lainchan archive - /civ/ - 1247
[ Return /
Go to bottom ]
File: 1471178754271.png (39.26 KB, 300x169, child warrior for ISIS.jpeg)
Muslims selling women on streets of London
https://a.uguu.se/bzyYSo7ExlPN_muslimssellingwomenonstreetsoflondonistan.mp4
https://twitter.com/michaelkeyes/status/764129286852780032
http://archive.is/OBYMZ
What do you think?
Is that okay, since London is predominantly muslim?
Should countries with larger numbers of muslims adopt muslim laws?
https://a.uguu.se/bzyYSo7ExlPN_muslimssellingwomenonstreetsoflondonistan.mp4
https://twitter.com/michaelkeyes/status/764129286852780032
http://archive.is/OBYMZ
What do you think?
Is that okay, since London is predominantly muslim?
Should countries with larger numbers of muslims adopt muslim laws?
London isn't predominantly Muslim, according to the 2014 census data there's only one borough with a Muslim majority (Tower Hamlets, 45.6%). There's only one other borough where it's even close (Newham, 40.9% Muslim, 41.6% Christian), no other borough is even close to a majority.
Source: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/percentage-population-religion-borough
Source: http://data.london.gov.uk/dataset/percentage-population-religion-borough
>Anything presented as fact requires sourcing; beware that the nature of one's source will always be in question.
Got a source for Muslim families having more children than non-Muslims?
Got a source for Muslim families having more children than non-Muslims?
>>1257
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth
This contains sources for this.
Still, hard to believe that these trends are likely to continue in this environment of education, and thus, atheism being on the rise.
Either way, the notion that we should adapt "muslim laws" or even that there are universal muslim laws is ridiculous. Separation of church and state means that laws are dictated by reason, not by religion anyway, and I don't see that being changed in any way with the fact that humanity, on average, is getting smarter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth
This contains sources for this.
Still, hard to believe that these trends are likely to continue in this environment of education, and thus, atheism being on the rise.
Either way, the notion that we should adapt "muslim laws" or even that there are universal muslim laws is ridiculous. Separation of church and state means that laws are dictated by reason, not by religion anyway, and I don't see that being changed in any way with the fact that humanity, on average, is getting smarter.
Muslim anti-feminism isn't as big a problem as Western anti-feminism. In third-world countries where hostile sexism is the norm, women cannot materially change their circumstances, access birth control or education, divorce husbands, prosecute them for domestic violence, etc.. In the UK they can, so in a generation at most this sort of thing won't exist.
What will exist is porn, body shaming, the general cluster of social norms that try to alienate women from their own bodies, date rape, acquaintance rape, street harassment, and similar.
OP, if you want to help these women, probably the best thing you can do is make sure their immigration status isn't tied to their husbands. Patriarchal husbands likely won't allow their wives to have jobs, and if the visa status makes this easy, it plays into their hands. You can also make sure there's a strong social safety net so they can have housing. Housing availability is the #1 counterindicator of domestic abuse on the societal scale. On an individual scale, the #1 counterindicator is career aptitude, so you should advocate for diverse hiring practices, culturally sensitive hiring and general policy (for example, not having pork in the cafeteria, making sure there's a space to pray), and fight to end the wage gap. Finally, language barriers are a major reason why women like this don't get help; learn Arabic or Urdu so you can be supportive and make sure your local crisis centers, welfare offices, unemployment offices, etc all have workers who can speak with these women.
Obviously these things will help women of the global minority as well as women of the global majority. This applies to Latina women in the United States as well. But the bigger problem is fighting the more entrenched anti-feminism, not strengthening the civil reforms the heroic feminist wombyn of the 60s were able to accomplish.
What will exist is porn, body shaming, the general cluster of social norms that try to alienate women from their own bodies, date rape, acquaintance rape, street harassment, and similar.
OP, if you want to help these women, probably the best thing you can do is make sure their immigration status isn't tied to their husbands. Patriarchal husbands likely won't allow their wives to have jobs, and if the visa status makes this easy, it plays into their hands. You can also make sure there's a strong social safety net so they can have housing. Housing availability is the #1 counterindicator of domestic abuse on the societal scale. On an individual scale, the #1 counterindicator is career aptitude, so you should advocate for diverse hiring practices, culturally sensitive hiring and general policy (for example, not having pork in the cafeteria, making sure there's a space to pray), and fight to end the wage gap. Finally, language barriers are a major reason why women like this don't get help; learn Arabic or Urdu so you can be supportive and make sure your local crisis centers, welfare offices, unemployment offices, etc all have workers who can speak with these women.
Obviously these things will help women of the global minority as well as women of the global majority. This applies to Latina women in the United States as well. But the bigger problem is fighting the more entrenched anti-feminism, not strengthening the civil reforms the heroic feminist wombyn of the 60s were able to accomplish.
>>1286
First of all, stop diverting the topic of thread
We are talking about "Should countries with increasing numbers of muslims adopt muslim laws?"
>Muslim anti-feminism isn't as big a problem as Western anti-feminism
pic related would never happen with Western anti-feminist
>In the UK they can, so in a generation at most this sort of thing won't exist
Muslim sharia law courts have been sprouting out in UK, not to mention that muslims live in closed off community like ghettos, so to women "escape" would be similar (or little bit easier) than in third world countries.
>What will exist is porn
How is porn bad?
To me, its degenerate, but I want to hear your feminist type of logic, because I hear a lot of feminists talking about sex actress as "sex positive".
>body shaming
Fatties and anorexia mentally ills should be shamed. They are weak willed mentally ill prunes which manifests outside in their body.
>the general cluster of social norms that try to alienate women from their own bodies
>social norms
YEA, SOCIETY IS OUT THERE TO OPPRESS YOU AT EVERY CORNER,
don't get out, stay inside
>date rape
wut is date rape?
is it like a normal rape but with a date before?
Or is it afterwards?
>acquaintance rape
"hello, this is Tommy"
"Hey Tommy so nice to mee-"
"IM GONNA RAPE YOUUU"
>street harassment
does that even happen today?
>and similar
sure, SO TOUGH WITH ALL THOSE FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
amirite ladies?
AND YOU EVEN HAVE TO BUY YOUR OWN TAMPONS
>if you want to help these women
I don't really care about muslims
>you should advocate for diverse hiring practices
"HIRE ME BECAUSE I AM MUSLIMS, NOT BECAUSE I SUCK AT MY JOB"
suuuureee, like people are going to do that....
Shows that you never owned a business
>culturally sensitive hiring
Cultural marxism will die
>not having pork in the cafeteria
HAHAHHAHAHH, we should make muslims feel welcomed? Not the fact that they just can not order pork, but its "haram" (aka triggering) to serve pork to other customers?
>making sure there's a space to pray
fuck them, no special priviledges for christians, no special priviledges for atheists or muslims
>fight to end the wage gap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc
>language barriers are a major reason why women like this don't get help
>learn arabic or urdu
It's on them to learn another language, not on me
>But the bigger problem is fighting the more entrenched anti-feminism
>wombyn
yea, this is a bait, but I already wrote this shit all out, so here is a (you)
>>1286
First of all, stop diverting the topic of thread
We are talking about "Should countries with increasing numbers of muslims adopt muslim laws?"
>Muslim anti-feminism isn't as big a problem as Western anti-feminism
pic related would never happen with Western anti-feminist
>In the UK they can, so in a generation at most this sort of thing won't exist
Muslim sharia law courts have been sprouting out in UK, not to mention that muslims live in closed off community like ghettos, so to women "escape" would be similar (or little bit easier) than in third world countries.
>What will exist is porn
How is porn bad?
To me, its degenerate, but I want to hear your feminist type of logic, because I hear a lot of feminists talking about sex actress as "sex positive".
>body shaming
Fatties and anorexia mentally ills should be shamed. They are weak willed mentally ill prunes which manifests outside in their body.
>the general cluster of social norms that try to alienate women from their own bodies
>social norms
YEA, SOCIETY IS OUT THERE TO OPPRESS YOU AT EVERY CORNER,
don't get out, stay inside
>date rape
wut is date rape?
is it like a normal rape but with a date before?
Or is it afterwards?
>acquaintance rape
"hello, this is Tommy"
"Hey Tommy so nice to mee-"
"IM GONNA RAPE YOUUU"
>street harassment
does that even happen today?
>and similar
sure, SO TOUGH WITH ALL THOSE FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS
amirite ladies?
AND YOU EVEN HAVE TO BUY YOUR OWN TAMPONS
>if you want to help these women
I don't really care about muslims
>you should advocate for diverse hiring practices
"HIRE ME BECAUSE I AM MUSLIMS, NOT BECAUSE I SUCK AT MY JOB"
suuuureee, like people are going to do that....
Shows that you never owned a business
>culturally sensitive hiring
Cultural marxism will die
>not having pork in the cafeteria
HAHAHHAHAHH, we should make muslims feel welcomed? Not the fact that they just can not order pork, but its "haram" (aka triggering) to serve pork to other customers?
>making sure there's a space to pray
fuck them, no special priviledges for christians, no special priviledges for atheists or muslims
>fight to end the wage gap
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc
>language barriers are a major reason why women like this don't get help
>learn arabic or urdu
It's on them to learn another language, not on me
>But the bigger problem is fighting the more entrenched anti-feminism
>wombyn
yea, this is a bait, but I already wrote this shit all out, so here is a (you)
>>1286
>>1287
>Muslim sharia law courts have been sprouting out in UK,
There may be sharia law "courts", but they have no legally binding power, unless perhaps if all parties involve agreed to be bound by their decisions (and even then they can't decide something illegal).
https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/
>Muslim sharia law courts have been sprouting out in UK,
There may be sharia law "courts", but they have no legally binding power, unless perhaps if all parties involve agreed to be bound by their decisions (and even then they can't decide something illegal).
https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/
>>1291
are you REALLY defending sharia courts?
hahahahahahah
omg, you are serious...
so, let me guess, until muslims are literally 49.99% of population they should be treated like minority and all priviledges should be given to them, selling women on street is okay and they shouldn't even try to change their lives in accordance to western life, right?
but the moment they cross that 50% mark then the country is muslim and you can't say anything, right?
jesus, you leftists
are you REALLY defending sharia courts?
hahahahahahah
omg, you are serious...
so, let me guess, until muslims are literally 49.99% of population they should be treated like minority and all priviledges should be given to them, selling women on street is okay and they shouldn't even try to change their lives in accordance to western life, right?
but the moment they cross that 50% mark then the country is muslim and you can't say anything, right?
jesus, you leftists
>>1298
Furthermore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Europe says that Muslims are expected to be 10% of the population of Europe by 2050. That's hardly a majority, or 4 children for every 2.
Furthermore, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth#Europe says that Muslims are expected to be 10% of the population of Europe by 2050. That's hardly a majority, or 4 children for every 2.
File: 1471213111604.png (50.17 KB, 142x200, Taqiyya.jpg)
Western nations should not bow down to Islamic ideals. This isn't like American culture vs Mexican/Japanese/whatever culture where in most cases it's just simply different food, music, ideas, etc. but they are unlikely to attack others for merely being different.
Islam is an ideology that pushes supremacy over non-Muslims, an enemy of the personal liberties we enjoy and our ancestors fought for, and something that isn't worth keeping.
So no, there's a reason why places like the US has separation of church and state. Islam as an ideology proves why we need it in the modern age. We shouldn't bow down to ideals of an old man who allowed people to be murdered because people insulted him. We shouldn't bow down to the ideals of a man who felt that women were only worth half of a man in legal courts.
We shouldn't allow an ideology that supports slavery or cruel and unusual punishment to be the law of the land. So no. We should not.
Islam is an ideology that pushes supremacy over non-Muslims, an enemy of the personal liberties we enjoy and our ancestors fought for, and something that isn't worth keeping.
So no, there's a reason why places like the US has separation of church and state. Islam as an ideology proves why we need it in the modern age. We shouldn't bow down to ideals of an old man who allowed people to be murdered because people insulted him. We shouldn't bow down to the ideals of a man who felt that women were only worth half of a man in legal courts.
We shouldn't allow an ideology that supports slavery or cruel and unusual punishment to be the law of the land. So no. We should not.
File: 1471213710549.png (350.5 KB, 200x116, +YROEV-bUZDQojeuBOjI-g==.gif)
>>1247
>Should countries with larger numbers of muslims adopt muslim laws?
You first bring up London, and then switch to changing laws in the whole country?
Yes, Islamic countries can follow sharia law. And many Islamic countries do.
UK with <5% Muslim population is nowhere close to being an Islamic country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religion
I think you should post such provoking threads on 4chan's /pol/, where they do fit better.
>Should countries with larger numbers of muslims adopt muslim laws?
You first bring up London, and then switch to changing laws in the whole country?
Yes, Islamic countries can follow sharia law. And many Islamic countries do.
UK with <5% Muslim population is nowhere close to being an Islamic country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religion
I think you should post such provoking threads on 4chan's /pol/, where they do fit better.
File: 1471214008112.png (41.83 KB, 200x133, sharia-police-2.jpg)
>>1302
>UK with <5% Muslim population is nowhere close to being an Islamic country.
see >>1300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra45nX9JmW4
>provoking
that is on you, not me
>UK with <5% Muslim population is nowhere close to being an Islamic country.
see >>1300
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2nlIfn8tNA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ra45nX9JmW4
>provoking
that is on you, not me
>>1301
Many people dismiss your claims under the banner of "radical minority of islam".
They need to know that the "minority" is as small as >60%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
Many people dismiss your claims under the banner of "radical minority of islam".
They need to know that the "minority" is as small as >60%
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7TAAw3oQvg
>>1304
True. But those people also have a very clear misunderstanding of what Islam is and what is actually being criticized. It's part of the reason why I always make it very clear that I am talking about the ideology of Islam and not the people as if they are a race or something.
I came into studying Islam to understand why blacks in America were so interested in Islam and if the claims about terrorism are true. My findings and my opinion are pretty nicely summed up in my first post in this thread.
Is Islam a violent religion? Yes. The texts in the Koran support violent actions, Mohammad himself was at best an annoying fucker turned warlord that Islam tells people they should follow.
And even if it was only a minority of Muslims, what does it matter if more serious members of such a violent ideology start killing the majority of the moderate Muslims like they are suppose to?
I can never defend Islam knowing all of this now.
True. But those people also have a very clear misunderstanding of what Islam is and what is actually being criticized. It's part of the reason why I always make it very clear that I am talking about the ideology of Islam and not the people as if they are a race or something.
I came into studying Islam to understand why blacks in America were so interested in Islam and if the claims about terrorism are true. My findings and my opinion are pretty nicely summed up in my first post in this thread.
Is Islam a violent religion? Yes. The texts in the Koran support violent actions, Mohammad himself was at best an annoying fucker turned warlord that Islam tells people they should follow.
And even if it was only a minority of Muslims, what does it matter if more serious members of such a violent ideology start killing the majority of the moderate Muslims like they are suppose to?
I can never defend Islam knowing all of this now.
File: 1471229809818.png (119.77 KB, 200x137, warishell.jpg)
>>1291
>unless perhaps if all parties involve agreed to be bound by their decisions
Yeah, its all mutual and consenting. Noone would get intimidated or bullied or pressurd into adhering to the decisions, or in going to such a court instead of a court of law, in communities inhabited by immigrants from countries where extremely large parts of the population believe sharia should be legally binding.
>unless perhaps if all parties involve agreed to be bound by their decisions
Yeah, its all mutual and consenting. Noone would get intimidated or bullied or pressurd into adhering to the decisions, or in going to such a court instead of a court of law, in communities inhabited by immigrants from countries where extremely large parts of the population believe sharia should be legally binding.
File: 1471648336026.png (238.68 KB, 200x164, whack a muslim.jpg)
>>1307
b-but think of the children ;__;;;;7
b-but think of the children ;__;;;;7
File: 1471707120324.png (433.72 KB, 200x150, prasidnet-snwoedn.png)
Religions are circlejerks for collectivists wishing to impose nonsensical views on the rational majority.
"Religious law" is an oxymoron. If omnipotent deities were real there would be no use for "human law".
"Religious law" is an oxymoron. If omnipotent deities were real there would be no use for "human law".
>>1256
You realize that this will not last forever. Since they are a minority, unless they somehow manage to isolate all of their children from western cultural institutions such as school, they will eventually assimilate into our culture and stop having so many kids. It happens every single time there is an influx of immigration, essentially:
>shit_life = many_children
>good_life = few_children
>if kids == school
>kids_life == good_life
>else
>barbarism prevails
You realize that this will not last forever. Since they are a minority, unless they somehow manage to isolate all of their children from western cultural institutions such as school, they will eventually assimilate into our culture and stop having so many kids. It happens every single time there is an influx of immigration, essentially:
>shit_life = many_children
>good_life = few_children
>if kids == school
>kids_life == good_life
>else
>barbarism prevails
>>1692
It depends on the parents in this case. If the parents were exposed to more secular values, then yes, they would likely send their kids off to public school and be exposed to those damn dirty non-Muslims and not really care. These types of soft Muslims however are going to be targeted by more hard Muslims like ISIS who reject Western values because a lot of secular values go against Allah and his messenger.
Remember, the West decided that man made laws stand above a god's law, which is how freedom of personal religion is created by not favoring on faith over another.
The West decided that slavery and cruel and unusual punishments are morally wrong.
The West decided that women are at least equal to men in society and and that their value doesn't come from their virginity and ability to give birth but rather what they as an individual can do for their nation and family.
If a Muslim believes any of these things, they are hypocrites and are to be killed by real Muslims. So, you can imagine that a real Muslim would either allow their brainwashed child to go to public school with the intent of recruiting some white Muslims (No black people because Islam hates them and sees them as slave fodder) or Muslims start building a Muslim's only school so the children can't be corrupted by Non-Muslims kids playing their Pokemon, listening to music, and engaging in per-marital handjobs.
It depends on the parents in this case. If the parents were exposed to more secular values, then yes, they would likely send their kids off to public school and be exposed to those damn dirty non-Muslims and not really care. These types of soft Muslims however are going to be targeted by more hard Muslims like ISIS who reject Western values because a lot of secular values go against Allah and his messenger.
Remember, the West decided that man made laws stand above a god's law, which is how freedom of personal religion is created by not favoring on faith over another.
The West decided that slavery and cruel and unusual punishments are morally wrong.
The West decided that women are at least equal to men in society and and that their value doesn't come from their virginity and ability to give birth but rather what they as an individual can do for their nation and family.
If a Muslim believes any of these things, they are hypocrites and are to be killed by real Muslims. So, you can imagine that a real Muslim would either allow their brainwashed child to go to public school with the intent of recruiting some white Muslims (No black people because Islam hates them and sees them as slave fodder) or Muslims start building a Muslim's only school so the children can't be corrupted by Non-Muslims kids playing their Pokemon, listening to music, and engaging in per-marital handjobs.
>>1307
They're just private arbitration courts. The UK has done them since forever, and there's nothing specific to Islam about them.
If you know of some mechanism by which they can magically decide the law of the land, say that. But leave "the dangers of creeping sharia!" to tabloids selling fear.
>>1696
You seem to be defining "real Muslims" to just mean "people you should be afraid of".
The reality is that people's religious views exist on a spectrum. Isolation, fear, and tight-knit groups tend to push people further up the spectrum. Education, reduced conflict, and exposure other people tend to bring people back down.
>It depends on the parents in this case. If the parents were exposed to more secular values, then yes, they would likely send their kids off to public school and be exposed to those damn dirty non-Muslims and not really care.
That's the large majority of them, and it will grow with time.
>These types of soft Muslims however are going to be targeted by more hard Muslims like ISIS who reject Western values because a lot of secular values go against Allah and his messenger.
>If a Muslim believes any of these things, they are hypocrites and are to be killed by real Muslims.
Unless the UK disintegrates into an apocalyptic wasteland tomorrow, I struggle to imagine that the beheading rate is going to change the demographics much. You seem to be assuming a complete failure of any kind of law, based on little but fear.
>So, you can imagine that a real Muslim would either allow their brainwashed child to go to public school with the intent of recruiting some white Muslims (No black people because Islam hates them and sees them as slave fodder) or Muslims start building a Muslim's only school so the children can't be corrupted by Non-Muslims kids playing their Pokemon, listening to music, and engaging in per-marital handjobs.
How well does that strategy work for extreme Christians? I've heard they've had good luck with keeping kids from playing Pokemon.
They're just private arbitration courts. The UK has done them since forever, and there's nothing specific to Islam about them.
If you know of some mechanism by which they can magically decide the law of the land, say that. But leave "the dangers of creeping sharia!" to tabloids selling fear.
>>1696
You seem to be defining "real Muslims" to just mean "people you should be afraid of".
The reality is that people's religious views exist on a spectrum. Isolation, fear, and tight-knit groups tend to push people further up the spectrum. Education, reduced conflict, and exposure other people tend to bring people back down.
>It depends on the parents in this case. If the parents were exposed to more secular values, then yes, they would likely send their kids off to public school and be exposed to those damn dirty non-Muslims and not really care.
That's the large majority of them, and it will grow with time.
>These types of soft Muslims however are going to be targeted by more hard Muslims like ISIS who reject Western values because a lot of secular values go against Allah and his messenger.
>If a Muslim believes any of these things, they are hypocrites and are to be killed by real Muslims.
Unless the UK disintegrates into an apocalyptic wasteland tomorrow, I struggle to imagine that the beheading rate is going to change the demographics much. You seem to be assuming a complete failure of any kind of law, based on little but fear.
>So, you can imagine that a real Muslim would either allow their brainwashed child to go to public school with the intent of recruiting some white Muslims (No black people because Islam hates them and sees them as slave fodder) or Muslims start building a Muslim's only school so the children can't be corrupted by Non-Muslims kids playing their Pokemon, listening to music, and engaging in per-marital handjobs.
How well does that strategy work for extreme Christians? I've heard they've had good luck with keeping kids from playing Pokemon.
>>1704
Please understand, when I say "real Muslim" I mean people who actually understands what Islam actually is, and if you have no intention of converting, then you should be a least a little concerned by a group of people who follow such a violent man's teachings. Islam in the West is so fucking watered down that you have people who seem to believe that Islam is just Christianity for brown people, and you know what? It's works pretty damn well for those who want to slowly and subtly push Islam.Also, I should point out this comment;
>The reality is that people's religious views exist on a spectrum.
and this one;
>How well does that strategy work for extreme Christians?
Besides the fact that I referenced Pokemon as a joke, Islam has a lot more political than other faiths are, it's also why you'll notice that I tend to refer to Islam as a "ideology". While it's true that people have appropriated Islam, like how black nationalists made the Nation of Islam and how there are small communities of Muslims in places like China, these people do not follow Islam in the same way that the much more violent Muslims do.
Like in the examples I used, blacks in America, like all other Americans are pretty isolated from the Middle East so of course the Nation of Islam just ends up being Scientology for poor racist black people while China seems to never pop up in the news about Islamic suicide bombing/attacks so maybe those Chinese Muslims never got the memo and like a lot of people in the US and Europe just assume that Islam is just another religion.
Please understand, when I say "real Muslim" I mean people who actually understands what Islam actually is, and if you have no intention of converting, then you should be a least a little concerned by a group of people who follow such a violent man's teachings. Islam in the West is so fucking watered down that you have people who seem to believe that Islam is just Christianity for brown people, and you know what? It's works pretty damn well for those who want to slowly and subtly push Islam.Also, I should point out this comment;
>The reality is that people's religious views exist on a spectrum.
and this one;
>How well does that strategy work for extreme Christians?
Besides the fact that I referenced Pokemon as a joke, Islam has a lot more political than other faiths are, it's also why you'll notice that I tend to refer to Islam as a "ideology". While it's true that people have appropriated Islam, like how black nationalists made the Nation of Islam and how there are small communities of Muslims in places like China, these people do not follow Islam in the same way that the much more violent Muslims do.
Like in the examples I used, blacks in America, like all other Americans are pretty isolated from the Middle East so of course the Nation of Islam just ends up being Scientology for poor racist black people while China seems to never pop up in the news about Islamic suicide bombing/attacks so maybe those Chinese Muslims never got the memo and like a lot of people in the US and Europe just assume that Islam is just another religion.
>>1712
And you're right, there are laws, but those laws don't mean anything if someone decides to blow themselves up in a crowded place or if someone with a different political agenda wants to go through the government and change our laws. Keep in mind that Aussies now have a blasphemy law to control people who criticize people's faiths or in the case of Islam political position. And again, the real Muslims don't want man-made governments, they don't want peaceful co-existence with other religious groups, and those soft secular Muslims are also on the chopping block just as much as you and me pal.
You say that there are extreme Christians but those people are rarely murderers, they rarely commit terrorism on the same scale as Muslims. In the USA, we have the Westboro Bapist Church. If Islam was about as extreme as that, I wouldn't even complain about them. They would just be annoying cunts, that's not against the law nor does it really hurt anyone.
Compare that to how Islam treats gays and now we have a gay club that was shot up in Florida because being gay is so fucking haram and shit.
Fact is, the single man with the gun and a will to kill is superior to the 50 who don't really want to fight. If a moderate or secular Muslim group wants to keep supporting a ideology that demands they die if they decided they don't want to be Muslims, that's their choice, but let's actually discuss Islam and how incompatible it is in places like the UK and especially the USA.
And you're right, there are laws, but those laws don't mean anything if someone decides to blow themselves up in a crowded place or if someone with a different political agenda wants to go through the government and change our laws. Keep in mind that Aussies now have a blasphemy law to control people who criticize people's faiths or in the case of Islam political position. And again, the real Muslims don't want man-made governments, they don't want peaceful co-existence with other religious groups, and those soft secular Muslims are also on the chopping block just as much as you and me pal.
You say that there are extreme Christians but those people are rarely murderers, they rarely commit terrorism on the same scale as Muslims. In the USA, we have the Westboro Bapist Church. If Islam was about as extreme as that, I wouldn't even complain about them. They would just be annoying cunts, that's not against the law nor does it really hurt anyone.
Compare that to how Islam treats gays and now we have a gay club that was shot up in Florida because being gay is so fucking haram and shit.
Fact is, the single man with the gun and a will to kill is superior to the 50 who don't really want to fight. If a moderate or secular Muslim group wants to keep supporting a ideology that demands they die if they decided they don't want to be Muslims, that's their choice, but let's actually discuss Islam and how incompatible it is in places like the UK and especially the USA.
>>1712
>Please understand, when I say "real Muslim" I mean people who actually understands what Islam actually is
Seriously?
I'm not in the habit of taking advice on "the correct version" of religious beliefs from random people on the internet. Suffice to say, the majority of Muslims don't agree with your interpretation.
>Islam in the West is so fucking watered down that you have people who seem to believe that Islam is just Christianity for brown people
Well yeah, it basically is. Why do you think Christianity ended up how it has? That's moderation from social pressures; same thing happens to immigrants after a generation or two.
>It's works pretty damn well for those who want to slowly and subtly push Islam
Very few people are trying to "subtly push Islam". And the "Real Muslims" you are talking about definitely aren't; They want attention, fear, and to die as martyrs - not subtlety or politics.
>Islam has a lot more political than other faiths are
Fuck no.
I can't speak for other countries, but there's a Catholic lobbying group that's responsible for a significant fraction of all the terrible shit the Australian government does. What do Muslims do in our politics? Nothing.
>and like a lot of people in the US and Europe just assume that Islam is just another religion.
It is though?
>Please understand, when I say "real Muslim" I mean people who actually understands what Islam actually is
Seriously?
I'm not in the habit of taking advice on "the correct version" of religious beliefs from random people on the internet. Suffice to say, the majority of Muslims don't agree with your interpretation.
>Islam in the West is so fucking watered down that you have people who seem to believe that Islam is just Christianity for brown people
Well yeah, it basically is. Why do you think Christianity ended up how it has? That's moderation from social pressures; same thing happens to immigrants after a generation or two.
>It's works pretty damn well for those who want to slowly and subtly push Islam
Very few people are trying to "subtly push Islam". And the "Real Muslims" you are talking about definitely aren't; They want attention, fear, and to die as martyrs - not subtlety or politics.
>Islam has a lot more political than other faiths are
Fuck no.
I can't speak for other countries, but there's a Catholic lobbying group that's responsible for a significant fraction of all the terrible shit the Australian government does. What do Muslims do in our politics? Nothing.
>and like a lot of people in the US and Europe just assume that Islam is just another religion.
It is though?
>>1713
>And you're right, there are laws, but those laws don't mean anything if someone decides to blow themselves up in a crowded place
How is this relevant here? At all?
>or if someone with a different political agenda wants to go through the government and change our laws
There's basically zero risk of that happening in the next 30 years. Muslims are a highly untrusted minority group, with vastly less power, money and influence than most people in the UK. And any Muslim that DOES manage to gain power is going to have to do it by making friends with LOTS of non-Musilims, so they'll be moderate as shit.
>And again, the real Muslims don't want man-made governments, they don't want peaceful co-existence with other religious groups,
>and those soft secular Muslims are also on the chopping block just as much as you and me pal.
So, just to clarify, we're talking about a minority group of a minority group, who wants to kill absolutely everyone else, somehow magically gaining complete political power?
Why is this thing you chose to be afraid of?
>You say that there are extreme Christians but those people are rarely murderers, they rarely commit terrorism on the same scale as Muslims.
Bullshit. Islamic terror is popular to report on, but there are plenty of fruitcakes of every faith. Look at things like the entire history of the IRA.
Islamic terrorism is common right now due to social pressures in the middle east. As I said, isolation, fear, and tight-knit groups tend to push people further up the spectrum. Unstable regions obviously create those conditions.
>If a moderate or secular Muslim group wants to keep supporting a ideology that demands they die if they decided they don't want to be Muslims, that's their choice
What? Moderate Muslims aren't supporting extreme versions of Islam, kinda by definition.
>but let's actually discuss Islam and how incompatible it is in places like the UK and especially the USA.
The significant populations of moderate Muslims living peacefully in those countries is pretty good proof that it's not incompatible.
>And you're right, there are laws, but those laws don't mean anything if someone decides to blow themselves up in a crowded place
How is this relevant here? At all?
>or if someone with a different political agenda wants to go through the government and change our laws
There's basically zero risk of that happening in the next 30 years. Muslims are a highly untrusted minority group, with vastly less power, money and influence than most people in the UK. And any Muslim that DOES manage to gain power is going to have to do it by making friends with LOTS of non-Musilims, so they'll be moderate as shit.
>And again, the real Muslims don't want man-made governments, they don't want peaceful co-existence with other religious groups,
>and those soft secular Muslims are also on the chopping block just as much as you and me pal.
So, just to clarify, we're talking about a minority group of a minority group, who wants to kill absolutely everyone else, somehow magically gaining complete political power?
Why is this thing you chose to be afraid of?
>You say that there are extreme Christians but those people are rarely murderers, they rarely commit terrorism on the same scale as Muslims.
Bullshit. Islamic terror is popular to report on, but there are plenty of fruitcakes of every faith. Look at things like the entire history of the IRA.
Islamic terrorism is common right now due to social pressures in the middle east. As I said, isolation, fear, and tight-knit groups tend to push people further up the spectrum. Unstable regions obviously create those conditions.
>If a moderate or secular Muslim group wants to keep supporting a ideology that demands they die if they decided they don't want to be Muslims, that's their choice
What? Moderate Muslims aren't supporting extreme versions of Islam, kinda by definition.
>but let's actually discuss Islam and how incompatible it is in places like the UK and especially the USA.
The significant populations of moderate Muslims living peacefully in those countries is pretty good proof that it's not incompatible.
>>1704
>They're just private arbitration courts.
Practiced by religious communities whos cultures are known to force shit upon certain members.
>But leave "the dangers of creeping sharia!" to tabloids selling fear.
I'm not really worried about sharia becoming the law of the land or approaching that, more about it being used to abuse and oppress certain members of islamic communities that practice it.
>They're just private arbitration courts.
Practiced by religious communities whos cultures are known to force shit upon certain members.
>But leave "the dangers of creeping sharia!" to tabloids selling fear.
I'm not really worried about sharia becoming the law of the land or approaching that, more about it being used to abuse and oppress certain members of islamic communities that practice it.
>>1718
>>1719
I'm sorry, but have you actually read the Koran? Like even a little? Have you actually studied the history of Islam and how it was founded? Have you listened to multiple viewpoints both pro-Islam and anti-Islam? Including ex-Muslims?
So when I read comments like;
>I'm not in the habit of taking advice on "the correct version" of religious beliefs from random people on the internet. Suffice to say, the majority of Muslims don't agree with your interpretation.
That really bugs me. I came into reading about Islam with an open mind but I feel that a religion that was literally founded by one man who was literally fine with his supporters killing people because they made jokes about the founder which, I might add, is something that affects us to this day should not be taken lightly.
The fact that Islam even has a concept that permits dishonesty for the sake of getting one's foot in the door makes me more than skeptical when I hear another sob story from any person who in Islam.
But the point you seem to either misunderstand or not want to actually think about is that a lot of Muslim values are getting pushed more and more. We have people from LGBT groups defend Islam despite the fact that you wouldn't likely see the reverse. I'm hearing about these cases where content creators are killed or basically censor themselves to prevent themselves from being attacked when it comes to religious humor about Islam.
>>1719
I'm sorry, but have you actually read the Koran? Like even a little? Have you actually studied the history of Islam and how it was founded? Have you listened to multiple viewpoints both pro-Islam and anti-Islam? Including ex-Muslims?
So when I read comments like;
>I'm not in the habit of taking advice on "the correct version" of religious beliefs from random people on the internet. Suffice to say, the majority of Muslims don't agree with your interpretation.
That really bugs me. I came into reading about Islam with an open mind but I feel that a religion that was literally founded by one man who was literally fine with his supporters killing people because they made jokes about the founder which, I might add, is something that affects us to this day should not be taken lightly.
The fact that Islam even has a concept that permits dishonesty for the sake of getting one's foot in the door makes me more than skeptical when I hear another sob story from any person who in Islam.
But the point you seem to either misunderstand or not want to actually think about is that a lot of Muslim values are getting pushed more and more. We have people from LGBT groups defend Islam despite the fact that you wouldn't likely see the reverse. I'm hearing about these cases where content creators are killed or basically censor themselves to prevent themselves from being attacked when it comes to religious humor about Islam.
>>1726
And again, you have a point, Muslims are a minority, and you could say that the violent ones are an even smaller minority of the group. But how does that even matter when you can either strike into people's hearts and force them into the position you want or just be dishonest and work your way up to the top to influence laws or at least put up enough of a fuss so that the majority votes in your favor anyhow.
My biggest worry is the most immediate that I'm already seeing and that is a limit on speech, expression, and criticism. Why are there laws trying to be pushed to basically censor critics of Islam? Why is the media trying so hard to paint Islam as this clean and nice religion when most other faiths mainstream enough to matter are dragged through the mud?
And again, you have a point, Muslims are a minority, and you could say that the violent ones are an even smaller minority of the group. But how does that even matter when you can either strike into people's hearts and force them into the position you want or just be dishonest and work your way up to the top to influence laws or at least put up enough of a fuss so that the majority votes in your favor anyhow.
My biggest worry is the most immediate that I'm already seeing and that is a limit on speech, expression, and criticism. Why are there laws trying to be pushed to basically censor critics of Islam? Why is the media trying so hard to paint Islam as this clean and nice religion when most other faiths mainstream enough to matter are dragged through the mud?
>>1727
Ultimately, you are right. It's safe to assume that most Muslims are peaceful, especially more Westernized Muslims who have taken a more Christian attitude to their Koran, the hadiths, and so on, but my main point beyond my concerns about our rights being taken away slowly but surely is that if you have even a small minority of people who are willing to fight and kill people against people who cannot fight or doesn't want to fight, well guess who the fuck is going to win? The group who has the balls to actually destroy some infidels and hypocrites.
Maybe it won't happen in ten years or even twenty, but I truly am concerned about what is happening now. Because I'm not interested in converting to Islam, and if a group like ISIS does recruit enough people and gets over to the US or really any other place for that matter, I know I'm fucked as well as everyone else.
I still feel that the one with the gun is the one in power, and that's ISIS. And they have the whole Koran to justify all of their actions like they have been doing. And unlike your Christian "fruitcakes" who might of actually been mentally ill (which is totally different from Islamic terrorism I might add and it's own issue) these are people who besides being brainwashed from birth are likely normally functioning people.
Ultimately, you are right. It's safe to assume that most Muslims are peaceful, especially more Westernized Muslims who have taken a more Christian attitude to their Koran, the hadiths, and so on, but my main point beyond my concerns about our rights being taken away slowly but surely is that if you have even a small minority of people who are willing to fight and kill people against people who cannot fight or doesn't want to fight, well guess who the fuck is going to win? The group who has the balls to actually destroy some infidels and hypocrites.
Maybe it won't happen in ten years or even twenty, but I truly am concerned about what is happening now. Because I'm not interested in converting to Islam, and if a group like ISIS does recruit enough people and gets over to the US or really any other place for that matter, I know I'm fucked as well as everyone else.
I still feel that the one with the gun is the one in power, and that's ISIS. And they have the whole Koran to justify all of their actions like they have been doing. And unlike your Christian "fruitcakes" who might of actually been mentally ill (which is totally different from Islamic terrorism I might add and it's own issue) these are people who besides being brainwashed from birth are likely normally functioning people.
>>1728
As far as my comment about it being more political, it's because a lot of Islamic text deals with how to deal with captives in wars, taxes, slaves, etc.
Your argument is starting on the idea that Islam is merely a Middle Eastern analogue to Christianity and it shows. The two faiths are very different and therefore the types of extremists that come out of it are going to be different.
Islam at it's core promotes terrorism, dishonesty, and dehumanizing those who do not toe the line, and this was from day one of Islam. No amount of secular Muslims can change that until they actually get more reformist Muslims on the scene.
As far as my comment about it being more political, it's because a lot of Islamic text deals with how to deal with captives in wars, taxes, slaves, etc.
Your argument is starting on the idea that Islam is merely a Middle Eastern analogue to Christianity and it shows. The two faiths are very different and therefore the types of extremists that come out of it are going to be different.
Islam at it's core promotes terrorism, dishonesty, and dehumanizing those who do not toe the line, and this was from day one of Islam. No amount of secular Muslims can change that until they actually get more reformist Muslims on the scene.
>>1726
>But the point you seem to either misunderstand or not want to actually think about is that a lot of Muslim values are getting pushed more and more.
I've not seen that, at all.
If anything, violently anti-Muslim views and general xenophobia have been growing in popularity in the last few years. What "Muslim values" are being pushed, and by who?
>We have people from LGBT groups defend Islam despite the fact that you wouldn't likely see the reverse.
Those groups weren't defending Islam, they were defending Muslims. In western countries Muslims tend to be a discriminated-against minority group, and LGBT groups are familiar with that situation.
>I'm hearing about these cases where content creators are killed or basically censor themselves to prevent themselves from being attacked when it comes to religious humor about Islam.
And whenever that happens, there's public outrage over it.
>>1727
>Why is the media trying so hard to paint Islam as this clean and nice religion
I've not seen that. Most of the times I've seen a newspaper use the word "Muslim" is either a prefix to "terrorist" or as equivalent to it.
>My biggest worry is the most immediate that I'm already seeing and that is a limit on speech, expression, and criticism. Why are there laws trying to be pushed to basically censor critics of Islam?
That's a bit more complex.
From what I can tell, it's basically a failed attempt to try and limit the power and growth of the highly anti-Muslim, xenophobic groups. Particularly due to the rise in refugees from Islamic countries, there are a lot of germinally pretty powerless Muslims around. Combine that with general fear, and people trying to "retaliate against terrorists", and you have a vulnerable group put in a dangerous situation. Of course, censoring actual criticism won't help, but it's understandable how it could be a consequence of moves to limit incitement of violence.
>But the point you seem to either misunderstand or not want to actually think about is that a lot of Muslim values are getting pushed more and more.
I've not seen that, at all.
If anything, violently anti-Muslim views and general xenophobia have been growing in popularity in the last few years. What "Muslim values" are being pushed, and by who?
>We have people from LGBT groups defend Islam despite the fact that you wouldn't likely see the reverse.
Those groups weren't defending Islam, they were defending Muslims. In western countries Muslims tend to be a discriminated-against minority group, and LGBT groups are familiar with that situation.
>I'm hearing about these cases where content creators are killed or basically censor themselves to prevent themselves from being attacked when it comes to religious humor about Islam.
And whenever that happens, there's public outrage over it.
>>1727
>Why is the media trying so hard to paint Islam as this clean and nice religion
I've not seen that. Most of the times I've seen a newspaper use the word "Muslim" is either a prefix to "terrorist" or as equivalent to it.
>My biggest worry is the most immediate that I'm already seeing and that is a limit on speech, expression, and criticism. Why are there laws trying to be pushed to basically censor critics of Islam?
That's a bit more complex.
From what I can tell, it's basically a failed attempt to try and limit the power and growth of the highly anti-Muslim, xenophobic groups. Particularly due to the rise in refugees from Islamic countries, there are a lot of germinally pretty powerless Muslims around. Combine that with general fear, and people trying to "retaliate against terrorists", and you have a vulnerable group put in a dangerous situation. Of course, censoring actual criticism won't help, but it's understandable how it could be a consequence of moves to limit incitement of violence.
>>1728
>It's safe to assume that most Muslims are peaceful, especially more Westernized Muslims who have taken a more Christian attitude to their Koran, the hadiths, and so on,
I'm not sure what's "Christan" about that, but okay.
>if you have even a small minority of people who are willing to fight and kill people against people who cannot fight or doesn't want to fight, well guess who the fuck is going to win?
Who said no-one else if fighting back?
There are other kinds of resistance to fear and violence than just escalation.
>Maybe it won't happen in ten years or even twenty, but I truly am concerned about what is happening now
Then why the fuck are you trying to make it worse?
Islamic terrorism isn't an army coming to conquer, it's basically a propaganda campaign. In order for these organizations to recruit people, they need to convince them that the rest of the world is a war with them. And the way they do that is selling non-muslims on the idea that every Muslim is secretly a fanatic waiting to strick, and can't ever be trusted. That's where the whole "refugees are actually terrorists in disguise" thing comes from: flip the table around, how does the world look to other Muslims when countries like the USA start to believe that?
>if a group like ISIS does recruit enough people and gets over to the US or really any other place for that matter, I know I'm fucked as well as everyone else.
There is no chance whatsoever of that happening. Seriously.
The USA military is the largest on the planet. ISIS has old cars and pointy sticks. There's a reason they're fighting a propaganda war on Twitter, and not storming the beaches.
>I still feel that the one with the gun is the one in power, and that's ISIS.
Guns aren't actually all that powerful. The threat of guns is better, but still pretty weak.
ISIS has fear, and you don't fight fear with guns.
>they have the whole Koran to justify all of their actions like they have been doing. And unlike your Christian "fruitcakes" who might of actually been mentally ill (which is totally different from Islamic terrorism I might add and it's own issue) these are people who besides being brainwashed from birth are likely normally functioning people.
Yeah, you keep saying that, and I'm still not sold. Many of the Christian terrorists were NOT mentally ill, they sincerely believed that they were doing what was right. Plus, any of the actual studies I've seen into WHY people become terrorists put religious faith VERY far down the lists: people sign up due to social and personal pressures, with religion providing a name and banner rather than motives. Otherwise, you're going to have to come up with a very good explanation for why there aren't a LOT more Islamic terrorists.
>It's safe to assume that most Muslims are peaceful, especially more Westernized Muslims who have taken a more Christian attitude to their Koran, the hadiths, and so on,
I'm not sure what's "Christan" about that, but okay.
>if you have even a small minority of people who are willing to fight and kill people against people who cannot fight or doesn't want to fight, well guess who the fuck is going to win?
Who said no-one else if fighting back?
There are other kinds of resistance to fear and violence than just escalation.
>Maybe it won't happen in ten years or even twenty, but I truly am concerned about what is happening now
Then why the fuck are you trying to make it worse?
Islamic terrorism isn't an army coming to conquer, it's basically a propaganda campaign. In order for these organizations to recruit people, they need to convince them that the rest of the world is a war with them. And the way they do that is selling non-muslims on the idea that every Muslim is secretly a fanatic waiting to strick, and can't ever be trusted. That's where the whole "refugees are actually terrorists in disguise" thing comes from: flip the table around, how does the world look to other Muslims when countries like the USA start to believe that?
>if a group like ISIS does recruit enough people and gets over to the US or really any other place for that matter, I know I'm fucked as well as everyone else.
There is no chance whatsoever of that happening. Seriously.
The USA military is the largest on the planet. ISIS has old cars and pointy sticks. There's a reason they're fighting a propaganda war on Twitter, and not storming the beaches.
>I still feel that the one with the gun is the one in power, and that's ISIS.
Guns aren't actually all that powerful. The threat of guns is better, but still pretty weak.
ISIS has fear, and you don't fight fear with guns.
>they have the whole Koran to justify all of their actions like they have been doing. And unlike your Christian "fruitcakes" who might of actually been mentally ill (which is totally different from Islamic terrorism I might add and it's own issue) these are people who besides being brainwashed from birth are likely normally functioning people.
Yeah, you keep saying that, and I'm still not sold. Many of the Christian terrorists were NOT mentally ill, they sincerely believed that they were doing what was right. Plus, any of the actual studies I've seen into WHY people become terrorists put religious faith VERY far down the lists: people sign up due to social and personal pressures, with religion providing a name and banner rather than motives. Otherwise, you're going to have to come up with a very good explanation for why there aren't a LOT more Islamic terrorists.
>>1734
For one, things like FGM is one value that people are softening up on. Which is a fucking shame because we are now finally calling male circumcision the horrid shit that it really is.
https://forwomenseyesonly.com/2016/02/25/gynecologists-want-to-legalize-mild-female-genital-mutilation/
>They have further reframed the issue by claiming that by not legalizing FGM we are being “culturally insensitive and supremacist and discriminatory towards women”
That bothers me, we are going to even CONSIDER hurting a little kid just please some immigrants. Now point taken this was in Canada, but why are we going to go backwards? Especially in the way of women's rights to their body?
> In order for these organizations to recruit people, they need to convince them that the rest of the world is a war with them.
They already believe that shit themselves though.
> And the way they do that is selling non-muslims on the idea that every Muslim is secretly a fanatic waiting to strick, and can't ever be trusted.
But criticizing Islam is just that, I don't think every Muslim is a terrorist because they aren't. I'm worried about the terrorists and I'm concerned about the ideology itself. When we get to a point that we will go backwards like in the case of FGM and will actually censor ourselves to not get killed, I think it's necessary to actually look at what people are pushing.
For one, things like FGM is one value that people are softening up on. Which is a fucking shame because we are now finally calling male circumcision the horrid shit that it really is.
https://forwomenseyesonly.com/2016/02/25/gynecologists-want-to-legalize-mild-female-genital-mutilation/
>They have further reframed the issue by claiming that by not legalizing FGM we are being “culturally insensitive and supremacist and discriminatory towards women”
That bothers me, we are going to even CONSIDER hurting a little kid just please some immigrants. Now point taken this was in Canada, but why are we going to go backwards? Especially in the way of women's rights to their body?
> In order for these organizations to recruit people, they need to convince them that the rest of the world is a war with them.
They already believe that shit themselves though.
> And the way they do that is selling non-muslims on the idea that every Muslim is secretly a fanatic waiting to strick, and can't ever be trusted.
But criticizing Islam is just that, I don't think every Muslim is a terrorist because they aren't. I'm worried about the terrorists and I'm concerned about the ideology itself. When we get to a point that we will go backwards like in the case of FGM and will actually censor ourselves to not get killed, I think it's necessary to actually look at what people are pushing.
>>1737
As far as your comment about outrage, yes there is outrage, but it's becoming more popular for people to say, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't insult Mohammad" to people who have made fun of pretty much anyone else and yet get threatened or killed over mocking Islam.
So this comment;
>From what I can tell, it's basically a failed attempt to try and limit the power and growth of the highly anti-Muslim, xenophobic groups. Particularly due to the rise in refugees from Islamic countries, there are a lot of germinally pretty powerless Muslims around. Combine that with general fear, and people trying to "retaliate against terrorists", and you have a vulnerable group put in a dangerous situation. Of course, censoring actual criticism won't help, but it's understandable how it could be a consequence of moves to limit incitement of violence.
Just sounds like excusing actions to limit the speech of people. Decent people are going to ignore the more racist people naturally, but if people like me get labelled as "bigoted" when we point out the some of the more problematic and very valid issues of Islam then the discussion becomes one sided because now my view is taboo.
I've been studying Islam for a while now and trying to understand it from different points of view. I know my points aren't that great, I've never really ever debated about it like this until this thread.
I'll give you that my fears might be a little extreme. I'll work on that, but I have a feeling that my opinion of Islam might not really change. I still see Islam as very different from other religions and I have a hard time trusting Islamic organizations for that reason. And I do feel that Islamic values clash heavily with Western values. And I fear a bit for my rights and the rights of others, including those who Islam deems as "hypocrites" who are Muslims.
I think I'll think and read about this issue some more, it was fun debating with you.
As far as your comment about outrage, yes there is outrage, but it's becoming more popular for people to say, "Hey, maybe you shouldn't insult Mohammad" to people who have made fun of pretty much anyone else and yet get threatened or killed over mocking Islam.
So this comment;
>From what I can tell, it's basically a failed attempt to try and limit the power and growth of the highly anti-Muslim, xenophobic groups. Particularly due to the rise in refugees from Islamic countries, there are a lot of germinally pretty powerless Muslims around. Combine that with general fear, and people trying to "retaliate against terrorists", and you have a vulnerable group put in a dangerous situation. Of course, censoring actual criticism won't help, but it's understandable how it could be a consequence of moves to limit incitement of violence.
Just sounds like excusing actions to limit the speech of people. Decent people are going to ignore the more racist people naturally, but if people like me get labelled as "bigoted" when we point out the some of the more problematic and very valid issues of Islam then the discussion becomes one sided because now my view is taboo.
I've been studying Islam for a while now and trying to understand it from different points of view. I know my points aren't that great, I've never really ever debated about it like this until this thread.
I'll give you that my fears might be a little extreme. I'll work on that, but I have a feeling that my opinion of Islam might not really change. I still see Islam as very different from other religions and I have a hard time trusting Islamic organizations for that reason. And I do feel that Islamic values clash heavily with Western values. And I fear a bit for my rights and the rights of others, including those who Islam deems as "hypocrites" who are Muslims.
I think I'll think and read about this issue some more, it was fun debating with you.
>>1741
>When people move away from their country to a different one they should be prepared to embrace a culture different from theirs.
That really depends on what you mean by "embrace".
Expecting that everyone dress the same, walk the same, talk the same just smells like xenophobia. On the other hand, moving to a country and breaking laws there obviously isn't okay. Everything in the middle (dress, obscene words, customs) is going to be a compromise, and best dealt with by discussing things like adults.
>Otherwise, why even move?
Lots of reasons.
Jobs. Love. Climate. War. Money. Family.
>When people move away from their country to a different one they should be prepared to embrace a culture different from theirs.
That really depends on what you mean by "embrace".
Expecting that everyone dress the same, walk the same, talk the same just smells like xenophobia. On the other hand, moving to a country and breaking laws there obviously isn't okay. Everything in the middle (dress, obscene words, customs) is going to be a compromise, and best dealt with by discussing things like adults.
>Otherwise, why even move?
Lots of reasons.
Jobs. Love. Climate. War. Money. Family.
Okay, so I'm back. I've been thinking really hard about Islam and it's place in society. As an ideology, I still cannot support it in anyway. And looking at my previous posts, it's not just Islam I disagree with but this idea that if a culture comes into our nations that goes against our laws, like the example of doctors saying that our ban of FGM is being insensitive to certain cultures, we should just accept it.
Also, I respect a Muslim's right to religion, I just don't agree with their religion at all or consider it good for society, on the basis of how Islamic nations are ran. Like for example, how Egypt forces you to have your religion on your ID card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_identification_card_controversy
Or the whole child marriage thing;
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages
Don't worry, there are plenty of citations.
Or just the rights of women and gays;
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Women
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
And just Non-Muslims in general;
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims
Also, I respect a Muslim's right to religion, I just don't agree with their religion at all or consider it good for society, on the basis of how Islamic nations are ran. Like for example, how Egypt forces you to have your religion on your ID card.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_identification_card_controversy
Or the whole child marriage thing;
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Contemporary_Pedophilic_Islamic_Marriages
Don't worry, there are plenty of citations.
Or just the rights of women and gays;
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Women
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Islam_and_Homosexuality
And just Non-Muslims in general;
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Persecution_of_Non-Muslims
I just wanted to say that here there is a quite large Muslim population, and they are usually more well-behaved than the typical catholic. Unless your last-name is Bathich.
>>1825
The reason why those countries are having these laws and they gain support is because the material conditions of the people. There are Christian African countries were contraception is also the evil itself. And orthodox Christianity and Islam aren't that far apart in regards to homosexuality and women.
People tend to become more secular when gaining better living conditions. There are lots of researches done in this regard. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201212/does-wealth-really-kill-religion
My view of it is that most of the believes of these people can't be interpreted separately from the conditions in which they live.
I found this a very interesting talk, although I don't agree with the rest of Parenti's views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYCMjoM5vY
The reason why those countries are having these laws and they gain support is because the material conditions of the people. There are Christian African countries were contraception is also the evil itself. And orthodox Christianity and Islam aren't that far apart in regards to homosexuality and women.
People tend to become more secular when gaining better living conditions. There are lots of researches done in this regard. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201212/does-wealth-really-kill-religion
My view of it is that most of the believes of these people can't be interpreted separately from the conditions in which they live.
I found this a very interesting talk, although I don't agree with the rest of Parenti's views:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkYCMjoM5vY
File: 1473542205827-0.png (29.99 KB, 200x102, religion_distribution.png)
File: 1473542205827-1.png (136.78 KB, 200x141, ILGA_map_2011_Small.jpg)
>>1970
The thing is, Islam at it's core is a religion and a political ideology. Unlike the Torah and the New Testament in the Bible, the Koran was written by one man and his words. Mohammad and his companions were known for their disrespect to other religions and as a result, the Koran does have verses which commands the death of polytheists and the subjugation of Christians and J ews under Islamic states.
How is this relevant to us now? Well, because the whole "Faith on your State ID" law is clearly an result of this. I get what you are saying, that people become more secular as living conditions get better, but Egypt doesn't look like a hellhole. Egypt is one of the more secular Muslim countries and it has that law.
And Muslim nations seem to only evolve in any meaningful way once a secular leader comes in. And these people are usually disliked by the greater Muslim community.
If you are going to stick with poverty means more religion, then maybe the question needs to be; Are people more religious because they are poor? Or are they more poor because they are religious?
You mention that Christian aren't that different from Muslims and use the proverty argument but in the treatment of homosexuals, even poor Christian nations push for better laws, where as pretty much every Muslim nation is a nightmare for gays and lesbos.
And seeing how more Christian parts of Africa are also in the pot for bad treatment of homosexuals, I will concede that poverty and the lack of education that comes with it is a big factor, but I think the fact that Islam is nowhere near the same as Christianity plays a big role too.
If you have a poor, third or second world country and they have a very peaceful, friendlier faith as the dominant religion, like say, Sikhism, or we could have fun with this discussion and make it Lain-ism then the resulting laws wouldn't be anything like what we see in Muslim nations.
The thing is, Islam at it's core is a religion and a political ideology. Unlike the Torah and the New Testament in the Bible, the Koran was written by one man and his words. Mohammad and his companions were known for their disrespect to other religions and as a result, the Koran does have verses which commands the death of polytheists and the subjugation of Christians and J ews under Islamic states.
How is this relevant to us now? Well, because the whole "Faith on your State ID" law is clearly an result of this. I get what you are saying, that people become more secular as living conditions get better, but Egypt doesn't look like a hellhole. Egypt is one of the more secular Muslim countries and it has that law.
And Muslim nations seem to only evolve in any meaningful way once a secular leader comes in. And these people are usually disliked by the greater Muslim community.
If you are going to stick with poverty means more religion, then maybe the question needs to be; Are people more religious because they are poor? Or are they more poor because they are religious?
You mention that Christian aren't that different from Muslims and use the proverty argument but in the treatment of homosexuals, even poor Christian nations push for better laws, where as pretty much every Muslim nation is a nightmare for gays and lesbos.
And seeing how more Christian parts of Africa are also in the pot for bad treatment of homosexuals, I will concede that poverty and the lack of education that comes with it is a big factor, but I think the fact that Islam is nowhere near the same as Christianity plays a big role too.
If you have a poor, third or second world country and they have a very peaceful, friendlier faith as the dominant religion, like say, Sikhism, or we could have fun with this discussion and make it Lain-ism then the resulting laws wouldn't be anything like what we see in Muslim nations.
>>1972
Now that said, one thing that is interesting, in my research of LGBT issues around the world, Jordan is a special case in terms of Islamic states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jordan
>The Jordanian penal code no longer permits family members to beat or kill a member of their own family whose "illicit" sexuality is interpreted as bringing "dishonor" to the entire family. As of 2013, the newly revised Penal Code makes honor killings, as a legal justification for murder, illegal.
Which is nice and but then it turns out that Jordan is a pretty big ally of the US and the UK. So that kinda makes sense. But it makes me feel that a lot of these places in the Middle East wouldn't come to the same place as the US or a lot of Europe. All of the great secular leaders in Islamic history have been exposed to Western ideas to the point that Islam may as well be reformed due to these leaders (and in a way it has been reformed due to Abdulmeccid and others).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd%C3%BClmecid_I
Only way I would defend Islam is that it would need to be reformed completely, because the actions in the Middle East committed by Muslims are nothing like the petty in comparison stuff that goes on in poor areas around the globe. Blacks are pretty violent in poor areas, and the majority of them are Christian yet the nature of their crimes and life choices are more often than not secular. Same thing with poor Mexicans and other Hispanics.
Now that said, one thing that is interesting, in my research of LGBT issues around the world, Jordan is a special case in terms of Islamic states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Jordan
>The Jordanian penal code no longer permits family members to beat or kill a member of their own family whose "illicit" sexuality is interpreted as bringing "dishonor" to the entire family. As of 2013, the newly revised Penal Code makes honor killings, as a legal justification for murder, illegal.
Which is nice and but then it turns out that Jordan is a pretty big ally of the US and the UK. So that kinda makes sense. But it makes me feel that a lot of these places in the Middle East wouldn't come to the same place as the US or a lot of Europe. All of the great secular leaders in Islamic history have been exposed to Western ideas to the point that Islam may as well be reformed due to these leaders (and in a way it has been reformed due to Abdulmeccid and others).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abd%C3%BClmecid_I
Only way I would defend Islam is that it would need to be reformed completely, because the actions in the Middle East committed by Muslims are nothing like the petty in comparison stuff that goes on in poor areas around the globe. Blacks are pretty violent in poor areas, and the majority of them are Christian yet the nature of their crimes and life choices are more often than not secular. Same thing with poor Mexicans and other Hispanics.
>>1298
When muslims become majority they will be able to impose sharia law in the west, because criticism of islam is banned in many countries in europe.
I would recommend the documentary Silent Conquest. It deals with the silencing of criticism of anything islamic in the west on due to government support.
When muslims become majority they will be able to impose sharia law in the west, because criticism of islam is banned in many countries in europe.
I would recommend the documentary Silent Conquest. It deals with the silencing of criticism of anything islamic in the west on due to government support.
>>1972
My objection to that whole train of though is that discussions about "what religion X is REALLY about are basically fruitless - the topic of practical importance if how they are interpreted. From the (admittedly limited) information I have, the views and beliefs of Muslims basically line up with the views and beliefs of non-Muslims in similar social circumstances.
You potentially could try and make an argument that social circumstances of Muslims countries are a consequence of them containing Muslims, but that really doesn't seem consistent with the behaviour of Muslims on other places. Plus, history and politics seems like a far more powerful causative agent than just the particular text of your holy book.
>And Muslim nations seem to only evolve in any meaningful way once a secular leader comes in. And these people are usually disliked by the greater Muslim community.
This is the case everywhere. Theocracies always suck, and people object to rapid social changes.
>If you have a poor, third or second world country and they have a very peaceful, friendlier faith as the dominant religion, then the resulting laws wouldn't be anything like what we see in Muslim nations.
I really don't believe that. Getting out of a crab-bucket mentality is a very long and hard battle, but reinterpreting a book is a fairly simple and quick one.
>>1988
>When muslims become majority they will be able to impose sharia law in the west, because criticism of islam is banned in many countries in europe.
Not that I'm aware of. There are "hate speech" laws, but those explicitly only cover incitement of violence, not criticism. Can you point to actual legislation?
>It deals with the silencing of criticism of anything islamic in the west
I could be wrong, but isn't criticism (and fear) of Islam is a major part of a number of political groups in Europe? In any case, if there is an effort to silence criticism of Islam in Europe it's been massively ineffective.
My objection to that whole train of though is that discussions about "what religion X is REALLY about are basically fruitless - the topic of practical importance if how they are interpreted. From the (admittedly limited) information I have, the views and beliefs of Muslims basically line up with the views and beliefs of non-Muslims in similar social circumstances.
You potentially could try and make an argument that social circumstances of Muslims countries are a consequence of them containing Muslims, but that really doesn't seem consistent with the behaviour of Muslims on other places. Plus, history and politics seems like a far more powerful causative agent than just the particular text of your holy book.
>And Muslim nations seem to only evolve in any meaningful way once a secular leader comes in. And these people are usually disliked by the greater Muslim community.
This is the case everywhere. Theocracies always suck, and people object to rapid social changes.
>If you have a poor, third or second world country and they have a very peaceful, friendlier faith as the dominant religion, then the resulting laws wouldn't be anything like what we see in Muslim nations.
I really don't believe that. Getting out of a crab-bucket mentality is a very long and hard battle, but reinterpreting a book is a fairly simple and quick one.
>>1988
>When muslims become majority they will be able to impose sharia law in the west, because criticism of islam is banned in many countries in europe.
Not that I'm aware of. There are "hate speech" laws, but those explicitly only cover incitement of violence, not criticism. Can you point to actual legislation?
>It deals with the silencing of criticism of anything islamic in the west
I could be wrong, but isn't criticism (and fear) of Islam is a major part of a number of political groups in Europe? In any case, if there is an effort to silence criticism of Islam in Europe it's been massively ineffective.
>>1990
One big issue is, again, that you continue to assume that Islam is a brown person analogue to Christianity. That is not the case. Judaism and Christianity have been neutered into what they are now by people being allowed to criticize, mock, speak against them, etc.
In the case of Islam though, political and special interest groups have coined the term "Islamophobia" to shame those who disagree with Islam or just don't like what it stands for. Now, Lain, throughout our conversation, I have treated Islam as an ideology. Think about this pretty good now, they call it "Islamophobia" and not "Anti-Muslim" or "Muslimophobia", don't you think that's weird? We call it Anti-Semitic because Semites are a race of people. We call it Japanophobia because the Japanese are a group of people. We call it Homophobia because homosexuals are a group of people.
Islam doesn't refer to people, it's an ideology. Can you think of any term that would describe the irrational fear of any other ideology? We don't for example have Naziphobia used as a neat little buzzword. Nor do we have Judaismphobia or Pacifistphobia. People who use Islamophobia know that the majority of critics don't actually talk about Muslims but point out the issues of the ideology itself.
So where does that bring us? An ideology that when faced with criticism, has members that will then shift the burden of guilt onto the person pointing out it's faults with a bigotry charge even when the person isn't actually a bigot.
Christians don't do this. You call out their faith and they won't care, usually. In fact, Christians are the butt of a lot of jokes in the media.
One big issue is, again, that you continue to assume that Islam is a brown person analogue to Christianity. That is not the case. Judaism and Christianity have been neutered into what they are now by people being allowed to criticize, mock, speak against them, etc.
In the case of Islam though, political and special interest groups have coined the term "Islamophobia" to shame those who disagree with Islam or just don't like what it stands for. Now, Lain, throughout our conversation, I have treated Islam as an ideology. Think about this pretty good now, they call it "Islamophobia" and not "Anti-Muslim" or "Muslimophobia", don't you think that's weird? We call it Anti-Semitic because Semites are a race of people. We call it Japanophobia because the Japanese are a group of people. We call it Homophobia because homosexuals are a group of people.
Islam doesn't refer to people, it's an ideology. Can you think of any term that would describe the irrational fear of any other ideology? We don't for example have Naziphobia used as a neat little buzzword. Nor do we have Judaismphobia or Pacifistphobia. People who use Islamophobia know that the majority of critics don't actually talk about Muslims but point out the issues of the ideology itself.
So where does that bring us? An ideology that when faced with criticism, has members that will then shift the burden of guilt onto the person pointing out it's faults with a bigotry charge even when the person isn't actually a bigot.
Christians don't do this. You call out their faith and they won't care, usually. In fact, Christians are the butt of a lot of jokes in the media.
>>2020
>Plus, history and politics seems like a far more powerful causative agent than just the particular text of your holy book.
History and Politics are so deeply ingrained into Islam it's not even funny. You do know why there are the Shi'a and the Sunnis right? It's a divide created by disagreements of who should have taken Mohammad's place as the Caliph, and the family drama led to Islam's first civil war.
Violence and hate have been a part of Islam from the moment Mohammad "received" the Koran from Gabriel and the prophet started to get "revelations". Just read the Koran, and you'll see that the violence and hate towards everyone who doesn't toe the line is all there.
No amount of soft Muslims will automatically erase Mohammad's violent teachings, soft Western Muslims will also never erase the issues that Islam has brought to the Middle East and Africa. Again, I must state that I have no issues with Muslims, but they do support a violent ideology.
>Plus, history and politics seems like a far more powerful causative agent than just the particular text of your holy book.
History and Politics are so deeply ingrained into Islam it's not even funny. You do know why there are the Shi'a and the Sunnis right? It's a divide created by disagreements of who should have taken Mohammad's place as the Caliph, and the family drama led to Islam's first civil war.
Violence and hate have been a part of Islam from the moment Mohammad "received" the Koran from Gabriel and the prophet started to get "revelations". Just read the Koran, and you'll see that the violence and hate towards everyone who doesn't toe the line is all there.
No amount of soft Muslims will automatically erase Mohammad's violent teachings, soft Western Muslims will also never erase the issues that Islam has brought to the Middle East and Africa. Again, I must state that I have no issues with Muslims, but they do support a violent ideology.
>>2022
>I must state that I have no issues with Muslims, but they do support a violent ideology
Do you not think that that's an issue? The ideology seems to be a bad influence wherever it goes so even its relatively peaceful and well-meaning followers who keep it going and spread it around present an issue to me.
I've never met a violent or disagreeable muslim in my life but I'm still not comfortable with the traction that the religion is gaining in Australia. The way that I see it the situation can go two ways. We'll change them or they'll change us. Likely it will settle out to be a bit of both, so I can only hope that their influence over the country will be ineffectual.
>I must state that I have no issues with Muslims, but they do support a violent ideology
Do you not think that that's an issue? The ideology seems to be a bad influence wherever it goes so even its relatively peaceful and well-meaning followers who keep it going and spread it around present an issue to me.
I've never met a violent or disagreeable muslim in my life but I'm still not comfortable with the traction that the religion is gaining in Australia. The way that I see it the situation can go two ways. We'll change them or they'll change us. Likely it will settle out to be a bit of both, so I can only hope that their influence over the country will be ineffectual.
>>2024
>Do you not think that that's an issue?
Well of course, otherwise I wouldn't be in this thread posting my piece.
But yes, chances are very good that your Australian culture will be changed quite a bit. Consider the following; American company, Disney, the same company that has enough power to extent copyright laws for the sake of keeping Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, has to bend to the complaints of Islamic groups over their movie Aladdin and censor the film. Now, it's true that it's a small edit at the start of the movie but the principle of it still stands; The movie was censored due to the feelings of those who were "offended", and I'm sure if some of the more extreme Muslims had their way, the movie would have been banned. And if this seems kinda silly, bare with me here. In the 90s it was censorship of a Disney movie, a small, "victory" if you will. And now we have gotten to a point where entire social networks can and will censor unpopular opinions for the sake of preventing social backlash. I try hard to resist using such a slippery slope argument, but I feel like it fits here. American society having already becoming "sensitive" to the issues of other minorities is now going through a new shift, one that's different from other minorities. American society has changed due to Islamic lobbying, media, and teachings but American (or just Western) society has very few changes to Islamic society in return.
I hope I didn't ramble on too much.
>>2030
True, lots of people are anti-Nazism but a person who disagrees would not be described as a Naziphobe because how do you fear an ideology? If anything, the Nazis would be the ones using such a term to shame any German who didn't like the actions of the Nazi party. Which is the way Islamophobia is used, even when a situation like a white dude beating up an Arab dude assuming he was a terrorist would be actually racism not unlike a Chinese man shooting a black person because the Chinese man thought the black guy would steal his bike and not a fear of an ideology.
The term Islamophobia is a weird term just because being a Islam is not a racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc group. It is a ideology that while forced onto people is still a voluntary identity. Whereas the term, "Muslimphobia" would more accurate since it deals with an actual group of people rather than the ideology that these people form their group around.
And the same logic also applies to;
>uh... that's because it's already called something else.
>Do you not think that that's an issue?
Well of course, otherwise I wouldn't be in this thread posting my piece.
But yes, chances are very good that your Australian culture will be changed quite a bit. Consider the following; American company, Disney, the same company that has enough power to extent copyright laws for the sake of keeping Mickey Mouse out of the public domain, has to bend to the complaints of Islamic groups over their movie Aladdin and censor the film. Now, it's true that it's a small edit at the start of the movie but the principle of it still stands; The movie was censored due to the feelings of those who were "offended", and I'm sure if some of the more extreme Muslims had their way, the movie would have been banned. And if this seems kinda silly, bare with me here. In the 90s it was censorship of a Disney movie, a small, "victory" if you will. And now we have gotten to a point where entire social networks can and will censor unpopular opinions for the sake of preventing social backlash. I try hard to resist using such a slippery slope argument, but I feel like it fits here. American society having already becoming "sensitive" to the issues of other minorities is now going through a new shift, one that's different from other minorities. American society has changed due to Islamic lobbying, media, and teachings but American (or just Western) society has very few changes to Islamic society in return.
I hope I didn't ramble on too much.
>>2030
True, lots of people are anti-Nazism but a person who disagrees would not be described as a Naziphobe because how do you fear an ideology? If anything, the Nazis would be the ones using such a term to shame any German who didn't like the actions of the Nazi party. Which is the way Islamophobia is used, even when a situation like a white dude beating up an Arab dude assuming he was a terrorist would be actually racism not unlike a Chinese man shooting a black person because the Chinese man thought the black guy would steal his bike and not a fear of an ideology.
The term Islamophobia is a weird term just because being a Islam is not a racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc group. It is a ideology that while forced onto people is still a voluntary identity. Whereas the term, "Muslimphobia" would more accurate since it deals with an actual group of people rather than the ideology that these people form their group around.
And the same logic also applies to;
>uh... that's because it's already called something else.
>>2020
>what is the war on Christmas
>what is the moral majority
>what are freedom of religion laws
Yeaaaaaaaaaaah, it's easy to paint Christianity as tolerant when you ignore its intolerance.
Islamophobia is the fear of pan-Muslim culture and discrimination against such. There are many Muslim ideologies, it's stupid to say there's even a cohesive overarching theme of Islamic ideology. This is why posts like >>1286 exist yet are ignored by the Islamophobes in this thread - leftists are against regressive elements in Islam, whereas the alt-right is just a hate machine bent on ethnic cleansing. It's no surprise the most vitriolic Islamophobes are Slavic on /civ/; they are trying to continue the genocides in Bosnia and Chechnya.
Do you oppose a woman wearing a headscarf? Then you are an Islamophobe. There is no ideology in clothing.
>what is the war on Christmas
>what is the moral majority
>what are freedom of religion laws
Yeaaaaaaaaaaah, it's easy to paint Christianity as tolerant when you ignore its intolerance.
Islamophobia is the fear of pan-Muslim culture and discrimination against such. There are many Muslim ideologies, it's stupid to say there's even a cohesive overarching theme of Islamic ideology. This is why posts like >>1286 exist yet are ignored by the Islamophobes in this thread - leftists are against regressive elements in Islam, whereas the alt-right is just a hate machine bent on ethnic cleansing. It's no surprise the most vitriolic Islamophobes are Slavic on /civ/; they are trying to continue the genocides in Bosnia and Chechnya.
Do you oppose a woman wearing a headscarf? Then you are an Islamophobe. There is no ideology in clothing.
>>2119
>Islamophobia is the fear of pan-Muslim culture and discrimination against such.
Then why isn't it called something like "Anti-Muslim" or "Anti-Arab" which actually refers to people? There's no such thing as "Christianityphobia" and you aren't called as such if you call out issues in the ideology. Christianity's influence is weak as fuck and has changed a lot due it's followers not allowed to say, "Nah uh, you can't say that about our faith!!" like Islam has been.
The reality is that Islam, at it's core, goes against a lot of Western values. No matter what school of Islamic thought you try to use, they all follow the teachings of Mohammad and his example albeit with slightly different ideas on different topics. So what does it matter, for example if one school of thought might be a little more lenient when it comes to cutting off a thief's limb? It's the core idea of cutting off hands within Sharia law that's the problem. Just like the core idea of women being inferior to men is the problem.
>Do you oppose a woman wearing a headscarf? Then you are an Islamophobe. There is no ideology in clothing.
I disagree with this so much. There is a massive difference from a woman in nations like the US, Japan, England, etc buying clothes they like and enjoy and a woman in a culture like what is found in the Middle East where things like the hijab is FORCED. The ideology gives symbolism to clothing, much like a burnt bra has the symbolism of Feminism of the time.
I do not oppose the women who CHOOSE to wear a headscarf. I do oppose the ideology that forces it onto women, however.
Also;
My disapproval of Islam is not irrational, it is based on reading the Koran, the hadiths, hearing numerous people speak about it from various walks of life, and understanding the statistics of Islamic terrorism and human rights violations compared to other religions and cultures. Also, I'm not alt-right, if that's what you're implying, I fail to see how opposing a religion that doesn't get the same level of chin-checking that other religions get while pretty much being allowed to do things the West left long ago like slavery, stoning women for sex out of wedlock, and other stupid shit is remotely right wing.
>Islamophobia is the fear of pan-Muslim culture and discrimination against such.
Then why isn't it called something like "Anti-Muslim" or "Anti-Arab" which actually refers to people? There's no such thing as "Christianityphobia" and you aren't called as such if you call out issues in the ideology. Christianity's influence is weak as fuck and has changed a lot due it's followers not allowed to say, "Nah uh, you can't say that about our faith!!" like Islam has been.
The reality is that Islam, at it's core, goes against a lot of Western values. No matter what school of Islamic thought you try to use, they all follow the teachings of Mohammad and his example albeit with slightly different ideas on different topics. So what does it matter, for example if one school of thought might be a little more lenient when it comes to cutting off a thief's limb? It's the core idea of cutting off hands within Sharia law that's the problem. Just like the core idea of women being inferior to men is the problem.
>Do you oppose a woman wearing a headscarf? Then you are an Islamophobe. There is no ideology in clothing.
I disagree with this so much. There is a massive difference from a woman in nations like the US, Japan, England, etc buying clothes they like and enjoy and a woman in a culture like what is found in the Middle East where things like the hijab is FORCED. The ideology gives symbolism to clothing, much like a burnt bra has the symbolism of Feminism of the time.
I do not oppose the women who CHOOSE to wear a headscarf. I do oppose the ideology that forces it onto women, however.
Also;
My disapproval of Islam is not irrational, it is based on reading the Koran, the hadiths, hearing numerous people speak about it from various walks of life, and understanding the statistics of Islamic terrorism and human rights violations compared to other religions and cultures. Also, I'm not alt-right, if that's what you're implying, I fail to see how opposing a religion that doesn't get the same level of chin-checking that other religions get while pretty much being allowed to do things the West left long ago like slavery, stoning women for sex out of wedlock, and other stupid shit is remotely right wing.
>>2034
>The term Islamophobia is a weird term just because being a Islam is not a racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc group. It is a ideology that while forced onto people is still a voluntary identity. Whereas the term, "Muslimphobia" would more accurate since it deals with an actual group of people rather than the ideology that these people form their group around.
You're just as obsessed with correcting people's terminology as the PC types over on tumblr. And about as relevant.
>The term Islamophobia is a weird term just because being a Islam is not a racial, ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, disability, etc group. It is a ideology that while forced onto people is still a voluntary identity. Whereas the term, "Muslimphobia" would more accurate since it deals with an actual group of people rather than the ideology that these people form their group around.
You're just as obsessed with correcting people's terminology as the PC types over on tumblr. And about as relevant.
>>2155
You can be against Islam without being islamophobic. It's islamophobic, for example, to pretend that every woman who keeps Hijab is somehow forced into it. I know basically atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture while it's under attack from people like you. It's possible to accept these women's choices while at the same time disagreeing with their cosmology. It's called "not being an asshole."
It's not islamophobic to say that religion is the opiate of the masses or to say that if God existed, we would have to kill it. It's islamophobic to ignore the significant degree of hegemony Christians enjoy in Western politics, pretend that the West is some sort of secular utopia, and then stereotype Muslims. It's islamophobic to pretend Christianity isn't patriarchal, and it's islamophobic to compare Western neutered Christianity to radical Islam. Note also that the right comparison point for ISIS, lone wolf Islamic terrorists, and other militant Islamists isn't the WBC or a similar troll organization, it's the LRA in the Congo, the Norwegian terrorist, and militia groups in the United States. If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
Why is Islam judged to a totally different standard? Why can you ignore these existing trends in Christianity while ignoring the moderate aspects of Islam? Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race. The reality is, plenty of Muslims see exactly the same ugliness you do, and would gladly be your comrades if you met them halfway. Who benefits from your not doing so?
Think about it.
You can be against Islam without being islamophobic. It's islamophobic, for example, to pretend that every woman who keeps Hijab is somehow forced into it. I know basically atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture while it's under attack from people like you. It's possible to accept these women's choices while at the same time disagreeing with their cosmology. It's called "not being an asshole."
It's not islamophobic to say that religion is the opiate of the masses or to say that if God existed, we would have to kill it. It's islamophobic to ignore the significant degree of hegemony Christians enjoy in Western politics, pretend that the West is some sort of secular utopia, and then stereotype Muslims. It's islamophobic to pretend Christianity isn't patriarchal, and it's islamophobic to compare Western neutered Christianity to radical Islam. Note also that the right comparison point for ISIS, lone wolf Islamic terrorists, and other militant Islamists isn't the WBC or a similar troll organization, it's the LRA in the Congo, the Norwegian terrorist, and militia groups in the United States. If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
Why is Islam judged to a totally different standard? Why can you ignore these existing trends in Christianity while ignoring the moderate aspects of Islam? Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race. The reality is, plenty of Muslims see exactly the same ugliness you do, and would gladly be your comrades if you met them halfway. Who benefits from your not doing so?
Think about it.
>>2157
>You can be against Islam without being islamophobic. It's islamophobic, for example, to pretend that every woman who keeps Hijab is somehow forced into it.
It's inane to mark a reasonable guess as some form of extreme bias coined by an Islamic council.
>I know basically atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture while it's under attack from people like you. It's possible to accept these women's choices while at the same time disagreeing with their cosmology. It's called "not being an asshole."
Unfortunately, the West allows these people with a culture so opposed to ours to visit.
>It's not islamophobic to say that religion is the opiate of the masses or to say that if God existed, we would have to kill it.
Those are simply silly things to say.
>It's islamophobic to ignore the significant degree of hegemony Christians enjoy in Western politics, pretend that the West is some sort of secular utopia, and then stereotype Muslims. It's islamophobic to pretend Christianity isn't patriarchal, and it's islamophobic to compare Western neutered Christianity to radical Islam.
The West grew up with Christianity and is nowhere near as extreme or violent as Islam.
>Note also that the right comparison point for ISIS, lone wolf Islamic terrorists, and other militant Islamists isn't the WBC or a similar troll organization, it's the LRA in the Congo, the Norwegian terrorist, and militia groups in the United States. If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
You don't know what you're talking about at all.
>Why is Islam judged to a totally different standard? Why can you ignore these existing trends in Christianity while ignoring the moderate aspects of Islam? Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race. The reality is, plenty of Muslims see exactly the same ugliness you do, and would gladly be your comrades if you met them halfway. Who benefits from your not doing so?
Have you ever considered that I and many others may not want to get along with everyone and don't care about our own problems nearly as much as the issues gained from importing others with far worse problems?
I'll judge Islam differently if I want to. It's foreign, for one. It's also responsible for many deaths of innocents. Comparing radical Islam to radical Christianity is disingenuous and you should know this.
>Think about it.
You should also.
>You can be against Islam without being islamophobic. It's islamophobic, for example, to pretend that every woman who keeps Hijab is somehow forced into it.
It's inane to mark a reasonable guess as some form of extreme bias coined by an Islamic council.
>I know basically atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture while it's under attack from people like you. It's possible to accept these women's choices while at the same time disagreeing with their cosmology. It's called "not being an asshole."
Unfortunately, the West allows these people with a culture so opposed to ours to visit.
>It's not islamophobic to say that religion is the opiate of the masses or to say that if God existed, we would have to kill it.
Those are simply silly things to say.
>It's islamophobic to ignore the significant degree of hegemony Christians enjoy in Western politics, pretend that the West is some sort of secular utopia, and then stereotype Muslims. It's islamophobic to pretend Christianity isn't patriarchal, and it's islamophobic to compare Western neutered Christianity to radical Islam.
The West grew up with Christianity and is nowhere near as extreme or violent as Islam.
>Note also that the right comparison point for ISIS, lone wolf Islamic terrorists, and other militant Islamists isn't the WBC or a similar troll organization, it's the LRA in the Congo, the Norwegian terrorist, and militia groups in the United States. If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
You don't know what you're talking about at all.
>Why is Islam judged to a totally different standard? Why can you ignore these existing trends in Christianity while ignoring the moderate aspects of Islam? Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race. The reality is, plenty of Muslims see exactly the same ugliness you do, and would gladly be your comrades if you met them halfway. Who benefits from your not doing so?
Have you ever considered that I and many others may not want to get along with everyone and don't care about our own problems nearly as much as the issues gained from importing others with far worse problems?
I'll judge Islam differently if I want to. It's foreign, for one. It's also responsible for many deaths of innocents. Comparing radical Islam to radical Christianity is disingenuous and you should know this.
>Think about it.
You should also.
>>2157
>It's islamophobic, for example, to pretend that every woman who keeps Hijab is somehow forced into it.
Except that, a lot of women are forced into wearing hijabs and burkas when you leave Burgerstan, Maplestan, and the Outback.
>I know basically atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture while it's under attack from people like you.
And this line proves that you most likely live in a place like the US, Canada, or Australia. Let's get a few things out of the way.
>Atheist Muslim
Pal, by any chance do you mean Arab? Or maybe you mean, an ex-Muslim? You know the only reason these women could even give up their faith and not get killed is because they live in a Western country.
>atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture
And personally, if a woman left Islam and moved to the West OR was born in the West as a Muslim and gave it up likely because of how downright sexist it is, personally it seems counterproductive to basically wear one of the symbols of that groups hatred for you.
>while it's under attack from people like you.
Funny, after reading the Koran, I see my American culture being under attack from groups like ISIS who actually follow their holy texts very closely. And I mean, really under attack. Not just someone making fun of my culture or pointing out legit flaws.
> It's possible to accept these women's choices while at the same time disagreeing with their cosmology. It's called "not being an asshole."
That is fine, but keep in mind that a Muslim woman's life here in America is going to be massively different from a Muslim woman's life in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country for that matter. The women you know likely live like any other woman in the Western world, which of course would get her killed under Islam. You know, worshiping idols, sex before marriage, showing her skin to unrelated men, etc.
I can accept the hijab only when it's clearly a choice made by the woman, otherwise it's forced onto her and therefore a disgusting disregard for fellow human being's feelings and desires.
>It's islamophobic, for example, to pretend that every woman who keeps Hijab is somehow forced into it.
Except that, a lot of women are forced into wearing hijabs and burkas when you leave Burgerstan, Maplestan, and the Outback.
>I know basically atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture while it's under attack from people like you.
And this line proves that you most likely live in a place like the US, Canada, or Australia. Let's get a few things out of the way.
>Atheist Muslim
Pal, by any chance do you mean Arab? Or maybe you mean, an ex-Muslim? You know the only reason these women could even give up their faith and not get killed is because they live in a Western country.
>atheist Muslim women who wear the Hijab because it makes them feel connected with their culture and expresses solidarity with that culture
And personally, if a woman left Islam and moved to the West OR was born in the West as a Muslim and gave it up likely because of how downright sexist it is, personally it seems counterproductive to basically wear one of the symbols of that groups hatred for you.
>while it's under attack from people like you.
Funny, after reading the Koran, I see my American culture being under attack from groups like ISIS who actually follow their holy texts very closely. And I mean, really under attack. Not just someone making fun of my culture or pointing out legit flaws.
> It's possible to accept these women's choices while at the same time disagreeing with their cosmology. It's called "not being an asshole."
That is fine, but keep in mind that a Muslim woman's life here in America is going to be massively different from a Muslim woman's life in Saudi Arabia or any other Muslim country for that matter. The women you know likely live like any other woman in the Western world, which of course would get her killed under Islam. You know, worshiping idols, sex before marriage, showing her skin to unrelated men, etc.
I can accept the hijab only when it's clearly a choice made by the woman, otherwise it's forced onto her and therefore a disgusting disregard for fellow human being's feelings and desires.
>>2159
>It's islamophobic to ignore the significant degree of hegemony Christians enjoy in Western politics
HA! If Christians had more pull, especially the more hardcore ones, we certainly would not have the outcry that laws like "Religious Freedom" get. The same law, I might add, that would allow a Muslim business to reject a non-Muslim on the grounds of being a non-believer. Same sex marriage also wouldn't have gotten to the point it is now either.
>pretend that the West is some sort of secular utopia
It's no utopia here, never said that, don't put words in my mouth please. But I will say that the Middle East is far from secular.
>then stereotype Muslims
Not really stereotyping, I read the Koran and understand the faith very well. If someone says they are Muslim, then I have to go by that religion's text and I understand they believe in a extremely backwards and violent religion. It's like if someone said they were a brony, I'm not going to be surprised when they actually watch My Little Pony. Being a Muslim, like being a brony or whatever, is a choice. If you don't want to be associated with something, then you don't associate with it.
> It's islamophobic to pretend Christianity isn't patriarchal, and it's islamophobic to compare Western neutered Christianity to radical Islam. Note also that the right comparison point for ISIS, lone wolf Islamic terrorists, and other militant Islamists isn't the WBC or a similar troll organization, it's the LRA in the Congo, the Norwegian terrorist, and militia groups in the United States. If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
The big difference is that Christianity has been destroyed by modern thinking and has been adapted to that modern world. Any terrorist basing his or her actions on the words of Jesus WOULD BE a radical. A man who sticks his dick between a little girl's thighs or kills a person who doesn't convert because his prophet did so too is NOT a radical.
And if you think the American south is bad for atheists or gays in any real way compared to the Middle East, then you are wrong. I would rather live in the American south than any Muslim nation. Hell, even the ghettos in America would better.
>Why is Islam judged to a totally different standard?
Because it's in a different class from other faiths, has resulted in more violence than the other faiths, and is in direct opposition of my values as a Westerner and as a human being.
>Why can you ignore these existing trends in Christianity while ignoring the moderate aspects of Islam?
Because Christianity, again, has very little strength because it's allowed to be mocked, criticized, discussed, etc without people getting accused of bigotry or similar things.
>It's islamophobic to ignore the significant degree of hegemony Christians enjoy in Western politics
HA! If Christians had more pull, especially the more hardcore ones, we certainly would not have the outcry that laws like "Religious Freedom" get. The same law, I might add, that would allow a Muslim business to reject a non-Muslim on the grounds of being a non-believer. Same sex marriage also wouldn't have gotten to the point it is now either.
>pretend that the West is some sort of secular utopia
It's no utopia here, never said that, don't put words in my mouth please. But I will say that the Middle East is far from secular.
>then stereotype Muslims
Not really stereotyping, I read the Koran and understand the faith very well. If someone says they are Muslim, then I have to go by that religion's text and I understand they believe in a extremely backwards and violent religion. It's like if someone said they were a brony, I'm not going to be surprised when they actually watch My Little Pony. Being a Muslim, like being a brony or whatever, is a choice. If you don't want to be associated with something, then you don't associate with it.
> It's islamophobic to pretend Christianity isn't patriarchal, and it's islamophobic to compare Western neutered Christianity to radical Islam. Note also that the right comparison point for ISIS, lone wolf Islamic terrorists, and other militant Islamists isn't the WBC or a similar troll organization, it's the LRA in the Congo, the Norwegian terrorist, and militia groups in the United States. If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
The big difference is that Christianity has been destroyed by modern thinking and has been adapted to that modern world. Any terrorist basing his or her actions on the words of Jesus WOULD BE a radical. A man who sticks his dick between a little girl's thighs or kills a person who doesn't convert because his prophet did so too is NOT a radical.
And if you think the American south is bad for atheists or gays in any real way compared to the Middle East, then you are wrong. I would rather live in the American south than any Muslim nation. Hell, even the ghettos in America would better.
>Why is Islam judged to a totally different standard?
Because it's in a different class from other faiths, has resulted in more violence than the other faiths, and is in direct opposition of my values as a Westerner and as a human being.
>Why can you ignore these existing trends in Christianity while ignoring the moderate aspects of Islam?
Because Christianity, again, has very little strength because it's allowed to be mocked, criticized, discussed, etc without people getting accused of bigotry or similar things.
>>2160
>Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race.
Jokes on you, I'm actually a brown person myself. Biracial, if you must know. Nice to know you not only seemed to try to imply that I was some white person who hates brown people but you tried to imply that Islam is for brown people when there are a lot of white and black Muslims in the world and some even in China. Nice try though.
>The reality is, plenty of Muslims see exactly the same ugliness you do, and would gladly be your comrades if you met them halfway. Who benefits from your not doing so?
Like the women, if they see the issues in Islam, why don't they leave it? What benefit comes from a faith that is so violent?
>Think about it.
I've done a lot of thinking and even more reading and listening on the topic. And I know you haven't read the Koran, you haven't spent hours listening and reading different viewpoints because otherwise you wouldn't try so hard to defend an ideology that would have you dead.
>Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race.
Jokes on you, I'm actually a brown person myself. Biracial, if you must know. Nice to know you not only seemed to try to imply that I was some white person who hates brown people but you tried to imply that Islam is for brown people when there are a lot of white and black Muslims in the world and some even in China. Nice try though.
>The reality is, plenty of Muslims see exactly the same ugliness you do, and would gladly be your comrades if you met them halfway. Who benefits from your not doing so?
Like the women, if they see the issues in Islam, why don't they leave it? What benefit comes from a faith that is so violent?
>Think about it.
I've done a lot of thinking and even more reading and listening on the topic. And I know you haven't read the Koran, you haven't spent hours listening and reading different viewpoints because otherwise you wouldn't try so hard to defend an ideology that would have you dead.
So, I decided to update my point of view.
Now that I've done more research, I see the flaw in my reasoning of making it sound like Christians are automatically better by comparing them to Muslims. I'll admit that I've lived a pretty secular childhood and after seeing how Christians treat homosexuals and women in the in US, it's just made it clear to me that I'm just anti-religious. Both are bad but for different reasons and both are horrible to base laws on. It's still my opinion that Islam is worse because of the insane amount of violence it continues to wage against everyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim.
I still respect a Muslims right to their faith, as most Muslims aren't terrorists or abusive. And I will always disagree with their faith and it's teachings. I also support the efforts of Muslims who wish to reform Islam, because it absolutely needs to be modernized. I also want moderate and liberal Muslims to be safe from both hateful non-Muslims who think they are terrorists and hateful Muslims who see them a hypocrites both of these people pose a threat to these Muslims.
But we need to make sure that if someone criticizes Islam, and the strongest critics are typically Muslim or ex-Muslim (And I listen to these people the most, I generally don't listen anyone else unless they are talking about Islam in the context of the US and even then that's rare), we need to make sure their voices are heard otherwise, we'll open the gates to people who wish us harm or prevent those who want to see Islam be reformed and both are bad.
So, in conclusion, like Americans or liberals or any other group for that matter, Muslims are individuals and I always will treat them as such. Islam is an ideology, a religion, and in some cases a form of government, and I will always treat it as such.
Now that I've done more research, I see the flaw in my reasoning of making it sound like Christians are automatically better by comparing them to Muslims. I'll admit that I've lived a pretty secular childhood and after seeing how Christians treat homosexuals and women in the in US, it's just made it clear to me that I'm just anti-religious. Both are bad but for different reasons and both are horrible to base laws on. It's still my opinion that Islam is worse because of the insane amount of violence it continues to wage against everyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim.
I still respect a Muslims right to their faith, as most Muslims aren't terrorists or abusive. And I will always disagree with their faith and it's teachings. I also support the efforts of Muslims who wish to reform Islam, because it absolutely needs to be modernized. I also want moderate and liberal Muslims to be safe from both hateful non-Muslims who think they are terrorists and hateful Muslims who see them a hypocrites both of these people pose a threat to these Muslims.
But we need to make sure that if someone criticizes Islam, and the strongest critics are typically Muslim or ex-Muslim (And I listen to these people the most, I generally don't listen anyone else unless they are talking about Islam in the context of the US and even then that's rare), we need to make sure their voices are heard otherwise, we'll open the gates to people who wish us harm or prevent those who want to see Islam be reformed and both are bad.
So, in conclusion, like Americans or liberals or any other group for that matter, Muslims are individuals and I always will treat them as such. Islam is an ideology, a religion, and in some cases a form of government, and I will always treat it as such.
>>2526
>Now that I've done more research, I see the flaw in my reasoning of making it sound like Christians are automatically better by comparing them to Muslims. I'll admit that I've lived a pretty secular childhood and after seeing how Christians treat homosexuals and women in the in US, it's just made it clear to me that I'm just anti-religious. Both are bad but for different reasons and both are horrible to base laws on. It's still my opinion that Islam is worse because of the insane amount of violence it continues to wage against everyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim.
My id is probably different because I am on a lot of different devices but I'm >>2157 and would like to say I really appreciate this post and in particular cannot agree more with this quoted part. Thanks for keeping lainchan awesome.
>Now that I've done more research, I see the flaw in my reasoning of making it sound like Christians are automatically better by comparing them to Muslims. I'll admit that I've lived a pretty secular childhood and after seeing how Christians treat homosexuals and women in the in US, it's just made it clear to me that I'm just anti-religious. Both are bad but for different reasons and both are horrible to base laws on. It's still my opinion that Islam is worse because of the insane amount of violence it continues to wage against everyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim.
My id is probably different because I am on a lot of different devices but I'm >>2157 and would like to say I really appreciate this post and in particular cannot agree more with this quoted part. Thanks for keeping lainchan awesome.
wheres that file at
>>2157
there's not such a thing as islamophobia. What concerns me the most about islam is not terrorism, but the cultural background that allowed this kind of religious terrorism to be developed. (and no, I'm not saying that the american imperialism doesn't have its own faults)
> It's not islamophobic to say that religion is the opiate of the masses or to say that if God existed, we would have to kill it
Except that not all religions are the same. And I'm speaking as an atheist. Christianity is not as barbaric as Islam since the middle age. And I don't see shintoists killing apostates and forcing women to wear silly clothes.
> If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
try being an atheist in many places of the islam world and see how long you *SURVIVE*
> Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race.
You're the one who bought the propaganda line, and a very cheap one, tbh. This is the propaganda pushed by the The Guardian, the Independent, the new york times and most of the mainstream media. The propaganda of a Left that is not able to criticize its own agenda even if it's flawed.
there's not such a thing as islamophobia. What concerns me the most about islam is not terrorism, but the cultural background that allowed this kind of religious terrorism to be developed. (and no, I'm not saying that the american imperialism doesn't have its own faults)
> It's not islamophobic to say that religion is the opiate of the masses or to say that if God existed, we would have to kill it
Except that not all religions are the same. And I'm speaking as an atheist. Christianity is not as barbaric as Islam since the middle age. And I don't see shintoists killing apostates and forcing women to wear silly clothes.
> If you think Christianity is universally tolerant of heretics, try being an atheist in the south and see how long you last.
try being an atheist in many places of the islam world and see how long you *SURVIVE*
> Because you have bought the propaganda line, designed to make you fear another scary brown race.
You're the one who bought the propaganda line, and a very cheap one, tbh. This is the propaganda pushed by the The Guardian, the Independent, the new york times and most of the mainstream media. The propaganda of a Left that is not able to criticize its own agenda even if it's flawed.
>>2825
Well, honestly, the other thread that I unintentionally derailed into another Islam thread showed me that on certain subjects, the US and it's Christian citizens can be pretty bad. Now, point taken, things like the treatment of women and homosexuals in the US is nowhere near as bad as it can be in some Islamic nations but one can argue that it's the principle of mistreating people on those grounds in any way is bad.
So, as a result, I'm starting to drop the comparison between "The West vs Islam" because Islam in the West, especially in America where we're far away from the Middle East, is pretty different from Islam in the Middle East. Just like not all Westerners hold the same values.
With this in mind though, another thing I still believe is that Islamophobia charges are just a means to silence those who disagree with Islam. I won't deny that some non-Muslim critique of Islam might be influenced by racism or other forms of bigotry but a lot of it is based on the actual texts of the Koran and the understanding that anyone of any race can be Muslim.
Well, honestly, the other thread that I unintentionally derailed into another Islam thread showed me that on certain subjects, the US and it's Christian citizens can be pretty bad. Now, point taken, things like the treatment of women and homosexuals in the US is nowhere near as bad as it can be in some Islamic nations but one can argue that it's the principle of mistreating people on those grounds in any way is bad.
So, as a result, I'm starting to drop the comparison between "The West vs Islam" because Islam in the West, especially in America where we're far away from the Middle East, is pretty different from Islam in the Middle East. Just like not all Westerners hold the same values.
With this in mind though, another thing I still believe is that Islamophobia charges are just a means to silence those who disagree with Islam. I won't deny that some non-Muslim critique of Islam might be influenced by racism or other forms of bigotry but a lot of it is based on the actual texts of the Koran and the understanding that anyone of any race can be Muslim.
File: 1478902315745.png (202.13 KB, 158x200, 464.jpg)
>>1286
Well you got me to respond.
I mean I'm still pretty sure you're trolling us with a post full of fucking feminist buzzwords. Spelling women wombyn Jesus Christ that almost got me!
If you're really looking for a real solution send these jackasses back to where they came from. Also here's my favourite drawing of Mohamed feel free to copy it.
Well you got me to respond.
I mean I'm still pretty sure you're trolling us with a post full of fucking feminist buzzwords. Spelling women wombyn Jesus Christ that almost got me!
If you're really looking for a real solution send these jackasses back to where they came from. Also here's my favourite drawing of Mohamed feel free to copy it.
>>1734
>Those groups weren't defending Islam, they were defending Muslims. In western countries Muslims tend to be a discriminated-against minority group, and LGBT groups are familiar with that situation.
Just a thought, some groups deserve to be discriminated against. Why aren't the homos defending the Nazi Party? or the KKK. Try getting a job with one of those groups on your resume. If a group of people do shitty things, they deserve the social ramifications of those acts. Gay people don't blow themselves up or shoot up mosques.
>Those groups weren't defending Islam, they were defending Muslims. In western countries Muslims tend to be a discriminated-against minority group, and LGBT groups are familiar with that situation.
Just a thought, some groups deserve to be discriminated against. Why aren't the homos defending the Nazi Party? or the KKK. Try getting a job with one of those groups on your resume. If a group of people do shitty things, they deserve the social ramifications of those acts. Gay people don't blow themselves up or shoot up mosques.
So, I've been researching more about Islam and it's role in the US. Today I've learned about the city of Dearborn, MI, a city with the largest Muslim community in the USA. There is a ton of conflicting information, some people are claiming that it's a full blown no go zone for any and all non-Muslims while other people are trying to paint it as some utopia of diversity and friendship. Both of these extreme sides smell of bullsoykaf for different reasons.
Here's a news station talking about the city;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFojsxILWro
Some random dude driving through Dearborn with a native;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5oLoW9jZJc
Here's a video of a bunch of Christians protesting and they get pelted by bottles by a pretty large crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOL_ommK3qg
I think all of these videos are bullsoykaf in different ways, but I do get a feeling that there is quite a lot of conflict between Muslims and Non-Muslims, and yes, there might be a lot of racist Non-Muslims trying to get back at Muslims, seeing some of the events that went down in this city, I feel like there is a lot of hostility from a lot of the Muslims as well, as in these conflicts are a two way street.
Personally, I'd love to go to this city just to see the truth for myself. I do think that there might be a legit issue with immigrants not wanting to integrate with wider American society as well as the possible welfare fraud if the second video is any indication. But those issues are not really unique to Muslims.
What does bother me is that when you combine an unwillingness to integrate and these very people own a large number of businesses (if the second video is accurate) and possibly government positions. I would worry about those minorities a lot.
Here's a news station talking about the city;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFojsxILWro
Some random dude driving through Dearborn with a native;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5oLoW9jZJc
Here's a video of a bunch of Christians protesting and they get pelted by bottles by a pretty large crowd.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOL_ommK3qg
I think all of these videos are bullsoykaf in different ways, but I do get a feeling that there is quite a lot of conflict between Muslims and Non-Muslims, and yes, there might be a lot of racist Non-Muslims trying to get back at Muslims, seeing some of the events that went down in this city, I feel like there is a lot of hostility from a lot of the Muslims as well, as in these conflicts are a two way street.
Personally, I'd love to go to this city just to see the truth for myself. I do think that there might be a legit issue with immigrants not wanting to integrate with wider American society as well as the possible welfare fraud if the second video is any indication. But those issues are not really unique to Muslims.
What does bother me is that when you combine an unwillingness to integrate and these very people own a large number of businesses (if the second video is accurate) and possibly government positions. I would worry about those minorities a lot.
>>3026
Having grow up in the Deep American south I can tell you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, you could make the exact same videos regarding baptists, and they'd be just as scary. Especially the 2nd and 3rd. I mean literally every hospital is named after a christian saint or denomination. And if a group of Muslims protseted the fact the city had one church for every 100 people, I'm sure things would get violent.
Having grow up in the Deep American south I can tell you, beyond the shadow of a doubt, you could make the exact same videos regarding baptists, and they'd be just as scary. Especially the 2nd and 3rd. I mean literally every hospital is named after a christian saint or denomination. And if a group of Muslims protseted the fact the city had one church for every 100 people, I'm sure things would get violent.
>>3028
Well, I haven't grown up in the deep American south but it's a similar thing in my neck of the woods in the bistate area of St. Louis. Especially on my side of the river, you have a lot of poorer cities where it's nothing but churches and liquor stores.
That said, I'm not really trying to make Muslims unique. As I said in an earlier post (IDs seem to have been scrubbed, sadly) I've realized that I'm not a religious person and really find fault in a lot of religions. Of course if two of the more violent religions and their more devout members cross there would be a potentially violent conflict.
But I'm highlighting these because it does go against what the media is trying to say. Christianity has it's issues, yes, but they get highlighted. Islam's issues do get swept under the rug. And on top of that, whenever I try to research this city with such a high Muslim population, I can't get any concrete info. It's either a more right wing site that paints it as a full blown Islamic State or it's a left wing site that basically ignores some of the major issues with Islam.
Like I said, I feel like a trip to this city is in order. I do feel like if the second video is correct and we are getting a high amount of Middle Eastern immigrants and they aren't really integrating with larger society that makes me worry about anyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim in this kind of environment.
Well, I haven't grown up in the deep American south but it's a similar thing in my neck of the woods in the bistate area of St. Louis. Especially on my side of the river, you have a lot of poorer cities where it's nothing but churches and liquor stores.
That said, I'm not really trying to make Muslims unique. As I said in an earlier post (IDs seem to have been scrubbed, sadly) I've realized that I'm not a religious person and really find fault in a lot of religions. Of course if two of the more violent religions and their more devout members cross there would be a potentially violent conflict.
But I'm highlighting these because it does go against what the media is trying to say. Christianity has it's issues, yes, but they get highlighted. Islam's issues do get swept under the rug. And on top of that, whenever I try to research this city with such a high Muslim population, I can't get any concrete info. It's either a more right wing site that paints it as a full blown Islamic State or it's a left wing site that basically ignores some of the major issues with Islam.
Like I said, I feel like a trip to this city is in order. I do feel like if the second video is correct and we are getting a high amount of Middle Eastern immigrants and they aren't really integrating with larger society that makes me worry about anyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim in this kind of environment.
>>3035
>we are getting a high amount of Middle Eastern immigrants and they aren't really integrating with larger society that makes me worry about anyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim in this kind of environment.
As of late, this is becoming a bigger problem in Sweden. Some of these refugees even treat the locals like soykaf and use racial slurs openly in public. Not even referring to some right wing bullsoykaf video, I've seen this myself years ago when I was there for a visit. This was a sobering experience as I previously thought Sweden was some magical multicultural world of liberalism or some soykaf but no, people are sticking to their own pockets of society and lashing out.
>we are getting a high amount of Middle Eastern immigrants and they aren't really integrating with larger society that makes me worry about anyone both Muslim and Non-Muslim in this kind of environment.
As of late, this is becoming a bigger problem in Sweden. Some of these refugees even treat the locals like soykaf and use racial slurs openly in public. Not even referring to some right wing bullsoykaf video, I've seen this myself years ago when I was there for a visit. This was a sobering experience as I previously thought Sweden was some magical multicultural world of liberalism or some soykaf but no, people are sticking to their own pockets of society and lashing out.
File: 1479858909363.png (141.07 KB, 199x200, crownless_again_shall_be_king_by_vigshane.jpg)
>>2845
A gay muslim shoots up a nightclub and kills 50 people. Which "group" should we punish: the gays for being sick and traumatized or the muslims for being ignorant and brainwashed?
This is why uncle Stirner is so dear...
A gay muslim shoots up a nightclub and kills 50 people. Which "group" should we punish: the gays for being sick and traumatized or the muslims for being ignorant and brainwashed?
This is why uncle Stirner is so dear...
File: 1479876799418.png (114.9 KB, 151x200, wekllymem.jpg)
>>3184
>Was it the Gay bit that make him kill or the Jihad bit? Or is it just people called John we should punnish?
Do you think it's possible Jihad John would enjoy activities other than psychosis and mass murder?
>Was it the Gay bit that make him kill or the Jihad bit? Or is it just people called John we should punnish?
Do you think it's possible Jihad John would enjoy activities other than psychosis and mass murder?
I know this isn't really helpful as of right now, but you need to remember that Christianity was also like this, they chilled out though. Muslims will also chill out. Just a matter of time, thought they may destroy few places in process.
(and slav here)
(and slav here)
File: 1480037092911.png (11.54 KB, 200x164, images.duckduckgo.com.jpeg)
>>3226
Leviticus is rather hardcore... i think most things apart from breathing end with; stoning, burning or being pulled apart. In some cases they just spec. death (i guess thats luckuy, cus i suppose it could be a method of your choosing???).
Either way anyone beliving in kind of man in the sky should be fuarrrking locked up and regualy injected with a powerfull sedative!
Leviticus is rather hardcore... i think most things apart from breathing end with; stoning, burning or being pulled apart. In some cases they just spec. death (i guess thats luckuy, cus i suppose it could be a method of your choosing???).
Either way anyone beliving in kind of man in the sky should be fuarrrking locked up and regualy injected with a powerfull sedative!