Go to first unread
Back
to top
Why are "Islamic Extremists" often not religious at all?
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
Report
#41
(Original post by QE2)
FGM in Indonesia has nothing to do with Islam. It is purely an African cultural practice.....
FGM in Indonesia has nothing to do with Islam. It is purely an African cultural practice.....
"All women interviewed in the USAID study consider FGM an Islamic practice, most of them calling it a religious duty and many affirming that an uncircumcised woman is not Muslim. There is evidence to the assumption that FGM in Indonesia was introduced by Islam starting in the 13th century and did not exist as a cultural practice before."
0
Report
#42
(Original post by admonit)
Well, Indonesia is not exactly in Africa.
"All women interviewed in the USAID study consider FGM an Islamic practice, most of them calling it a religious duty and many affirming that an uncircumcised woman is not Muslim. There is evidence to the assumption that FGM in Indonesia was introduced by Islam starting in the 13th century and did not exist as a cultural practice before."
Well, Indonesia is not exactly in Africa.
"All women interviewed in the USAID study consider FGM an Islamic practice, most of them calling it a religious duty and many affirming that an uncircumcised woman is not Muslim. There is evidence to the assumption that FGM in Indonesia was introduced by Islam starting in the 13th century and did not exist as a cultural practice before."
Or did you just read the first line and hit "reply"?
The three things I listed clearly show that FGM only occurs in Indonesia because of Islam.
1
Report
#43
(Original post by QE2)
Really? How could you not see the irony in my post? I thought it was so obvious that smileys were not necessary!
Or did you just read the first line and hit "reply"?
The three things I listed clearly show that FGM only occurs in Indonesia because of Islam.
Really? How could you not see the irony in my post? I thought it was so obvious that smileys were not necessary!
Or did you just read the first line and hit "reply"?
The three things I listed clearly show that FGM only occurs in Indonesia because of Islam.
0
Report
#44
Because if they were that genuinely religious and made such an effort to follow Islam to the letter even in relatively minor issues (not drinking and doing drugs etc.) then they wouldn't be killing innocent people (which would be a far bigger sin than drinking) and thus contravening their religion on a major issue.
0
Report
#45
It's not exactly clear how the leap of logic went from "does not adhere to certain religious rules" -> "not religious"
The compulsion to believe in a deity is still there, which should more than qualify for whether they are religious. The "killing innocents" are a sin, but if you refuse to qualify unbelievers as human/innocent, then it might seem to follow that killing them aren't the same as killing innocents.
Islamic doctrine is like Dalek code - there's simply no room for reason (pure ideology), the less critical someone is then the more susceptible they are to it
The compulsion to believe in a deity is still there, which should more than qualify for whether they are religious. The "killing innocents" are a sin, but if you refuse to qualify unbelievers as human/innocent, then it might seem to follow that killing them aren't the same as killing innocents.
Islamic doctrine is like Dalek code - there's simply no room for reason (pure ideology), the less critical someone is then the more susceptible they are to it
0
Report
#46
- must of this claim could also be applied to the vast majority of muslim world - ie muslims form east to west lsiten to music, support football teams, party, mix with opposite sex etc etc. all straying form islamic edict- but it is nonsese to isolate them from the islamic status (otherwise world muslim population would be more like few hundred million rather than over a billion)(Original post by Aztec123)
x?
0
Report
#47
They may not be religious in the strict sense, but they still probably believe in some of it, and it often still holds some influence upon them. I don't think we should seek to downplay the link between extremism and religion.
0
Report
#48
If it wasn't for islam these low life idiots would have stayed as low life idiots
But the religion of peace turned them into monsters
But the religion of peace turned them into monsters
0
Report
#49
(Original post by swiss_cheese)
First of all, I hope you realise I am talking about terrorists who want to inflict mass casualty on civilians and not ISIS militants, there is a distinct difference. I am talking about the radicalised, often foreign individuals who are manipulated by IS propaganda, and not the crumbling regime of IS militants in Syria. Maybe the ones in Syria do intend on purporting their interpretation of 'true Islam', but these terrorists such as Sediffine Rezgui, Omar Mateen, the Paris attackers, Brussels attackers, the truck driver - they do not.
The reasoning behind the brutality of IS in Syria is not because they are following true Islam. They are not particularly dangerous as a physical fighting force, but their danger comes from their ability to radicalise foreigners to commit atrocities in their name. They are called the "Islamic State", not "Al-Qaeda", "Al-Shabab" - the fact that Islamic is in their name is particularly threatening because they are openly claiming to support all Muslims, as opposed to being one of these minor terrorist groups who acknowledge that their views are extreme.
The Middle East is a desert, Syria has suffered under the Assad regime, failed western foreign policy and many other things. ISIS spawned out of this chaos NOT because they wanted to 'defend Islam' like they're the holy crusaders to save the religion. They spawned because there was chaos and room to grow, their extreme use of Islam is literally them taking the Quran and interpreting things in the most brutal way possible. It makes no sense to persecute Islam or Muslims because a small group of people exploit it to justify a brutal regime in a war torn country. But the point is, these terrorists didn't wake up one day and decide to defend Islam, they are broken, evil people who are trying to justify hatred through religious means, the source of the hatred isn't a soul-centred desire to help Muslims, the source of their hatred is against America for its foreign policy, and for Assad and anyone else in Syria - their 'call for war' against foreign cities is simply them trying to expand themselves as much as possible, because they're smart and use social media, they spread their word and now almost everyone knows about them.
My point about Indonesia is that surely if the rhetoric that "Islam = the problem" is true, then Indonesia, being 90% Muslim, should be worse than even Syria right now? But they've had one minor terror attack recently. Therefore, Islam is categorically not the problem. The problem is corruption, war and hatred. The Middle East has had some brutal regimes, it has been subject to failed western foreign policy, it has therefore suffered conflict - and young people in conflict are generally the sort of easily impressionable people who become radicalised and do these attacks. These people don't wake up one day and say "lets kill for the sake of Islam", their entire worlds are slowly turned upside down, violence becomes the norm, and at this point they become radicalised. They do not go out killing innocent people because they want to 'defend Islam', they do it because they want to inflict as much damage as possible and to harm as many as possible - they know that attacking foreign cities will raise hatred towards Islam/Muslims and they still do it. They simply do not care about Islam, they use it as a vague way of justifying their actions - because being labelled as an 'Islamic terrorist' is more resounding than being shoved aside as a lone madman.
First of all, I hope you realise I am talking about terrorists who want to inflict mass casualty on civilians and not ISIS militants, there is a distinct difference. I am talking about the radicalised, often foreign individuals who are manipulated by IS propaganda, and not the crumbling regime of IS militants in Syria. Maybe the ones in Syria do intend on purporting their interpretation of 'true Islam', but these terrorists such as Sediffine Rezgui, Omar Mateen, the Paris attackers, Brussels attackers, the truck driver - they do not.
The reasoning behind the brutality of IS in Syria is not because they are following true Islam. They are not particularly dangerous as a physical fighting force, but their danger comes from their ability to radicalise foreigners to commit atrocities in their name. They are called the "Islamic State", not "Al-Qaeda", "Al-Shabab" - the fact that Islamic is in their name is particularly threatening because they are openly claiming to support all Muslims, as opposed to being one of these minor terrorist groups who acknowledge that their views are extreme.
The Middle East is a desert, Syria has suffered under the Assad regime, failed western foreign policy and many other things. ISIS spawned out of this chaos NOT because they wanted to 'defend Islam' like they're the holy crusaders to save the religion. They spawned because there was chaos and room to grow, their extreme use of Islam is literally them taking the Quran and interpreting things in the most brutal way possible. It makes no sense to persecute Islam or Muslims because a small group of people exploit it to justify a brutal regime in a war torn country. But the point is, these terrorists didn't wake up one day and decide to defend Islam, they are broken, evil people who are trying to justify hatred through religious means, the source of the hatred isn't a soul-centred desire to help Muslims, the source of their hatred is against America for its foreign policy, and for Assad and anyone else in Syria - their 'call for war' against foreign cities is simply them trying to expand themselves as much as possible, because they're smart and use social media, they spread their word and now almost everyone knows about them.
My point about Indonesia is that surely if the rhetoric that "Islam = the problem" is true, then Indonesia, being 90% Muslim, should be worse than even Syria right now? But they've had one minor terror attack recently. Therefore, Islam is categorically not the problem. The problem is corruption, war and hatred. The Middle East has had some brutal regimes, it has been subject to failed western foreign policy, it has therefore suffered conflict - and young people in conflict are generally the sort of easily impressionable people who become radicalised and do these attacks. These people don't wake up one day and say "lets kill for the sake of Islam", their entire worlds are slowly turned upside down, violence becomes the norm, and at this point they become radicalised. They do not go out killing innocent people because they want to 'defend Islam', they do it because they want to inflict as much damage as possible and to harm as many as possible - they know that attacking foreign cities will raise hatred towards Islam/Muslims and they still do it. They simply do not care about Islam, they use it as a vague way of justifying their actions - because being labelled as an 'Islamic terrorist' is more resounding than being shoved aside as a lone madman.
0
Report
#50
(Original post by tazarooni89)
Because if they were that genuinely religious and made such an effort to follow Islam to the letter even in relatively minor issues (not drinking and doing drugs etc.) then they wouldn't be killing innocent people (which would be a far bigger sin than drinking) and thus contravening their religion on a major issue.
Because if they were that genuinely religious and made such an effort to follow Islam to the letter even in relatively minor issues (not drinking and doing drugs etc.) then they wouldn't be killing innocent people (which would be a far bigger sin than drinking) and thus contravening their religion on a major issue.
0
Report
#51
(Original post by banterboy)
I dont understanbd why him beating his wife makes him less of a muslim? In Islam you're allowed to do it
I dont understanbd why him beating his wife makes him less of a muslim? In Islam you're allowed to do it
Don't make comments about a religion without proof!
0
Report
#52
(Original post by swiss_cheese)
First of all, I hope you realise I am talking about terrorists who want to inflict mass casualty on civilians and not ISIS militants, there is a distinct difference. I am talking about the radicalised, often foreign individuals who are manipulated by IS propaganda, and not the crumbling regime of IS militants in Syria. Maybe the ones in Syria do intend on purporting their interpretation of 'true Islam', but these terrorists such as Sediffine Rezgui, Omar Mateen, the Paris attackers, Brussels attackers, the truck driver - they do not.
The reasoning behind the brutality of IS in Syria is not because they are following true Islam. They are not particularly dangerous as a physical fighting force, but their danger comes from their ability to radicalise foreigners to commit atrocities in their name. They are called the "Islamic State", not "Al-Qaeda", "Al-Shabab" - the fact that Islamic is in their name is particularly threatening because they are openly claiming to support all Muslims, as opposed to being one of these minor terrorist groups who acknowledge that their views are extreme.
The Middle East is a desert, Syria has suffered under the Assad regime, failed western foreign policy and many other things. ISIS spawned out of this chaos NOT because they wanted to 'defend Islam' like they're the holy crusaders to save the religion. They spawned because there was chaos and room to grow, their extreme use of Islam is literally them taking the Quran and interpreting things in the most brutal way possible. It makes no sense to persecute Islam or Muslims because a small group of people exploit it to justify a brutal regime in a war torn country. But the point is, these terrorists didn't wake up one day and decide to defend Islam, they are broken, evil people who are trying to justify hatred through religious means, the source of the hatred isn't a soul-centred desire to help Muslims, the source of their hatred is against America for its foreign policy, and for Assad and anyone else in Syria - their 'call for war' against foreign cities is simply them trying to expand themselves as much as possible, because they're smart and use social media, they spread their word and now almost everyone knows about them.
My point about Indonesia is that surely if the rhetoric that "Islam = the problem" is true, then Indonesia, being 90% Muslim, should be worse than even Syria right now? But they've had one minor terror attack recently. Therefore, Islam is categorically not the problem. The problem is corruption, war and hatred. The Middle East has had some brutal regimes, it has been subject to failed western foreign policy, it has therefore suffered conflict - and young people in conflict are generally the sort of easily impressionable people who become radicalised and do these attacks. These people don't wake up one day and say "lets kill for the sake of Islam", their entire worlds are slowly turned upside down, violence becomes the norm, and at this point they become radicalised. They do not go out killing innocent people because they want to 'defend Islam', they do it because they want to inflict as much damage as possible and to harm as many as possible - they know that attacking foreign cities will raise hatred towards Islam/Muslims and they still do it. They simply do not care about Islam, they use it as a vague way of justifying their actions - because being labelled as an 'Islamic terrorist' is more resounding than being shoved aside as a lone madman.
First of all, I hope you realise I am talking about terrorists who want to inflict mass casualty on civilians and not ISIS militants, there is a distinct difference. I am talking about the radicalised, often foreign individuals who are manipulated by IS propaganda, and not the crumbling regime of IS militants in Syria. Maybe the ones in Syria do intend on purporting their interpretation of 'true Islam', but these terrorists such as Sediffine Rezgui, Omar Mateen, the Paris attackers, Brussels attackers, the truck driver - they do not.
The reasoning behind the brutality of IS in Syria is not because they are following true Islam. They are not particularly dangerous as a physical fighting force, but their danger comes from their ability to radicalise foreigners to commit atrocities in their name. They are called the "Islamic State", not "Al-Qaeda", "Al-Shabab" - the fact that Islamic is in their name is particularly threatening because they are openly claiming to support all Muslims, as opposed to being one of these minor terrorist groups who acknowledge that their views are extreme.
The Middle East is a desert, Syria has suffered under the Assad regime, failed western foreign policy and many other things. ISIS spawned out of this chaos NOT because they wanted to 'defend Islam' like they're the holy crusaders to save the religion. They spawned because there was chaos and room to grow, their extreme use of Islam is literally them taking the Quran and interpreting things in the most brutal way possible. It makes no sense to persecute Islam or Muslims because a small group of people exploit it to justify a brutal regime in a war torn country. But the point is, these terrorists didn't wake up one day and decide to defend Islam, they are broken, evil people who are trying to justify hatred through religious means, the source of the hatred isn't a soul-centred desire to help Muslims, the source of their hatred is against America for its foreign policy, and for Assad and anyone else in Syria - their 'call for war' against foreign cities is simply them trying to expand themselves as much as possible, because they're smart and use social media, they spread their word and now almost everyone knows about them.
My point about Indonesia is that surely if the rhetoric that "Islam = the problem" is true, then Indonesia, being 90% Muslim, should be worse than even Syria right now? But they've had one minor terror attack recently. Therefore, Islam is categorically not the problem. The problem is corruption, war and hatred. The Middle East has had some brutal regimes, it has been subject to failed western foreign policy, it has therefore suffered conflict - and young people in conflict are generally the sort of easily impressionable people who become radicalised and do these attacks. These people don't wake up one day and say "lets kill for the sake of Islam", their entire worlds are slowly turned upside down, violence becomes the norm, and at this point they become radicalised. They do not go out killing innocent people because they want to 'defend Islam', they do it because they want to inflict as much damage as possible and to harm as many as possible - they know that attacking foreign cities will raise hatred towards Islam/Muslims and they still do it. They simply do not care about Islam, they use it as a vague way of justifying their actions - because being labelled as an 'Islamic terrorist' is more resounding than being shoved aside as a lone madman.
one your point that in this case, the guy was drinking etc doing things not permissable in islam jsut before attack - probably relevant to mention the saudi 9/11 attackers were seen in lapdance clubs and bars couple days before killing themselves in their islamist attack too - almost the ritual of the islamist terrorist
0
Report
#53
I’m not muslim myself however I don’t think it’s fair to assume the whole “Muslims are terrorists, or Islam is the whole problem.”
I have a few friends that are muslim, some are more religious, some aren't, I even work with a few and generally know a lot. And their attitude towards terrorism is negative. They don’t agree with it, they don’t like it, and they don’t think that’s what Islam is about either. Same with their parents, and even their parents’ parents.
Now that attitude is something that probably varies with some very extreme individuals. The problem with holy books is that it is often left to interpretations. Things such as hadiths as well, are somewhat interpretations of what’s written in the Quran.
The majority would believe that terrorism is not what the quran teaches, and that it is not a part of the book that they follow. There’s a famous quote in Islam that goes something like this,- correct me jf I’m wrong. “Killing one man is like killing the whole of mankind. Saving one man, is like saving the whole of mankind.” Something like that, the idea behind that is that killing one person is so bad, that it’s the equivalent to basically killing everyone. Therefore it’s something you shouldn’t do and murder is one of the most biggest sins and heaviest in Islam.
I’m not that well rehearsed in this religion, however to assume that every muslim is responsible for creating the people that do?
You have Muslims that are still religious, they still pray five times a day and fast and visit mosques and donate to charity etc; and they still reject this view? They could be more modern or westernised, I know a lady who is from Pakistan and is very old, she still rejects it? Her family too, people she knows etc etc;
Same with Christianity, the KKK and other terrorist organisations such as the IRA and many others. There are always going to be extremists within a religion.
There’s always going to be people that see terrorism as an alternative. Personally however, while radicalised teachings and brainwashing isn’t uncommon, and perhaps it may be even more common in stricter muslim countries, the idea that everyone abides by that, and is responsible for the people who follow it is foolish.
If my friends and a lot of their friends and people they know that are muslim, their grandparents that come from older generations, all still reject the view that these terrorists have.. so it’s not fair to say everyone is responsible, because how do you explain the majority that refuse the view? And teach their children to yes read the Quran, but how do you explain the fact that their children don’t have terrorist views either?
I also believe no one can really kill so many people whether your muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc; unless there’s really something mentally wrong with you Tbh.
Similar to the view stated before, I do acknowledge that there are going to be people who claim they are very religious and run their mouth about “non believers” and are in a position to do so, where it will get to a percentage of people that do support this and believe them.
However the majority dont. If that was the case..there are a LOT of Muslims in the world. We’d have attacks every week. It’s the extreme radicalised people that are the problem. And i emphasise extreme , because you also have very religious individuals that also reject the view openly, and teach the same thing.
I have a few friends that are muslim, some are more religious, some aren't, I even work with a few and generally know a lot. And their attitude towards terrorism is negative. They don’t agree with it, they don’t like it, and they don’t think that’s what Islam is about either. Same with their parents, and even their parents’ parents.
Now that attitude is something that probably varies with some very extreme individuals. The problem with holy books is that it is often left to interpretations. Things such as hadiths as well, are somewhat interpretations of what’s written in the Quran.
The majority would believe that terrorism is not what the quran teaches, and that it is not a part of the book that they follow. There’s a famous quote in Islam that goes something like this,- correct me jf I’m wrong. “Killing one man is like killing the whole of mankind. Saving one man, is like saving the whole of mankind.” Something like that, the idea behind that is that killing one person is so bad, that it’s the equivalent to basically killing everyone. Therefore it’s something you shouldn’t do and murder is one of the most biggest sins and heaviest in Islam.
I’m not that well rehearsed in this religion, however to assume that every muslim is responsible for creating the people that do?
You have Muslims that are still religious, they still pray five times a day and fast and visit mosques and donate to charity etc; and they still reject this view? They could be more modern or westernised, I know a lady who is from Pakistan and is very old, she still rejects it? Her family too, people she knows etc etc;
Same with Christianity, the KKK and other terrorist organisations such as the IRA and many others. There are always going to be extremists within a religion.
There’s always going to be people that see terrorism as an alternative. Personally however, while radicalised teachings and brainwashing isn’t uncommon, and perhaps it may be even more common in stricter muslim countries, the idea that everyone abides by that, and is responsible for the people who follow it is foolish.
If my friends and a lot of their friends and people they know that are muslim, their grandparents that come from older generations, all still reject the view that these terrorists have.. so it’s not fair to say everyone is responsible, because how do you explain the majority that refuse the view? And teach their children to yes read the Quran, but how do you explain the fact that their children don’t have terrorist views either?
I also believe no one can really kill so many people whether your muslim, Christian, Hindu, Jewish etc; unless there’s really something mentally wrong with you Tbh.
Similar to the view stated before, I do acknowledge that there are going to be people who claim they are very religious and run their mouth about “non believers” and are in a position to do so, where it will get to a percentage of people that do support this and believe them.
However the majority dont. If that was the case..there are a LOT of Muslims in the world. We’d have attacks every week. It’s the extreme radicalised people that are the problem. And i emphasise extreme , because you also have very religious individuals that also reject the view openly, and teach the same thing.
1
X
new posts
