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

Muslims are not terrorists! Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by epoddoulc)
    So your excuse for him being a pedophile is that it happened 1400 years ago? He is still a pedophile, God wouldn't choose the "last messenger" to be a violent pedophile warlord.
    I dont think you understood. 1400 years ago it was socially acceptable for child brides. I mean 100 years ago young girls were marrying older men as they considered this to be normal. Point being, social norms change over time and 1400 years ago there was nothing wrong with this. 😃
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I find it funny how when religious people are shown the disgusting verses in their holy book their first response is to say it's being taken out of context. In what context could talking about striking fear into the hearts of non believers be seen as acceptable?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That verse was actually refering to an incident that happend during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    You contradict yourself: you say that fundamentalist take the meaning of their sacred texts too literally, and then imply that they are not upholding their Islamic values. I would conversely say that fundamentalists uphold their religious values more accurately than those who water them down to fit in the society they are living in.

    ISIS are the true Muslims imo.
    No, when I said that they take the meanings too literally, the operative word is 'too'. Fundamentalists are extremists that claim and abuse their 'power'. They're radicalists.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    I dont think you understood. 1400 years ago it was socially acceptable for child brides. I mean 100 years ago young girls were marrying older men as they considered this to be normal. Point being, social norms change over time and 1400 years ago there was nothing wrong with this. 😃
    Muhammad is still considered as a perfect role model for Muslims. Don't you see the problem of him marrying and having sex with a child?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    That verse was actually refering to an incident that happend during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).
    Still not sure why that makes it any better...

    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    I dont think you understood. 1400 years ago it was socially acceptable for child brides. I mean 100 years ago young girls were marrying older men as they considered this to be normal. Point being, social norms change over time and 1400 years ago there was nothing wrong with this. 😃
    There also wasn't wrong anything wrong with the Atlantic Slave Trade in two hundred and fifty years ago but that doesn't mean we give those people a pass.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by courtneywxxd)
    No, when I said that they take the meanings too literally, the operative word is 'too'. Fundamentalists are extremists that claim and abuse their 'power'. They're radicalists.
    They don't abuse their power since they strictly adhere to their religious books. You may disagree with their interpretation of the Quran, but they are much closer to its original meaning than most liberal Muslims living in the West.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bex.anne)
    Yes, thats the list of crimes punishable by death by Islam, but if it is under the law of the land you live. If a terrorist from syria is going to america or france to kill someone who is not muslim, they're not under the law of their own land. This would go back to the ruling of follow the law of your land. If they went to another country to attack people, they'd be under the ruling of another land therefore the idea of apostasy would not suffice? So where would the justification be? " Islamic law says I can kill a non believer if they are in this land, so let me go to another country which is not under islamic law and do it" This is not their reasoning. I repeat, ISIS do not have any islamic backing in their attacks.
    ISIS say that France and the USA are in war against them, so it is ok to kill them, and this behaviour is sanctioned by the Quran (you know, casting fear in the heart of the disbelievers etc.).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bex.anne)
    We really need to stop identifying a persons actions by their religion/race and rather by the people themselves. Those who say the Quran is corrupt need to also look to the Bible and the Torah. All of these Abrahimic religions are extremely similar in their teachings and I promise you there are some very very corrupt bible stories, yet we all seem to turn a blind eye if they are mentioned. Don't give me the whole 'yeah because there are no christian terrorists'. Yes there are and there certainly were in the past, the IRA, the KKK, and they may not exist to that extent but these people are still causing a great influence today, like the KKK still has an influence in America. At the end of the day, there is such thing as Muslim terrorists, and there is such thing as non-muslim terrorists, but the backlash for muslim's now is far more severe for then than when the IRA or KKK were in large numbers. a whole majority was not blamed for what a minority caused. I wonder why that is?
    possibly becuase the KKK were a tiny unimportant group isolated to the backwaters of the USA . Muslims are a large and disporate group, many of whom have been given sanctuary by most of the western countries, and how foreign based islamists can easily access targets in the west with online propaganda. islamic terrorism is well funded billion dollar industry funded by gulf arab oil, globally located and its propaganda makes almost every muslim susceptible to brainwashing purely by their own cultural loyalty to all islamic causes. Add to this a large amount of rather gullible people who will swallow any made up political rhetoric and hey presto - access to a large number of nutjobs ready to commit attrociities.

    the biggest issue with islamist terrorism, is not the current numbers of attrocities ( which is already high) it is the potential much larger problems ie the easily brainwashed often uneducated muslim majority population that are the chosen targets for islamist shiekhs and preachers. We are where we are now - beacause the muslim world did compratively nothing to counter islamist ideas and groups fro the last 40 years, and now they are entrentched in islamic society. the fallout is Trump, brexit, support for israel, discrimination against regular muslims etc etc. this is the consequence of decades of apologism
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    I dont think you understood. 1400 years ago it was socially acceptable for child brides. I mean 100 years ago young girls were marrying older men as they considered this to be normal. Point being, social norms change over time and 1400 years ago there was nothing wrong with this. 😃
    muslims dont regard him just as a normal man- they regard him as a prophet and the best example of men- so their best example would be a warlord that waged war with his neighbours over 40 conflicts, captured slaves, allowed the seizing of sex slaves and indeed married a child.

    this would not be an issue is the idea of being a muslim was to be progressive and forward looking - unfortunatlely as you well know it is not - its belief is enshrined in the 8th century arabic traditions that mohammed himself followed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well seeing as every country where being gay is a crime is an Islamic country I can definitely see why people disagree with them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    The same way terrorists aren't Muslims. :innocent:
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Muslims are not terrorists!
    Right. But almost all terrorists are Muslims.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainyBengali)
    The same way terrorists aren't Muslims. :innocent:
    Why are they not Muslims? They are following muhammads orders, in which he instructs his followers to strike fear into the hearts of non-believers.

    Just because you disagree with it, it doesn't mean they are not muslims. In fact, ISIS are a closer representation of islam than you will ever be.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Still not sure why that makes it any better...



    There also wasn't wrong anything wrong with the Atlantic Slave Trade in two hundred and fifty years ago but that doesn't mean we give those people a pass.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    (Original post by Josb)
    Muhammad is still considered as a perfect role model for Muslims. Don't you see the problem of him marrying and having sex with a child?
    (Original post by Reformed)
    muslims dont regard him just as a normal man- they regard him as a prophet and the best example of men- so their best example would be a warlord that waged war with his neighbours over 40 conflicts, captured slaves, allowed the seizing of sex slaves and indeed married a child.

    this would not be an issue is the idea of being a muslim was to be progressive and forward looking - unfortunatlely as you well know it is not - its belief is enshrined in the 8th century arabic traditions that mohammed himself followed.
    In reference to the quote from the Quran- it was referring to a specific incident as mentioned. Muslims are not taught to incite hatred for non-muslims. In fact the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: If any Muslim killed a Muahid (i.e. non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) then he (Muslim) shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise although the fragrance of Paradise would have been perceived from the distance of travelling for 40 years [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 3, Hadith # 2995]
    The quran also says: 'Unto your religion and unto me my religion'
    Also says: 'There is no compulsion in religion'
    In another hadith: "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." (Abu dawud)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    In reference to the quote from the Quran- it was referring to a specific incident as mentioned. Muslims are not taught to incite hatred for non-muslims. In fact the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: If any Muslim killed a Muahid (i.e. non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) then he (Muslim) shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise although the fragrance of Paradise would have been perceived from the distance of travelling for 40 years [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 3, Hadith # 2995]
    The quran also says: 'Unto your religion and unto me my religion'
    Also says: 'There is no compulsion in religion'
    In another hadith: "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." (Abu dawud)
    your bukhari quote simply says that a muslim cannot kill a non muslim that is already being ruled by an islamic government and paying their protection money to the muslims That is the basis of jizya for all conquered dhimmis

    it is true that many of the quranic verses refer specifically to wars mohammed had with his neighbors- they form a fundamental part of islamic culutral attitude -ando every nutjob that wants to start a war with his neighbiur only has to chant a few verses or quote Mohammed battles and he has made all politcal beefs islamic struggles. this essentially the problem with a faith based on military foundation which is what mohammeds conquest of mecca and the non-muslim peoples essentially was. fundamentally he preached that muslims must always support islamic casues in war if need be, over supporting any non muslim
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    In reference to the quote from the Quran- it was referring to a specific incident as mentioned.
    I don't understand this. Regardless of whether it's meant generally or in relation to one incident why is it okay to strike fear into people who have different beliefs to you?

    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    Muslims are not taught to incite hatred for non-muslims. In fact the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said: If any Muslim killed a Muahid (i.e. non-Muslim living in Muslim land with agreement) then he (Muslim) shall not even smell the fragrance of Paradise although the fragrance of Paradise would have been perceived from the distance of travelling for 40 years [Sahih Bukhari, Volume No. 3, Hadith # 2995]
    The quran also says: 'Unto your religion and unto me my religion'
    Also says: 'There is no compulsion in religion'
    In another hadith: "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment." (Abu dawud)
    1. Surely someone could easily argue you're taking those out of context?
    2. For every quote like that you can show me I'm sure I could find an equal number of violent quotes which I'm sure you would tell me have been taken out of context, I'm not sure under what context the below quote is justifiable but the Quran doesn't have a monopoly on violent diatribe which is what a lot of westerners seem to ignore.

    "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I don't understand this. Regardless of whether it's meant generally or in relation to one incident why is it okay to strike fear into people who have different beliefs to you?



    1. Surely someone could easily argue you're taking those out of context?
    2. For every quote like that you can show me I'm sure I could find an equal number of violent quotes which I'm sure you would tell me have been taken out of context, I'm not sure under what context the below quote is justifiable but the Quran doesn't have a monopoly on violent diatribe which is what a lot of westerners seem to ignore.

    "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..."



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Could you quote the reference for the quote?

    Yes, you're correct, you can say that i'm 'taking it out of context', thats why it is important to look at the story and meaning behind all the quranic verses/hadiths, instead of cherry picking quotes without looking at the meaning of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LisaNikita)
    @asiangcse
    Hi, This quote is true.

    However, if you carry on reading which is what most of you cabbages don't do, you will find the next verse - which states: And their refuge will be the Fire

    This is refferign to the after life, which none of us have the knowledge of.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ammmaaaraah)
    Could you quote the reference for the quote?

    Yes, you're correct, you can say that i'm 'taking it out of context', thats why it is important to look at the story and meaning behind all the quranic verses/hadiths, instead of cherry picking quotes without looking at the meaning of it.
    I'm not really on how to reference the Quran but it's in Sura Al-Anfal, verse 69. Quotes such as the one I gave you are horrendous, I can't imagine any context could make something like that acceptable


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I'm not really on how to reference the Quran but it's in Sura Al-Anfal, verse 69. Quotes such as the one I gave you are horrendous, I can't imagine any context could make something like that acceptable


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Is this the verse you are talking about?


    'So consume what you have taken of war booty [as being] lawful and good, and fear Allah . Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.'
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.