and there are always going to be bad Muslims just as there are bad Atheists or Jews, it doesn't necessarily mean the Qur'an made them bad so live with it.

BYE. :smile:
Original post by Lachel_Ree
you've not provided evidence to back these claims.


Before you enter a discussion on any particular religion I suggest you learn something about that religion. In the case of Islam that would involve being at least somewhat familiar with the Koran and the hadith.

I'll make it easy for you and provide a link to an explanation that also quotes the Koran:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/does-the-koran-forbid-the-killing-of-non-muslims/
Original post by Frank Underwood
they aren't, Boko-Haram and Al-Shabab do far worse things every month in their respective countries.

Al-Qaeda's worst attack killed more than 8x the death toll of ISIL's two deadliest attacks on Westerners.

They are a significant threat to Syria and Iraq, but those countries alone. It is shameful to see the House of Commons glorifying this terrorist group by dedicating some 10 hours to decide whether or not to bomb them, when in fact Assad is the real enemy. Don't get me wrong, ISIS should be eradicated, but if they should then our attitudes towards other groups are flawed, given that ISIS is no more capable.

and no, I don't support those animals


That's because the intelligence systems in the countries they operate in aren't as developed and those countries have to deal with the terrorist groups pretty much on their own. Do not underestimate ISIS. They are far more dangerous than you think. All of the west is fighting against them and they still are able to carry out such attacks. Boko haram are pussies compared to ISIS
Original post by Frank Underwood
No. ISIS is not a threat because their attacks are infrequent and generally low casualty compared to those carried out at greater frequency in other countries by other terrorist groups now and in the past, and also because our domestic security and intelligence is good at the moment.

And the thing is, these people who are said to be 'Isis' by the media are not actually ISIS. They are foreign nationals who have been manipulated and radicalised by ISIS into joining them and committing atrocities in their name. The actual militants belonging to ISIS are in Syria, surrounded and posing a nonexistent threat to us.

ISIS isn't attacking us, we are allowing ISIS to manipulate foreign Muslims into attacking us, this is due to the media, Islamophobia and scaremongering.


You may very well think that Frank, I couldn't possibly comment.
Reply 48
Avatar for Josb
Josb
6
Original post by Lachel_Ree
Yes. I'm no Qur'an expert but from what I've been told by my close Muslim friends, you're not allowed to oppress innocent people; violence is for defence against enemies.


What is an "enemy"?
Reply 49
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Lachel_Ree
Hi, just a lurker here but I have close Muslim friends and they condemn ISIS all the time. They follow mainstream Sunni Islamic Scholars, the vast majority of those also condemn ISIS.
Every Muslim I know also condemns ISIS, but none condemn the parts of the ideology that ISIS use to justify their actions. They simply say that ISIS are misinterpreting it. However, when you look at the actual text of these passages, in conjunction with a classical tafsir like Ibn Kathir, you see that rather than misinterpreting, they are just taking an unmodernised, literalist interpretation.
It seems at odds with the Islam practiced by many westerners because secular and liberal democracy has influenced their worldview as much as Islam alone. Remove the moderating influence of several centuries of enlightenment and rational thought, and refer only to the Quran and sunnah, and you can easily get something like ISIS.

It is not the only possible outcome, as is evidenced by the history of Islam around the world - but it is one of them.

I have read some of the Quran and I have seen some violent passages but as far as I know oppression against innocents is not allowed? I was also told that violence is only allowed in defence,
The version of Islam as disseminaten by most mainstream sources in the west glosses over and even ignores the unacceptable passages. The classic example is sura 5:32 when it is used to show that Islam forbids killing. This is often quoted by Muslims as "If anyone kills one person, it is as if they have killed all of humanity".

Sounds reasonable. However, the full passage reads...
"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men"

They always miss out the qualifier, that killing is allowed as a punishment for murder (again, seems reasonable - although I personally disagree) and for causing "mischief" or "fasad" in Arabic. This word includes a wide range of actions including "disobeying god's law" (according to classical scholars). So, already, we can see that killing is allowed as a punishment for murder and for disobeying god's law.

This is compunded by looking at the following verse 5:33...
"The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be killed or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned"

In his tafsir (detailed books explaining the meaning of the Quran, with reference to authentic sayings of Muhammad), Ibn Kathir explains that 'wage war' includes "opposition, contradiction and disbelief". He also states that the verse is of general use and applies to all those guilty of the crimes mentioned, so there is no historical context to be applied.

So, we can see that essentially, these two verses permit the killing of anyone who refuses to submit to Islam.

As I said earlier, this is not the only possible interpretation, but it is one that was expressed by one of the most respected scholars in Islamic history, whose tafsir is one of the most widely used in the world, so it is not one that can simply be dismissed with a claim of "misinterpretation" or "twisting".

There is plenty more, but I'm sure that's enough to illustrate my point, and to show where you might have been misled.

so I don't know who you've been talking to lol...
I've been talking to no one.
I've been reading the Quran, sunnah and tafsir.
It's far more reliable than talking to people who have an agenda.
But don't take my word for it, see for yourself.
http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=33
http://www.alim.org/library/quran/AlQuran-tafsir/TIK/5/32
Reply 50
Avatar for QE2
QE2
20
Original post by Lachel_Ree
Look I haven't got the time or need to sit here and talk about this when I've made it clear:

Muslim in ISIS does something violent, you say it's in the Qur'an
Normal Muslim does something non-violent, you say they're aren't following the Qur'an
Islam is a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and oppression, of equality and discrimination.
People simply cherry-pick the bits that suit their agenda.
Original post by BaconandSauce
Do you support ISIS?

Given you believe they are not a particularly dangerous terrorist group.


How typical. As soon as someone with an opposing opinion comes, you throw them in the terrorist sympathiser pile.

Are you a redneck or something?)
Original post by QE2
Islam is a religion of peace and violence, of tolerance and oppression, of equality and discrimination.
People simply cherry-pick the bits that suit their agenda.


Very true.
Original post by Frank Underwood
No. ISIS is not a threat because their attacks are infrequent and generally low casualty compared to those carried out at greater frequency in other countries by other terrorist groups now and in the past, and also because our domestic security and intelligence is good at the moment.
it would be irresponsible to lower our guard now. ISIS will try to replicate their Paris operation if given only half a chance, as soon as they can. Do you realise that, a few months ago, a massacre on the same scale (on the Amsterdam-Paris train) failed by pure chance ?

and then, when a new massacre happens, some people will accuse European Governments of having "let this happen" because of their own interests, just like Bush organised 9/11 and bla bla bla
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Lachel_Ree


I have read some of the Quran and I have seen some violent passages but as far as I know oppression against innocents is not allowed? I was also told that violence is only allowed in defence, so I don't know who you've been talking to lol...
the entire problem lies in who is considered "innocent" and who isn't

according to mainstream Islam, apostates, homosexuals, adulterers, infidels who refuse to pay the special infidel tax, blasphemers, those who oppose Islam etc etc are not "innocent" at all

of course that you should not only get your information only from people who may have an anti-Islamic bias: just like you should not get your information only from those who have a pro-Islamic bias
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Frank Underwood
they aren't, Boko-Haram and Al-Shabab do far worse things every month in their respective countries.

Al-Qaeda's worst attack killed more than 8x the death toll of ISIL's two deadliest attacks on Westerners.

They are a significant threat to Syria and Iraq, but those countries alone. It is shameful to see the House of Commons glorifying this terrorist group by dedicating some 10 hours to decide whether or not to bomb them, when in fact Assad is the real enemy. Don't get me wrong, ISIS should be eradicated, but if they should then our attitudes towards other groups are flawed, given that ISIS is no more capable.

and no, I don't support those animals


Al shabab aren't worse then isis

Trust me.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Reply 56
Avatar for TeeEm
TeeEm
19
I am reading the opening post early hours of the morning after 2 glasses of wine ...
This is why I cannot make sense of it ...
Original post by mariachi
it would be irresponsible to lower our guard now. ISIS will try to replicate their Paris operation if given only half a chance, as soon as they can. Do you realise that, a few months ago, a massacre on the same scale (on the Amsterdam-Paris train) failed by pure chance ?

and then, when a new massacre happens, some people will accuse European Governments of having "let this happen" because of their own interests, just like Bush organised 9/11 and bla bla bla


I'm not saying to lower our guard, in fact my exact stance on ISIS is to improve domestic security and intelligence. My stance on this thread is that ISIS poses a nonexistent threat to us, but the threat derives from foreign nationals carrying out attacks 'in the name of ISIL', which is catalysed by western media causing Islamophobia and hatred towards the refugees / immigrants and ignorance on the Syrian Civil War.

Original post by missfats
Al shabab aren't worse then isis


Trust me.


Posted from TSR Mobile


al-Shabab are worse, they have existed for longer and are punching a hole into an already weak country, their attacks are more frequent than ISIL's and they are more brutal in their techniques
Original post by missfats
Al shabab aren't worse then isis

Trust me.


Posted from TSR Mobile


What is your view on Al Shabab then?
Reply 59
Avatar for whorace
whorace
2
ISIL are not successful due to size or even number of casualties, they have been successful because they use fear far better than any of the other organisations, they have used tactics condemned by violent jihadists, even Al Qaeda have condemned their practices as extreme.

That's why they appeal to fanatics, and the funny thing is, ISIL is nowhere near as big as they want us to think, most ISIL fighters are likely just poor people given food and water in return for service in a war torn area, not all of them will be hardline fanatics at heart.

Cut the head off the snake

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you