Islam - What's your view on it?

[Dotini]

As far as religious law taking over a countries legal system, the biggest risk in the West isn't from Islamic law.

Agreed. Who/what then are the biggest risks?? There is no risk at all from ANY religion or religious faction, as far as I know in the USA. From the supreme court on down, its secular liberal vs secular conservative which is at the cutting edge of change. And the liberals are winning culturally and hence pushing liberals into the court system, one level at a time. The situation could be different where you live. What important new laws are in prospect? We are implementing Marijuana here.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It doesn't matter what you point out, the apologist crowd here will just about defend anything that is obviously wrong with Islam.

And people like you will attack absolutely anything to do with Islam.

 

[FoRiZon]

EDIT: Enough. I'm not proud to even posting here.

First we got Christian invasion from colonialism and superiority. Then Jewish invasion crept into capitalism or something. Now this. Enjoy your paranoia folks.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Are you aware that the exact same thing happens with Christian and Jewish religious courts, with Jewish courts having an appalling track record against women.

Now should you wish to call for a ban on religious courts then please do so for all.

As far as religious law taking over a countries legal system, the biggest risk in the West isn't from Islamic law.

So, as a moderator, you are asking me to go off topic and call for a ban on all religious courts in a thread about Islam? Who said the biggest risk in the West was from Islamic law?

 

[Sanji Himura]

Are you aware that the exact same thing happens with Christian and Jewish religious courts, with Jewish courts having an appalling track record against women.

Now should you wish to call for a ban on religious courts then please do so for all.

As far as religious law taking over a countries legal system, the biggest risk in the West isn't from Islamic law.

I personally don't recall one modern case were a religious court was established with the expressed purpose of overturning 200 years of Jurisprudence either, as the Sharia law court in Irving (which is in my area) tried to do a few years back.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I personally don't recall one modern case were a religious court was established with the expressed purpose of overturning 200 years of Jurisprudence either, as the Sharia law court in Irving (which is in my area) tried to do a few years back.

Source required showing that the existing Sharia tribunal was to be expanded as per your claim. I call bunkum. That's Breitbart for you

his is in no way at all compatible with our western justice/ legal system.

Odd, despite you refusing to accept the fact it's been here a long time. Certainly in Britain by de facto since the government of the mid-1500s.

I can't believe the issues with Sharia law are downplayed to an extend you'd want people to believe 'it's not such a bad thing after all' and it will 'interline with western law', when it includes chopping of limbs, discrimination and executing people for things like homosexuality, adultery or apostasy.

No, I know you can't, that's because you refuse to believe how the actual real-life version in Europe now actually works. Christian law includes very extreme things too and, unsurprisingly, anybody enacting them would be considered a vile criminal and treated as such by the Christian and wider communities. Exactly the same is true of Sharia.

For your bold part; of course it will, that's the main point of Sharia... it fits a cultural framework inside the law of the land.

i'm talking about Muslims imposing Sharia as THE law of the land, and subsequently cancelling our justice systems (because that is what Salafists/ Wahhabists truly desire).

Extremists don't simply want to "cancel our justice systems", they want to remove our governments and our traditions of law and order. They want to kill all the Muslims/others who don't agree with their fundamentalist views so, if I dare say it, imposition of hardline interpretations of Sharia should be amongst the least of your worries in that scenario.

I think you're confusing Sharia with extremism. Still.

Perhaps we should wind back use of the 10 Commandments now that Breivik has demonstrated their true meaning? Rolls eyes.

 

[Sanji Himura]

Source required showing that the existing Sharia tribunal was to be expanded as per your claim. I call bunkum. That's Breitbart for you

How about the words of the then Mayor of Irving?



Really slaps the left-wing media right across the face, eh?

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Source required showing that the existing Sharia tribunal was to be expanded as per your claim. I call bunkum. That's Breitbart for you



Odd, despite you refusing to accept the fact it's been here a long time. Certainly in Britain by de facto since the government of the mid-1500s.



No, I know you can't, that's because you refuse to believe how the actual real-life version in Europe now actually works. Christian law includes very extreme things too and, unsurprisingly, anybody enacting them would be considered a vile criminal and treated as such by the Christian and wider communities. Exactly the same is true of Sharia.

For your bold part; of course it will, that's the main point of Sharia... it fits a cultural framework inside the law of the land.



Extremists don't simply want to "cancel our justice systems", they want to remove our governments and our traditions of law and order. They want to kill all the Muslims/others who don't agree with their fundamentalist views so, if I dare say it, imposition of hardline interpretations of Sharia should be amongst the least of your worries in that scenario.

I think you're confusing Sharia with extremism. Still.

Perhaps we should wind back use of the 10 Commandments now that Breivik has demonstrated their true meaning? Rolls eyes.

I'm sorry, but surely those on "the left" should be campaigning against Shariah law and for women's rights? Or is this forum the exception?

https://www.the-newshub.com/uk-politics/concerns-raised-about-sharia-courts-in-britain

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm sorry, but surely those on "the left" should be campaigning against Shariah law and for women's rights? Or is this forum the exception?

https://www.the-newshub.com/uk-politics/concerns-raised-about-sharia-courts-in-britain

There is a certain hierarchy in regards to how much "the left" values rights (and that is the reason why I never consider myself a Democrat conservative or otherwise). In the words of Saul Alinsky, "never let a good crisis go to waste." That has been the liberal playbook since day one, even when it was unwritten. Just read any decent headline, and you will see how much the left values a particular issue. For example, in our current budget crisis, if Obama had his way, he would really cut military pay, but federal law bars him. Not that it stopped him from bypassing Congress one way or another anyway.

 

[mustafur]

I said this before, it's a genuine paradox where the persecuted minority meets the social conservative in one and either direction conflicts with their values.

I'm sure plenty are capable of making a distinction but it ends up looking exactly like this in alot of cases.

 

[Scaff]

Agreed. Who/what then are the biggest risks?? There is no risk at all from ANY religion or religious faction, as far as I know in the USA. From the supreme court on down, its secular liberal vs secular conservative which is at the cutting edge of change. And the liberals are winning culturally and hence pushing liberals into the court system, one level at a time. The situation could be different where you live. What important new laws are in prospect? We are implementing Marijuana here.

Are you actually being serious?

Do the evangelical Christians who hold office put it totally one side and act in an utterly secular manner, is that what yo are actually attempting to claim? So the attempts to get creationism and ID taught as science is based on a secular approach? The same with those attempting to overturn Roe Vs Wade?

What about adding 'In God We Trust' to the pledge and currency?

What about the states in which atheists are bared from holding public office?

So, as a moderator, you are asking me to go off topic and call for a ban on all religious courts in a thread about Islam? Who said the biggest risk in the West was from Islamic law?

I've not asked you to go off topic at all?

I asked you if you would consider Jewish and Christian courts as much as an issue and if you would call for all of them to be banned, given that is a comparison across all three of the Abrahamic faiths its not off topic at all.

Oh and the far right in the UK certainly consider the biggest threat to the west to be this, its a common theme about how they will usurp the court system and impose sharia on everyone.

I personally don't recall one modern case were a religious court was established with the expressed purpose of overturning 200 years of Jurisprudence either, as the Sharia law court in Irving (which is in my area) tried to do a few years back.

I'm yet to see any proof that this Sharia Law court called for that at all?

I'm sorry, but surely those on "the left" should be campaigning against Shariah law and for women's rights? Or is this forum the exception?

https://www.the-newshub.com/uk-politics/concerns-raised-about-sharia-courts-in-britain

Don't generalise.

I not only call for an end to Sharia courts, but all religious courts and schools.

Religion has no place in either of these.

There is a certain hierarchy in regards to how much "the left" values rights (and that is the reason why I never consider myself a Democrat conservative or otherwise). In the words of Saul Alinsky, "never let a good crisis go to waste." That has been the liberal playbook since day one, even when it was unwritten. Just read any decent headline, and you will see how much the left values a particular issue. For example, in our current budget crisis, if Obama had his way, he would really cut military pay, but federal law bars him. Not that it stopped him from bypassing Congress one way or another anyway.

And the exact same thing can be said of the right as well.

 

[TenEightyOne]

How about the words of the then Mayor of Irving?

They agree with what I said... I don't see your point? I think @Scaff pretty much covered it anyway, where is the proof that the Sharia court (whose inability to over-ride local law I've already explained in depth) was planning to usurp jurisprudence?

 

[mustafur]

To be fair an Athiest not being allowed to run for office wouldn't stand any federal case.

As stupid as it is.

Where are athiest rights dammit!

 

[Johnnypenso]

I asked you if you would consider Jewish and Christian courts as much as an issue and if you would call for all of them to be banned, given that is a comparison across all three of the Abrahamic faiths its not off topic at all. Oh and the far right in the UK certainly consider the biggest threat to the west to be this, its a common theme about how they will usurp the court system and impose sharia on everyone.

I believe in one set of laws that applies to everyone. This is the Islam thread so I was talking about Shariah courts not Jewish or Christian courts. Not sure what the point is concerning the "far right" in the U.K and how that relates to whether anyone here is saying that biggest threat to the west is from Islamic law.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@Scaff & @TenEightyOne This right here said it all:

Currently, Texas Supreme Court precedent does not allow the application of foreign law that violates public policy, statutory, or federal laws.

I will say that signing a contract that has provisions based on Sharia (such as a business partnership) is perfectly legal here in Texas (since it only involves the two people who signed the contract), but what this "court" tried to do, and it is basic logic when you think about it, is say that their rulings had the force of law, which is illegal in Texas (Constitutionally and in precedent) Proof:

The judicial power of this State shall be vested in one Supreme Court, in one Court of Criminal Appeals, in Courts of Appeals, in District Courts, in County Courts, in Commissioners Courts, in Courts of Justices of the Peace, and in such other courts as may be provided by law.

The Legislature may establish such other courts as it may deem necessary and prescribe the jurisdiction and organization thereof, and may conform the jurisdiction of the district and other inferior courts thereto.

[Congress shall have the power...]To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court

Since this court was established by a bill in either Congress (both federally and in Texas), it is an illegal court and should, and did shut down.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff & @TenEightyOne This right here said it all:



I will say that signing a contract that has provisions based on Sharia (such as a business partnership) is perfectly legal here in Texas (since it only involves the two people who signed the contract), but what this "court" tried to do, and it is basic logic when you think about it, is say that their rulings had the force of law, which is illegal in Texas (Constitutionally and in precedent) Proof:





Since this court was established by a bill in either Congress (both federally and in Texas), it is an illegal court and should, and did shut down.

I've still not seen a source that shows they did say they had primacy over US law.

It doesn't call itself a court and does say it can override US law on any source I have seen.

I believe in one set of laws that applies to everyone. This is the Islam thread so I was talking about Shariah courts not Jewish or Christian courts. Not sure what the point is concerning the "far right" in the U.K and how that relates to whether anyone here is saying that biggest threat to the west is from Islamic law.

I didn't say anyone here had and nor did I say the biggest threat overall.

I said that biggest religious threats to the legal systems of countries exist.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I will say that signing a contract that has provisions based on Sharia (such as a business partnership) is perfectly legal here in Texas (since it only involves the two people who signed the contract), but what this "court" tried to do, and it is basic logic when you think about it, is say that their rulings had the force of law, which is illegal in Texas (Constitutionally and in precedent)

None of your inline sources go to your claim that the court (a word that has meaning outside the Constitution despite the action of a court being under that jurisprudence) claimed superiority in jurisprudence.

The quote you included; "Currently, Texas Supreme Court precedent does not allow the application of foreign law that violates public policy, statutory, or federal laws." doesn't apply as long as no part of Sharia acts with such violation. It can't, of course, as that's the nature of Sharia... it is not allowed in Sharia to overrule local law.

 

[mister dog]

You can bang on all you want saying 'if there are Sharia councils in the west they can't overrule local law', but like i said before there's a good chance Muslim minorities only apply it partially in the west, as they know very well that they would end up in a western court themselves should they apply it 100%.

It actually makes me feel a bit sick that you can even start to defend this in the first place, as you know as well as i do what the consequences of Sharia can be. It's a return to medieval law thus setting our penal system back a couple of centuries, and as a consequence also basic human rights.

Even supporting the thought that this would be allowed to take place into our western societies, deserves raised eyebrows IMO.

 

[TenEightyOne]

You can bang on all you want saying 'if there are Sharia councils in the west they can't overrule local law', but like i said before there's a good chance Muslim minorities only apply it partially in the west, as they know very well that they would end up in a western court themselves should they apply it 100%.

Yes, because that's how it works. I struggle to see which bit of that you fail to understand.

It actually makes me feel a bit sick that you can even start to defend this in the first place, as you know as well as i do what the consequences of Sharia can be.

When you display such a clear misunderstanding of how Sharia fits into the laws of the host country then you might do well to avoid telling me what I know or don't know. The consequences of Sharia in a country amenable to a full and fundamental interpretation of Sharia would be absolutely horrible. Terrible, for sure.

Even supporting the thought that this would be allowed to take place into our western societies, deserves raised eyebrows IMO.

And that's where your misunderstanding is the most well-displayed; Sharia, exercised in that full and fundamental extent, would require a government whose own legal provisions would allow/support it.

 

[Kuusi]

It doesn't matter what you point out, the apologist crowd here will just about defend anything that is obviously wrong with Islam. I can't believe the issues with Sharia law are downplayed to an extend you'd want people to believe 'it's not such a bad thing after all' and it will 'interline with western law', when it includes chopping of limbs, discrimination and executing people for things like homosexuality, adultery or apostasy.

This is in no way at all compatible with our western justice/ legal system. And i'm not talking about the odd Sharia court here and there that can't actually execute full blown Sharia law as they would get arrested for doing so, i'm talking about Muslims imposing Sharia as THE law of the land, and subsequently cancelling our justice systems (because that is what Salafists/ Wahhabists truly desire).

You can bang on all you want saying 'if there are Sharia councils in the west they can't overrule local law', but like i said before there's a good chance Muslim minorities only apply it partially in the west, as they know very well that they would end up in a western court themselves should they apply it 100%.

It actually makes me feel a bit sick that you can even start to defend this in the first place, as you know as well as i do what the consequences of Sharia can be. It's a return to medieval law thus setting our penal system back a couple of centuries, and as a consequence also basic human rights.

Even supporting the thought that this would be allowed to take place into our western societies, deserves raised eyebrows IMO.

Rightists like yourself often moan about how leftists throw the term ‘racist’ around; using it as a derogative term to describe anyone, who dares criticize another culture. And it would be a fair complaint (I’m centrist myself). Were it not for the rightist’s obsessive use of the word ‘apologist’ as a put down towards those who have a go at them, for using the negative aspects of a culture, to imply that all those that follow it, are evil. Which is exactly what you have been doing.

Hating a culture, is fine. Hating the entirety of a cultures population, for following said culture, is not. A dislike of Judaism did not cause the holocaust, but the hatred of those who followed it, certainly did. And frankly it’s not your animosity of Islam that’s terrifying (it’s understandable), but your raging hatred towards Muslims.

Your attempt at using a Ben Shapiro video a few pages back, as some form of one-upmanship, was laughable. As he set his bar so ridiculously low, for what makes someone, an Islamic extremist. According to him, believing the United States is a corrupt nation, whose war-mongering led to 9/11, makes you an Islamic extremist. Even though that would make many non-Muslim Europeans, and Americans themselves, Islamic extremists.

According to him wanting strict (in other words, the only law) Sharia law in only Islamic countries, makes a Muslim an Islamic extremist. Yet he’s keen not to mention that the source he got this information from, states that the interpretation of what Sharia law should be (the official legal code, or not), and what the laws entail, differs wildly among Muslims. I wonder why?

I also wonder why he failed to mention Muslim countries where honour killing is widely frowned upon, by the Muslim population; such as Azerbaijan, Albania, and Indonesia (to name a few). And why he made it seem as if only women are targets of ‘honour killings’, when actually, it’s both sexes. After all, the source from Pew Research that he used, had all this information available to him.

And also I wonder why he only mentioned the percentage of Muslims who, in some cases, approve of suicide bombing; when the percentage that approves only in rare cases (such as disposing of a threat to their national security), or doesn’t approve at all, is far higher (again, a source).

Except one doesn’t really wonder at all. As it is plain to see all this was a deliberate ploy, by the vile hatemonger Ben Shapiro, to try and tar all Muslims, with the same dirty brush. He even flat out lied about support for Bin Laden. In Palestine it was close to 78% - back in 2003. By the time he died however, it was 34%. And far from 70% in Egypt, it was only 22% (source). But hey, anything that progresses his Hitler-like agenda…

 

[LeMansAid]

.... your raging hatred towards Muslims.

Steady on there "centrist". Quite sure that cannot be substantiated, and is below the belt.

Maybe you're not understanding the good-natured cut and thrust that generally prevails here, but by pitching @mister dog as more extreme than is the case, you are actually pushing for a realisation of that very extreme. Off the mark, and poor form, for mine.

 

[Kuusi]

Steady on there "centrist". Quite sure that cannot be substantiated...

Oh really?

I bet that if it weren't because you were restricted by the AUP you'd probably have called me a racist or Nazi already. That's the stigma lefties love to use on anyone who dares to speak up and calls the issues with Islam (or migrants) for what they are.

How's that for tarring everyone with the same dirty brush?

Maybe you're not understanding the good-natured cut and thrust that generally prevails here, but by pitching @mister dog as more extreme than is the case, you are actually pushing for a realisation of that very extreme. Off the mark, and poor form, for mine.

There's nothing good natured about @mister dog constantly implying that the obvious evils of the Islamic culture, means that by association, all Muslims are also evil. And he is being extreme by doing so. I'm not the one blowing anything out of proportion here.

 

[mustafur]

@Kuusi What's the difference between Islam and a Muslim, when you answer it you'll get your answer.

To imply that to insult Islam you insult all muslims is not true, one is an idea the other is people.

Unless you don't believe in criticism of ideas.

 

[LeMansAid]

How's that for tarring everyone with the same dirty brush?

Show me someone that thinks the practical reality of Islam doesn't have issues, and I'll show you a fool. What you quoted doesn't come anywhere near to doing what you want it to do, and certainly doesn't tar an entire demographic.

It's a tough time to be a Muslim, and they need protection. Taking a wilfully ignorant stance on the root cause of a great deal of the angst they face will deny them ultimate protection. But for the actions of certain other Muslims, your "rightists" would have nothing valid to decry.

There's nothing good natured about @mister dog constantly implying that the obvious evils of the Islamic culture, means that by association, all Muslims are also evil. And he is being extreme by doing so. I'm not the one blowing anything out of proportion here.

Your last attempt at a damning quote was limp. Got anything more potent for "all Muslims are also evil"?

Islamic culture currently has a prevalence of adopted horrifically "evil" standards relative to most other cultures that intersect with modern society. "Honour" killings, little girls as "gifts", the general treatment of women and homosexuals, and on and on it goes. The only people that benefit from us not staring it in the face, and calling it what it is, are the perpetrators of the evils.

Even without cause to be suspicious of all too readily corruptible Islamic teachings, there certainly is cause to be suspicious of an already corrupted Islamic culture.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

When you display such a clear misunderstanding of how Sharia fits into the laws of the host country then you might do well to avoid telling me what I know or don't know. The consequences of Sharia in a country amenable to a full and fundamental interpretation of Sharia would be absolutely horrible. Terrible, for sure.

It's pretty obvious that mister dog's only understanding of sharia law is the brutal, repressive form that seeks to override and undermine any alternate structure.

 

[McLaren]

I've still not seen a source that shows they did say they had primacy over US law.

It doesn't call itself a court and does say it can override US law on any source I have seen.

First off, it did call itself a court; the Islamic Tribunal. A tribunal as you know, is a court. Secondly, the problem was not that they claimed to have primacy over US law. Not sure how that was claimed to begin with.

The issue was brought up that Dallas' Islamic Tribunal was involved in settling civil & family disputes in ways that did not adhere to US laws. There were concerns that the rulings and settlements were done that complied with Sharia Law, thus leading many people to believe some folks may not have been given fair rulings. Folks associated with the Tribunal claimed those unhappy could take it to a US civil court, which again, is where people started questioning how the proceedings under the Islamic Tribunal were being handled to begin with; the Mayor believed the court was not following US laws with their hearings.

From the page's website, it was clear that whilst it stated all hearings & judgements must follow the law of the land, the reason the court was in place to begin with is explained at the beginning:

Conflicting problems within American Muslim society may range from personal and family matters such as marriage and divorce, as well as disputes among community members and those in positions of leadership. The courts of the United States of America are costly and consist of ineffective lawyers. Discontent with the legal system leads many Muslims in America to postpone justice in this world and opt for an audience on the Day of Judgment.

It is with this issue that Muslims here in America are obligated to find a way to solve conflicts and disputes according to the principles of Islamic Law and its legal heritage of fairness and justice in a manner that is reasonable and cost effective. These proceedings must be conducted in accordance with the law of the land; local, state and federal within the United States. Through effective mediation and arbitration, decisions can be made that are stipulated in the Shari'ah and adhering to the binding, ethical and legal code that exists within this country with the final approval of the relevant courts and judges.

Islamic Tribunal or IT is established exactly for this purpose. The Islamic Tribunal is a unique institution of its kind in the United States of America. It is the intention of erecting this institution in order to set a precedence that will be emulated and duplicated throughout the country.

The Islamic Tribunal seeks support and guidance from consultants and counselors to its attorneys (see below) to ensure that local, state and federal law are strictly conformed to and decisions that originate from the Tribunal are in accordance with said laws.

This Tribunal was set in place because they felt US courts were not good enough. They cost too much. They have ineffective lawyers (I quite like this claim given their own were not licensed). That they did not solve issues according to the principles of Islamic Law. This page can state that all rulings must comply with US laws in every paragraph, but it does not change the fact that it was set up to avoid having Muslims go through US courts to begin with.

The real twist to this Tribunal was this page where they were listed as attorneys.

The problem is they're not attorneys. The State Bar of Texas has no record of them, thus :

Section 38.122 of the Texas Penal Code prohibits a person from holding himself out to be a lawyer unless licensed to practice law if it is done with an intent to obtain an economic benefit.

This is typically a misdemeanor, though a repeat offender is subject to a third degree felony.

The page was then changed to: Imams - We need to trust our leaders, love, and respect their decisions.

So once more, the problems this Tribunal caused wasn't that they were trying to implement Sharia Law into the US. It was that they were basically holding illegal courts with non-licensed attorneys, that they had no qualifications or right to be holding such hearings. The Shariah aspect of all this was due to folks wondering if they were following the US or Islamic laws when making verdicts. Which, in the grand scheme of things, doesn't really matter if they claimed to be following the US law to begin with; these 4 men above, were already in violation to begin with identifying as attorneys.

 

[Kuusi]

@Kuusi What's the difference between Islam and a Muslim, when you answer it you'll get your answer.

Islam is a religion with many different denominations, and interpretations. A Muslim is someone who practices Islam. But due to the number of said denominations, and interpretations, you can't make a clear judgement about someone, from being a Muslim. Just like you can't with a Christian, or a Catholic. Wow! Who'd have thought it...

In short, no! It doesn't give you any answer. Whatever you thought that answer might be.

To imply that to insult Islam you insult all muslims is not true, one is an idea the other is people.

Unless you don't believe in criticism of ideas.

*sigh*...

Hating a culture, is fine. Hating the entirety of a cultures population, for following said culture, is not. A dislike of Judaism did not cause the holocaust, but the hatred of those who followed it, certainly did. And frankly it’s not your animosity of Islam that’s terrifying (it’s understandable), but your raging hatred towards Muslims.

There's nothing good natured about @mister dog constantly implying that the obvious evils of the Islamic culture, means that by association, all Muslims are also evil. And he is being extreme by doing so. I'm not the one blowing anything out of proportion here.

Perhaps you misunderstand that just because Islam has many evils, does not mean that all those who practice Islam, prescribe to those evils too? Because believe it or not Muslims, like Christians, Catholics, and any other person of religion, has the free will to choose what parts of their religion they folllow.

Show me someone that thinks the practical reality of Islam doesn't have issues, and I'll show you a fool.

You don't say...

There's nothing good natured about @mister dog constantly implying that the obvious evils of the Islamic culture, means that by association, all Muslims are also evil. And he is being extreme by doing so. I'm not the one blowing anything out of proportion here.

What you quoted doesn't come anywhere near to doing what you want it to do, and certainly doesn't tar an entire demographic.

It's a tough time to be a Muslim, and they need protection. Taking a wilfully ignorant stance on the root cause of a great deal of the angst they face will deny them ultimate protection. But for the actions of certain other Muslims, your "rightists" would have nothing valid to decry.

It's hilarious how you are willfully blind you are too @mister dog hate towards anyone Muslim, and then proceed to complain about people being ignorant to the evils of Islam, in one single post. Pot. Kettle. Black.

Fact is when someone spends several pages posting nothing but criticism about Islam (which in itself is fine), and then proceeds to say "call the issues with Islam, or migrants, for what they are", they're obviously linking the evils of Islam, and all migrants (of whom the vast majority are Muslim) together.

Your last attempt at a damning quote was limp. Got anything more potent for "all Muslims are also evil"?

You're the only one who thinks that was meant to be a damning quote. Somehow. I was simply describing what @mister dog has clearly been trying to imply.

Islamic culture currently has a prevalence of adopted horrifically "evil" standards relative to most other cultures that intersect with modern society. "Honour" killings, little girls as "gifts", the general treatment of women and homosexuals, and on and on it goes. The only people that benefit from us not staring it in the face, and calling it what it is, are the perpetrators of the evils.

Even without cause to be suspicious of all too readily corruptible Islamic teachings, there certainly is cause to be suspicious of an already corrupted Islamic culture.

No arguments there, at least.

 

[LeMansAid]

@Kuusi One of the quotes somehow ended up with your name put to it by error (I assume).

It's hilarious how you are willfully blind you are too @mister dog hate towards anyone Muslim....

I'll stop you right there. The whole point I'm making is that that's not what has taken place. Sure @mister dog, if you hate all Muslims, let us know - I haven't read that. I've seen that you perhaps think they're mad for following the faith, that you are suspicious of the cultures it has inspired, but not that you hate all Muslims. Not at all. Please, let us know though. I enjoy demeaning stupid people, and don't want to miss out.

 

[mustafur]

There's nothing good natured about @mister dog constantly implying that the obvious evils of the Islamic culture, means that by association, all Muslims are also evil. And he is being extreme by doing so. I'm not the one blowing anything out of proportion here.

This is what I call a fallacy, it's your application of Implied thought that you not seeing.

Dislike of Islamic culture =/= Dislike of all Muslims.

Islam is a religion with many different denominations, and interpretations. A Muslim is someone who practices Islam. But due to the number of said denominations, and interpretations, you can't make a clear judgement about someone, from being a Muslim. Just like you can't with a Christian, or a Catholic. Wow! Who'd have thought it...

In short, no! It doesn't give you any answer. Whatever you thought that answer might be.

So in Short you have failed to work out the difference between an ideology in words, to a Human species.

 

[Scaff]

The name calling and personal insults will stop now.

Failing to do so and a two day temp ban will be issued.

This applies to everyone posting.