British Man Incites Hatred In The Name of Islaam

[Mustafa2012]

:salamext:

Just in case you didn't know, there are some people who are doing things which goes against the fundamental principles of Islaam, while doing it in the name of Islaam.

Allaah knows best their motives.

If you read something in the media where a so called Muslim is accused of doing something which goes against the very nature of Islaam then question the source of the story.

Either:

a) The story is incorrect
b) The person accused is an ignorant Muslim
c) Or a non Muslim is using the name of Islaam to incite hatred.

Here is the story:

British Man Incites Hatred In The Name of Islaam

[Trumble]

Your own distorted rebranding of the headline is unfortunate as it suggests 'c' - which is clearly not the case. d) should perhaps be 'total fruitcake'?

As the story makes clear, Slee was/is living in a fantasy world. He's playing the role of big bad terrorist to get what he sees as the 'respect' denied to him in his 'real' life presumably because he has never done anything to earn any. Unfortunately for him his activities strayed just far enough into the real world to fall foul of the law, and presumably his lawyer was unable to demonstrate he was sufficiently crazy not to be held responsible for his actions.

[Mustafa2012]

Your own distorted rebranding of the headline is unfortunate as it suggests 'c' - which is clearly not the case. d) should perhaps be 'total fruitcake'?

As the story makes clear, Slee was/is living in a fantasy world. He's playing the role of big bad terrorist to get what he sees as the 'respect' denied to him in his 'real' life presumably because he has never done anything to earn any. Unfortunately for him his activities strayed just far enough into the real world to fall foul of the law, and presumably his lawyer was unable to demonstrate he was sufficiently crazy not to be held responsible for his actions.

People believe what they want to believe.

Some people also still believe that man landed on the moon but that's another story.

I was just offering some options as to the reason behind this man's motives.

It could have just as well been option B which happens a lot.

However you decided to focus on option C.

Option C is still a possibility and it is well known that some agencies use these techniques to tarnish the image of Islaam.

The excuses the media are making for this man are very convenient because they are the perfect cover to divert any attention away from what he did.

Maybe you're not aware of this. If this is the case, I suggest you do some more research into it.

While we're on the subject, can you please answer this question for me:

Why is it that when a Muslim does something controversial the media calls him a Muslim terrorist but when a person of any other faith commits a mass atrocity like for example the Norwegian mass killer Anders Breveik, they make excuses for them and label them as mad and start talking about what a bad childhood they had.

Why not make similar excuses for Muslims as well?

Why two sets of rules?

[May Ayob]

I think some people are angry at the government or society and that's why they adopt such an approach, they think maybe inciting hatred in the name of Islam will have a bigger effect and impact since the media has made a very tremendous effort in making the two words Islam and terrorism synonmous, for once I'm actaully not angry at him for what he did I can sympathise because clearly what he's doing is not even in the context of how much Islam is involved in these cases- contrary to the apparent value of a case, 'just another man who is not coherent in his senses taking yet another irrational action' --I feel bad that some few people have to sink so deep into misery that they believe the only way they can get their life back or even gain respect from people is by going against them or advocating for killing and hatred? why did it have to come to this? It's not the answer-- this is clearly a psychological problem. Its just sad seeing so many young men taking this path and deluding themselves into thinking that they've really won a case. I too don't think he was crazy but there might be a possibility that there is some underlying issue beneath his mentality or maybe there are anger management issues or something. Just thought I'd give my two cents.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[May Ayob]

Why is it that when a Muslim does something controversial the media calls him a Muslim terrorist but when a person of any other faith commits a mass atrocity like for example the Norwegian mass killer Anders Breveik, they make excuses for them and label them as mad and start talking about what a bad childhood they had.
Why not make similar excuses for Muslims as well?
Why two sets of rules?

Two words ( I apologize because this question is not directed at me but I couldn't resist) -Bias and -Double standards you can add Bigotry to that too if you want. These words are capable of cracking up the whole case.

they make excuses for them and label them as mad and start talking about what a bad childhood they had.

About the bad childhood thing...actually I once read and I think it is even psychologically confirmed that most people that grew up in 'stable' homes are more likely to become sociopaths and criminals than people who grew up in abusive household. I think it's understandable I mean when you grow up in an abusive household it just hurts the victim so much that they completely abdhore the behavior associate with it, I mean we don't hear of rape victims becoming assualters right?. Another two cents of mine.

[Independent]

Why is it that when a Muslim does something controversial the media calls him a Muslim terrorist but when a person of any other faith commits a mass atrocity like for example the Norwegian mass killer Anders Breveik, they make excuses for them and label them as mad and start talking about what a bad childhood they had.

Up to a point - Breivik was convicted of terrorism too.

[Mustafa2012]

Up to a point - Breivik was convicted of terrorism too.

I didn't hear about that.

But the focus of the whole case was not terrorism although it was a form of terrorism.

The focus was on what made him turn into the type of person that committed those crimes.

Whereas with Muslims, they straight away blame Islaam for the crime and the media tries to portray that extremist Islaamic views are the norm when in truth it is the opposite.

They don't make any excuses for Muslims, like they do with non muslims.

[Muezzin]

Heh. This whole Craig Slee thing is very 'Four Lions' in nature.

Also, if you do not like people casting aspersions on all Muslims based on the actions of a minority of people who call themselves Muslim but do not act as such, perhaps it is wiser not to advertise their escapades on an Islamic forum? Just sayin'.

[Mustafa2012]

Heh. This whole Craig Slee thing is very 'Four Lions' in nature.

Also, if you do not like people casting aspersions on all Muslims based on the actions of a minority of people who call themselves Muslim but do not act as such, perhaps it is wiser not to advertise their escapades on an Islamic forum? Just sayin'.

The point of advertising their escapades on an Islamic forum is to make people aware that not every story published on the news is open and shut.

There's a part of every story which is called "reading between the lines".

Not many people are aware of this part.

It's the part where you question certain stories which could have a different explanation for why they took place.

This should be more so when the news is coming from people who publish mis-information for a living.

By ignoring these kinds of stories and hoping people won't notice, it won't do us any favours.

It is only when we make a distinction between extremists, agent provocateurs and mainstream Islamic thought that people will realise that there is a big difference between the three.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Muezzin]

The point of advertising their escapades on an Islamic forum is to make people aware that not every story published on the news is open and shut.

There's a part of every story which is called "reading between the lines".

Not many people are aware of this part.

It's the part where you question certain stories which could have a different explanation for why they took place.

That's critical thinking, which is generally speaking a good thing.

This should be more so when the news is coming from people who publish mis-information for a living.

Encourage people to take anything they read in the newspapers etc with a grain of salt.

By ignoring these kinds of stories and hoping people won't notice, it won't do us any favours.

Drawing attention to them can and does cause people to miss the point. It can be counterproductive.

It is only when we make a distinction between extremists, agent provocateurs and mainstream Islamic thought that people will realise that there is a big difference between the three.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

People are quite capable of making such distinctions when it suits them. I personally am not sure this or any other Internet forum is the correct, well, forum for drawing this distinction. People decide for themselves based on their current state of mind and the evidence before them, that's all. Just be careful that in presenting your case, you're not shooting yourself in the foot.

[Mustafa2012]

That's critical thinking, which is generally speaking a good thing.

Encourage people to take anything they read in the newspapers etc with a grain of salt.

.

:jz: for agreeing with me on some of what I've said.

As for the other parts then I disagree that...

Drawing attention to them can and does cause people to miss the point. It can be counterproductive.

The reason why I disagree is because I've spoken with people who do da'wah work and they have said that over 50% of non Muslims do not know what real Islam is. They think that what they see on TV and read in the newspapers is Islam.

Which means the "bury our head in the sand and hope people won't notice" approach is not working.

We need to make people aware that there is a lot of mis-information being spread about Islaam.

By not talking about it, we are not fulfilling our duty.

People are quite capable of making such distinctions when it suits them. I personally am not sure this or any other Internet forum is the correct, well, forum for drawing this distinction. People decide for themselves based on their current state of mind and the evidence before them, that's all. Just be careful that in presenting your case, you're not shooting yourself in the foot.

Why is this or any other internet forum not the best place for drawing this distinction? I see what you mean when you say this. Maybe there could be better places but is this forum not visited by many non Muslims (like the 100+ guests on this forum) as well as Muslims who believe everything they read on the news or watch on TV?

Do you not think it would benefit them to learn the distinction?

Please feel free to suggest some more appropriate places where we can draw this distinction.

As far as I'm concerned, if just 1 person learns how to think for themselves then it would have been worth it.

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

Some people also still believe that man landed on the moon but that's another story.

No idea what this thread is about...but I dont like conspiracy theories.



Very informative video.

[tearose]

I've spoken with people who do da'wah work and they have said that over 50% of non Muslims do not know what real Islam is. They think that what they see on TV and read in the newspapers is Islam.
Which means the "bury our head in the sand and hope people won't notice" approach is not working.
We need to make people aware that there is a lot of mis-information being spread about Islaam.
By not talking about it, we are not fulfilling our duty.

Salamu 3laikum,
I hope you don't take offence if I tell you that I appreciate your good intentions here but I feel you are going about this the wrong way. Yes, most non-Muslims are unaware of what Islam is all about. So we should tell them about it, but not taking media stories as our starting point. If they bring it up, fine, you can clarify the specific misconceptions they have. Otherwise, it's really risky. Some people don't believe everything they hear in the media. Some have misconceptions about Islam that have nothing to do with media portrayals.

I'll give you an example. When I was at university, I once attended a talk on Islam, which was organized with, I'm sure, very good intentions to teach the students about Islam. Most of the people in the class were training to be church ministers. They were very conservative. Some of them put questions to the speaker. He gave a general reply about typical misconceptions. He talked about women's rights and similar issues. However, those students didn't have any interest in such issues whatsoever. All they wanted to know was why Muslims don't accept the incarnation or the trinity. So they went away with their questions unanswered and (possibly) the impression that there were problems in Islam that they hadn't even considered.

We only need to make people aware about mis-information if that is something they bring up as a concern. If we want to show what Islam is, we don't need to talk about media stories to do so.

[Muezzin]

:jz: for agreeing with me on some of what I've said.

As for the other parts then I disagree that...



The reason why I disagree is because I've spoken with people who do da'wah work and they have said that over 50% of non Muslims do not know what real Islam is. They think that what they see on TV and read in the newspapers is Islam.

Which means the "bury our head in the sand and hope people won't notice" approach is not working.

I'm not saying we should bury our head in the sand. I'm saying we should not draw attention to negative things that would have gone unnoticed if not for us drawing attention to them.

If this thread had been in reply to someone who had a misconception about the article in question, that's one thing. But this thread has actually drawn attention to this story that nobody else on the forum reported, using the evocative title 'British Man Incites Hatred in the Name of Islam'. Again, I get the reasoning behind this, draw attention to it first so that you can clarify it first etc. I just think it's unwise as it can easily have the opposite effect to what is intended.

We need to make people aware that there is a lot of mis-information being spread about Islaam.

I agree, and for this reason, we should not contribute to it.

By not talking about it, we are not fulfilling our duty.

Talk about once it's brought up, by all means. Otherwise, we should look before we leap.

Why is this or any other internet forum not the best place for drawing this distinction? I see what you mean when you say this. Maybe there could be better places but is this forum not visited by many non Muslims (like the 100+ guests on this forum) as well as Muslims who believe everything they read on the news or watch on TV?

Do you not think it would benefit them to learn the distinction?

Please feel free to suggest some more appropriate places where we can draw this distinction.

As far as I'm concerned, if just 1 person learns how to think for themselves then it would have been worth it.

I believe the best way for people to learn this distinction is in a general sense, which they can then apply to multiple real-life examples. Starting with an evocative example that nobody even brought up is kind of like opening Pandora's box, especially on the Internet.

Put simply, this thread's purposes would have been perfectly served if the first post in this thread consisted simply of this:

If you read something in the media where a so called Muslim is accused of doing something which goes against the very nature of Islaam then question the source of the story.

Either:

a) The story is incorrect
b) The person accused is an ignorant Muslim
c) Or a non Muslim is using the name of Islaam to incite hatred.

Without mentioning the news story (which casts Islam in a negative light) that nobody else seemed to have noticed until this thread. Do you see what I mean?

[Mustafa2012]

Muezzin and Tearose.

I appreciate your comments. I think you have some validity in what you're saying.

However I think people have missed the point I was trying to make in this post so let me spell it out.

This guy claimed to be Muslim but as the article suggested most of the info he gave about his claims were false. His actions go against how Muslims are supposed to behave but yet there's a danger that many people reading it will think," Here we go again. Another extremist fundamentalist."

My point was that there are people out there using the name of Islaam while they might not even be Muslim as has happened in many other stories, the most famous being 9/11. There are groups of people who specialize in doing such things to give Muslims a bad name. Once the damage is done it's hard to repair.

So my point was, if you see someone claiming to be Muslim while doing things totally opposite to what Islam teaches then question their motives and in some cases their Islam has to be questioned as well.

Don't always believe what the media publishes without questioning it.

Because it might not always be a Muslim doing those things.

[tearose]

I do understand your point, and you are right, we should all be doing whatever we can to dispel misconception and lies being spread about Islam. All I'm saying is we should be very very careful how we do that.