Islam - What's your view on it?

  • Thread starter SalmanBH
  • 6,000 comments
  • 269,715 views
Which saying that I do wish Islamic countries and prominent clerics to be more open minded. Even Catholic is more open thanks to the beloved Pope Benedict we have today.

Mind you though, its a different story when concerning muslim people. What if I told you alot of those people even disagreed with their clerics most of the time on some things.

I'd like to know more about the way muslim people organize their religion, and how they are socialized. I don't know much about Islam or muslimic traditions, but i heard there is no international hierarchy with a single head like for example the catholic church is organized. So how is an islamic scholar or cleric recognized and authorized: by authority of an established organization or by some majority rule among a group of muslims, or something completely different?
And regarding the socialization of a single muslim: Does he follow the same school as his parents have done before or can he accept or reject views from scholars from different schools as he see fit? What's it like to hear a fatwa for a single muslim, does he need to follow it or does he only follow if it comes from his school?

Regarding disagreement from clerics: i think a lot of christians don't follow their clerics on most controversial topics and don't hold them or their views in high regard, it's a social thing to be christianized, it's a form of tradition to belong to a christian church but it's lost most of it's authority -- at least here in Germany. But i must admit that i know only little more about christian churches than about Islam.
 
Why would it be "a problem" at all unless one considers any member of a religion to be a terrorist/extremist/nutter?
I....don't remember saying that? But even if it's a percent, you are increasing the amount of terrorist/extremist/nutters by virtue of increasing the total number. And if you want more in-depth analysis of the percentages, you can look at my post a few pages back that wasn't replied to.

1081
I'd also suggest that you look at Johnson & Zurlo in a little more detail - much of the decline is not due to the emigration suggested by your graph but to the change in self-identification. You can see a very similar trend in the UK where only 2% of the population practice Christianity at a church even semi-regularly... how do you think that compares to 1910?
So you're saying that the article titled: Ongoing Exodus: Tracking the Emigration of Christians from the Middle East is more to do with self identification than emigration?

I guess it could be, I haven't explored it that much.

I suppose things like:

Christians flee growing persecution in Africa and Middle East

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-flee-growing-persecution-africa-middle-east

and

The Persecution Of Christians In The Middle East

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/the-persecution-of-christ_b_13652002.html


and stories such as

Muslim migrant boat captain faces murder charges for pushing Christians overboard

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...captain-faces-murder-charges-for-pushing-chr/

are likely only minor factors too.

And then you had to go all Britain First.

Given that you clearly love statistics, how about a few more.

Terrorism (and deaths resulting from it) was at its highest level in the '60's and '70's in Europe, its been on the decline since that time (and as you like to ignore that correlations doesn't equal causality it must be because we have more Muslims. After all as the number of Muslims goes up, terrorist deaths go down - yes that ridiculous - but that's what your doing with the stats above).

http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-per-year-in-western-europe-1970-2015


Not only that but the largest cause of terrorist related deaths (since 2006) is still European separatist movements).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Europe
Hmm I'd identify as a patriot, a New York Giants supporter but not really a "Britain First" advocate.

Your first source identifies an uptick in violence from 2004, coinciding with an increase in Islamic violence (red bar on the graph). It even states that in the most violent year (1988) 270 people died because of terrorism from Libya (an Islamic nation).

Your second source is talking about terrorist related deaths in Europe, which I'm still not sure of the reason it was cited for against my argument of Islamic invasion but hey ho. You say the largest cause since 2006 is by European separatist movements, but actually says:

According to these data the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the EU between 2006 and 2013 are affiliated with ethno-national or separatist motives

Which is still actually talking about attacks anyway, and not fatalities

While looking at the source behind the wiki article says that the most affected member state was France, which....was....mainly by Islamic terrorism. Indeed that very source goes on to say:

The overall threat to the security of the European Union has
increased over recent years and remains on an upward trajectory.
The main concern reported by EU Member States continues to be
jihadist terrorism and the closely related phenomenon of foreign
terrorist fighters, travelling to and from conflict zones.

Which still isn't much to do with my case for the continuing Islamic invasion into Europe, but since you brought it up.. :gtpflag:
 
I....don't remember saying that?

When you said the following:

Maybe not a problem, but then when you look at the Christian population in Islamic dominated areas

I guess it could be, I haven't explored it that much.

I suppose things like:

Christians flee growing persecution in Africa and Middle East

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-flee-growing-persecution-africa-middle-east

and

The Persecution Of Christians In The Middle East

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/the-persecution-of-christ_b_13652002.html


and stories such as

Muslim migrant boat captain faces murder charges for pushing Christians overboard

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...captain-faces-murder-charges-for-pushing-chr/

are likely only minor factors too.

Explore it more then, it seems that you got your conclusion from the title.

The other articles aren't related to the figures in your report, so I'm not sure why you're linking them?
 
I....don't remember saying that? But even if it's a percent, you are increasing the amount of terrorist/extremist/nutters by virtue of increasing the total number. And if you want more in-depth analysis of the percentages, you can look at my post a few pages back that wasn't replied to.


So you're saying that the article titled: Ongoing Exodus: Tracking the Emigration of Christians from the Middle East is more to do with self identification than emigration?

I guess it could be, I haven't explored it that much.

I suppose things like:

Christians flee growing persecution in Africa and Middle East

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/13/christians-flee-growing-persecution-africa-middle-east

and

The Persecution Of Christians In The Middle East

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alon-benmeir/the-persecution-of-christ_b_13652002.html


and stories such as

Muslim migrant boat captain faces murder charges for pushing Christians overboard

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...captain-faces-murder-charges-for-pushing-chr/

are likely only minor factors too.


Hmm I'd identify as a patriot, a New York Giants supporter but not really a "Britain First" advocate.

Your first source identifies an uptick in violence from 2004, coinciding with an increase in Islamic violence (red bar on the graph). It even states that in the most violent year (1988) 270 people died because of terrorism from Libya (an Islamic nation).

Your second source is talking about terrorist related deaths in Europe, which I'm still not sure of the reason it was cited for against my argument of Islamic invasion but hey ho. You say the largest cause since 2006 is by European separatist movements, but actually says:



Which is still actually talking about attacks anyway, and not fatalities

While looking at the source behind the wiki article says that the most affected member state was France, which....was....mainly by Islamic terrorism. Indeed that very source goes on to say:



Which still isn't much to do with my case for the continuing Islamic invasion into Europe, but since you brought it up.. :gtpflag:
Interesting. So being unable to deny the fact that terrorist violence has fallen in Europe since the peak of the sixties and seventies you resort to not understand what ethno-nationalist is and the assumption that Lybian sponsored terrorist attacks must be religious in nature (care to explain why the worked with the IRA and FARC if that's the case).

Oh and what case for an invasion? You've not made one.

BTW, not a reply to my post, but why have you ignored violence against Muslims in non-Muslim countries to only focus on violence caused by a single faith? Are you not aware that it exists or are you simply reaching for only those reports that confirm your existing bias?


Oh look. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...es-oldschool-society-explosives-a7527116.html
 
Last edited:
When you said the following
But you said:

Why would it be "a problem" at all unless one considers any member of a religion to be a terrorist/extremist/nutter?
I never said that.

1081
Explore it more then, it seems that you got your conclusion from the title.
Isn't the prerogative on you to show these factors

1081
The other articles aren't related to the figures in your report, so I'm not sure why you're linking them?
They're mitigating factors for emigration. Or what life can be like under Islamic dominated areas.

Interesting. So being unable to deny the fact that terrorist violence has fallen in Europe since the peak of the sixties and seventies you resort to not understand what ethno-nationalist is and the assumption that Lybian sponsored terrorist attacks must be religious in nature (care to explain why the worked with the IRA and FARC if that's the case).
Huh? Your wiki source has a table listing attacks with 10 or more fatalities and shows that of the last 10, 7 have been "Jihadist" in nature.

Your other source has a graph showing an upward trend since 2004, largely due to Islamic terrorism.

terrorism20161219.png


As for why I highlighted the Libyan attack as being one from an Islamic nation that's just rhetoric; namely to show what a cluster**** the region was and still is.

Scaff
Oh and what case for an invasion? You've not made one.
But....I thought I had in my previous posts? Those points have been brushed aside as far as I can tell....

Scaff
BTW, not a reply to my post, but why have you ignored violence against Muslims in non-Muslim countries to only focus on violence caused by a single faith? Are you not aware that it exists or are you simply reaching for only those reports that confirm your existing bias?


Oh look. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...es-oldschool-society-explosives-a7527116.html
I haven't ignored it. The point is proportionality.
 
Last edited:
Why would a Shia Muslim in particular be more prone to shoot at a UFO than an atheist, Christian, or Muslim of another denomination?
 
Why would a Shia Muslim in particular be more prone to shoot at a UFO than an atheist, Christian, or Muslim of another denomination?

Shia must not be killing in the name of god but rather simply like to kill? :dopey:

we all know atheists don't kill
 
What's the answer :cheers:
If I knew the answer I wouldn't be asking. This only became a question for me this morning when I posted footage of Iranians "shooting AA artillery at a UFO" in the aliens thread. They did it before in the famous 1976 Teheran UFO incident.

To my knowledge, no other nation makes a practice of shooting at UFOs.
 
If I knew the answer I wouldn't be asking. This only became a question for me this morning when I posted footage of Iranians "shooting AA artillery at a UFO" in the aliens thread. They did it before in the famous 1976 Teheran UFO incident.

They are secular though aren't they? I think it's a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later if comes down to an unknown personally. There is that possibility of Israel maybe looming over them?
 
Oh no. Muslim invasion are so rampant its spreads into muslim majority countries! That attack in Turkey, Pakistan, etc. Alarming! [/s]

Honestly there are some problems and critics regarding this particular religion. But I never bought this critic into personal level (that is, generalization) for a religion that is a minority among Americas and Europe.

This is my critic to the current Muslim governance:
1. I really dont like how alot still dependent on ulamas (teachers) instead of having self thought. That's okay if said ulamas push progressive ideas like the current pope. Problem is there still alot who push otherwise. Hurtful for things like human rights especially on lesser fortunate muslim countries such as Afghanistan.

2. Quite numerous still hold that "dont pick the leaders (even in non religious context, such as governor) that are not moslem", which I admittedly rarer to see on others. Really wish they can follow London whose Current Governor is a muslim, among Christian Majority

3. When they brand someone an "enemy", instead of having a dialogue on both sides at some degree, they basically plug their ears outright. Quite hurtful when placing peace deals, like the Israel-Palestine problem.

Note that I dont talk about extremism like ISIS, which is basically a lost cause. They'll kill anyone who not "muslim" enough (read: Not following Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi enough). Just destroy them with a nuclear or something.
 
They are secular though aren't they? I think it's a good idea to shoot first and ask questions later if comes down to an unknown personally. There is that possibility of Israel maybe looming over them?
No, the Iranians are strictly Shiite since their revolution against the quasi-secular Shah of Iran. The Ayatollah is their maximum ruler. They are one of only a small handful of other nations in which the majority is Shia.
 
Huh? Your wiki source has a table listing attacks with 10 or more fatalities and shows that of the last 10, 7 have been "Jihadist" in nature.

Your other source has a graph showing an upward trend since 2004, largely due to Islamic terrorism.
Which is exactly why I said that overall terrorism in Europe is at a lower level than in was in the 60s' and '70's, and by quite a margin. Something you seem to want to gloss over totally.

Interestingly the only way you manage that is via cherry-picking data, so as that's now a door you opened, remember that the last person to carry out a terrorist attack (and a political assassination at that) in the UK was a White Nationalist. The last terrorist group prescribed in the UK was a Christian Neo-Nazi group who were carrying out pro-Christian, anti-Semitic, homophobic and racists campaigns. The largest terrorist attack in the Scandinavian region was carried out by a Christian Neo-Nazi. That the German police have foiled countless Neo-Nazi terror attacks, the latest of which was in progress with the two suspects arrested with over 150 kilos of explosives.

Europe is safer from terror attacks that it was during the 60's and 70's, and terror plots and attacks are not limited to Muslims (as your tone would certainly suggest), now it may just be that the far-Right is stupid and easier to catch, but that doesn't and shouldn't be used to attempt to minimize them as a danger.

As for why I highlighted the Libyan attack as being one from an Islamic nation that's just rhetoric; namely to show what a cluster**** the region was and still is.
And yet you seem to repeatedly ignore some of the reasons why its like that and want to level the blame at a single factor.

But....I thought I had in my previous posts? Those points have been brushed aside as far as I can tell....
No you have mentioned migration and refugees, and claimed 'we' are being out-bred.

None of which constitutes an 'Invasion' in even the most generous form.

Its also nonsense that's been de-bunked many times before. If migrants and refugees are an Invasion then they are going about it very, very badly (why have the vast majority of this refugee invasion force headed to other Muslim countries in the region).

As far as the being out-bred, that's far from unique as a claim to Islam (we had it for the Indian migrations of the '50s and the West Indian one of the 60's), it was claimed in the US when the Italians and Irish were heading over. The simple fact is that birth rates from developing countries (regardless of religion) are higher than in developed countries. However that trend doesn't remain past the first generation and drops off rapidly.

This is simply dog-whistle nonsense that appeals to the far right and has no basis in either fact or accurate analysis.


I haven't ignored it. The point is proportionality.
So which religious group right now suffers the most deaths at the hands of terrorists or religious attacks?

Maybe not a problem, but then when you look at the Christian population in Islamic dominated areas:
20160102_MAC852.png

Now I forgot to get back to you on the above when you posted it. YOu seem to be using this as if it were proof that Christians are either being forced to convert or forced out of these countries due to 'Islam'.

However a couple of issues exist with that, of the countries that a drop has occurred two have been conflict zones for over a decade, one has undergone serious political change and rioting, one is semi-blockaded and one is about as non-Muslim as you can get (seriously your attempting to use a chart that shows a drop in Christians in Israel and paint the cause as Islam).

Then we come onto the other odd part, that two of these Muslim countries have seen an increase in the Christian population, one of which is the centre of Islam and the other of which now has a Christian population that is, by percentage of total population, significantly greater than the Muslim population in most European countries!

Its almost as if it a combination of various different factors, none of which actually support the claim you made.



No, the Iranians are strictly Shiite since their revolution against the quasi-secular Shah of Iran. The Ayatollah is their maximum ruler. They are one of only a small handful of other nations in which the majority is Shia.
'Quasi-secular'? You seem to have forgotten to mention how that came to pass.

Iran had just democratically voted in a secular moderate leader, who unfortunately for him and the country wanted the people of Iran to benefit from the vast natural resources it has. As such he was deposed by a CIA and MI6 plot and the Shah put in place as a puppet leader with a nice line in torture and abuses of power.
 
Last edited:
Which is exactly why I said that overall terrorism in Europe is at a lower level than in was in the 60s' and '70's, and by quite a margin. Something you seem to want to gloss over totally.
Not gloss over but....why are we talking about terrorism again? And why say the '60s when your source begins from 1970?

terror20161220-i2.png


Scaff
Interestingly the only way you manage that is via cherry-picking data, so as that's now a door you opened, remember that the last person to carry out a terrorist attack (and a political assassination at that) in the UK was a White Nationalist. The last terrorist group prescribed in the UK was a Christian Neo-Nazi group who were carrying out pro-Christian, anti-Semitic, homophobic and racists campaigns. The largest terrorist attack in the Scandinavian region was carried out by a Christian Neo-Nazi. That the German police have foiled countless Neo-Nazi terror attacks, the latest of which was in progress with the two suspects arrested with over 150 kilos of explosives.
You need to re-evaluate your usage of the words "cherry-picking" I think! I said:

"Your other source has a graph showing an upward trend since 2004, largely due to Islamic terrorism."


A statement borne out from....your source.

And then proceed to present data that is cherry-picked to highlight the Far Right!
Namely:

- remember that the last person to carry out a terrorist attack (and a political assassination at that) in the UK was a White Nationalist.
OK, and seeing as we don't generally go by trends that use an index case as being the only example let's look at say the past decade of attacks carried out/foiled and we get:

Carried out:
  • 2007 January–February: Miles Cooper letter bomb campaign.
  • 2007 30 June: Glasgow International Airport attack perpetrated by Islamist extremists.
  • 2008 22 May: Exeter attempted bombing in a café toilet by an Islamist extremist, injuring only the perpetrator.
  • 9 April 2013: Pavlo Lapshyn attacks. Lapshyn, a Ukrainian student and right-wing extremist, stabbed Mohammed Saleem, a Birmingham resident to death. He later admitted to police that he wished to start a "race war".[28] Lapshyn later detonated a home-made bomb outside a mosque in Walsall on 21 June. 150 homes were evacuated but no person was injured.[28] On 28 May Lapshyn detonated a second home-made bomb near a mosque in Wolverhampton, and attacked a mosque in Tipton with an improvised explosive device containing nails on 12 July. Friday prayers were delayed that day, and so his intended victims were still inside. Laphsyn was later sentenced to serve a minimum of 40 years.[29][30][31]
  • 22 May 2013: A British soldier, Lee Rigby, was murdered in an attack in Woolwich by Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, two Islamist extremists armed with a handgun and a number of bladed implements. Both men were sentenced to life imprisonment, with Adebolajo given a whole life order and Adebowale ordered to serve at least 45 years.[32]
  • 5 December 2015: Three people are stabbed at Leytonstone tube station in east London, with one person suffering severe knife injuries; police subsequently announced that they were treating the stabbings as a 'terrorist incident'.[33] Video footage emerged following the stabbing of the attacker repeatedly shouting "this is for Syria", in reference to the Royal Air Force's bombing of the Islamic State in Syria, which had commenced on 3 December after parliamentary approval.[34]
  • 16 June 2016. Labour MP Jo Cox, aged 41, was killed by right-wing extremist, Thomas Mair, 52 who shouted "Britain First" during the attack. Cox was fatally shot and stabbed outside the library in Birstall, West Yorkshire, where she was about to hold a constituency surgery at 1:00 pm. A 77-year-old local man, Bernard Kenny, was stabbed in the stomach while trying to fend off her attacker. The trial judge described it as an "act of terror".
Note this also doesn't include the massacare of 30 British nationals in Tunisia by a member of the "Religion of Peace"

Foiled:

  • 2007 1 February: Plot to behead a British Muslim soldier.
  • 2007 29 June: London car bombs.
  • 2008 27 February: British police thwarted a suspected plot to kill Abdullah of Saudi Arabia during a state visit to Britain in the year 2007 a senior officer said.
  • 2009 3 September : Manchester Piccadilly multiple suicide bomber plot.[37] In 2009 Pakistani national Abid Naseer, was one of 12 suspects arrested on suspicion of being part of a Manchester Terror cell, after arriving in the UK a year before. All were released on insufficient evidence, but ordered to be deported from the UK. Naseer's deportation to Pakistan was prevented on human rights grounds, as he was ruled 'likely to be mistreated'. In 2013, on further evidence from Al-Queda sources, including documents from the bin Laden Raid, he was extradited to the US, and on 4 March 2015 was found guilty of masterminding an Al-Queda directed plot to synchronize multiple suicide bombings around Manchesters Arndale Centre and Piccadilly Shopping centre in a coordinated attack involving other locations including the New York Subway with other cells.
  • 2012 June: Five extremists plotted to bomb an English Defence League rally in Dewsbury but arrived late and were arrested when returning to Birmingham. A sixth was also convicted.[38]
  • 2013 April: As part of Operation Pitsford 11 Muslim extremists are jailed for a plotting terror attack involving suicide Bombers.[39]
  • 2015 12 Feb : Liverpool Ricin Plot:[40] Mohammed Ammar Ali, an I.T. worker who rented a flat in Liverpool as a base of operations, attempted to buy 500 mg of Ricin, which could kill as many as 1,400 people, using the darkweb. He was instead delivered a white powder by the FBI. Evidence was also found of attempts to purchase rabbits or chinchillas to test the poison out on.
  • 2015 7 July : Attempted anniversary London 7/7 bomb plot.[41] Mohammed Rehman and Sana Ahmed Khan were found guilty of possession of 10 kg of Urea Nitrate. Rehman called himself the 'silent bomber' and asked his Twitter followers to choose between the Westfield Shopping Centre or the London Underground for the planned suicide bomb.
And that's not even an exhaustive list of foiled attacks...

- The last terrorist group prescribed in the UK was a Christian Neo-Nazi group who were carrying out pro-Christian, anti-Semitic, homophobic and racists campaigns
By this you are talking about National Action.
I control-F this article: http://www.hopenothate.org.uk/get-hope/issue18/young-nazi-and-dangerous/ for "Christian", googled "National Action Christian" and came up with nada. But if you want to say that they are Christian or that any denomination of Christianity would even associate them then, well go ahead I guess!
And just so the ladies and gentlemen know about why I throwback the accusation of cherry picking, here is the list of proscribed terrorist organisations:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...ment_data/file/578385/201612_Proscription.pdf
If I just use groups beginning with "A" we come up with this list:
- The largest terrorist attack in the Scandinavian region was carried out by a Christian Neo-Nazi
And the largest terrorist attack in Europe was by Sikh militants, so what? Is Europe more concerned with Sikh militants than any other group? Better question: is there more of a threat to Scandinavia from Islamic immigration or the Far-Right

- That the German police have foiled countless Neo-Nazi terror attacks, the latest of which was in progress with the two suspects arrested with over 150 kilos of explosives
And? Not to comment on the bad taste of picking Germany that has had to deal with an Islamist attack only a month ago if we look at the recent past:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world...iled-plots-Threat-Security-Islamic-State-ISIS
well over half of those listed are Islamist in nature.

Scaff
Europe is safer from terror attacks that it was during the 60's and 70's, and terror plots and attacks are not limited to Muslims (as your tone would certainly suggest), now it may just be that the far-Right is stupid and easier to catch, but that doesn't and shouldn't be used to attempt to minimize them as a danger.
So? That's cold comfort to the people living with the realities of the threat as it is now. Let us not forget, using your own source:

The overall threat to the security of the European Union has increased over recent years and remains on an upward trajectory. The main concern reported by EU Member States continues to be jihadist terrorism and the closely related phenomenon of foreign terrorist fighters, travelling to and from conflict zones. The attacks in Paris in January and November 2015 represented a clear shift in the intent and capability of jihadist terrorists to inflict mass casualties on urban populations designed to induce a high state of well-publicised terror. Other attacks committed by radicalised and violent jihadist individuals that occurred in the EU - such as the killing of two people in Copenhagen, Denmark, and the knife attack in Nice, France which wounded three soldiers – both in February 2015 – underscore the diversity of the threat. Most jihadist terrorist acts that took place in the EU in 2015 were performed in the name of Islamic State (IS). It is a highly challenging task for the security services and law enforcement authorities to prevent every planned terrorist attack by keeping track of the everincreasing numbers of people suspected of being, in one way or another, sympathetic to IS ideology, and to focus their attention for unspecified lengths of time on those who might be willing and able to perform violent acts. Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda affiliates – and AQAP in particular - are still a factor to be considered and a reason for the EU to focus on a broader range of jihadist terrorist groups. The developments in the MENA (Middle East and North Africa) region, such as the political unrest in Libya, enabling IS to take up a prominent position in countries bordering the EU, add to the overall threat to Member States. Numbers of arrests for Jihadist terrorist activities have again increased in 2015 compared to 2014, illustrating the enormous efforts being undertaken across Europe to fight this kind
Your source also says 151 people died from terrorist attacks in 2015....

150 of them were from Jihadists.

Just applying some basic maths here and that's....let's see....

99.3% of the fatalities sustained in the EU were due to Jihadists

Scaff
No you have mentioned migration and refugees, and claimed 'we' are being out-bred.

None of which constitutes an 'Invasion' in even the most generous form.
Oh Scaffy, of course it does!

It's even got a nifty name: Hijrah

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/260019/hijrah-europe-robert-spencer

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/08/the_hijra.html

Scaff
Its also nonsense that's been de-bunked many times before.
You mean the birth rate? Yeah The Guardian did a great job debunking the finding that now 1 in 10 babies in England and Wales are Muslim:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/jan/10/rise-british-muslim-birthrate-the-times-census

Of course articles like this are probably nonsense too:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6721/muslim-invasion-europe

Scaff
If migrants and refugees are an Invasion then they are going about it very, very badly (why have the vast majority of this refugee invasion force headed to other Muslim countries in the region).
You're confusing the refugee situation with the migrant. Of course there is considerable overlap.

Scaff
As far as the being out-bred, that's far from unique as a claim to Islam (we had it for the Indian migrations of the '50s and the West Indian one of the 60's), it was claimed in the US when the Italians and Irish were heading over. The simple fact is that birth rates from developing countries (regardless of religion) are higher than in developed countries. However that trend doesn't remain past the first generation and drops off rapidly.
Oh Islam is a special cookie when it comes to that. Yasser Arafat said it best:

"The womb of the Arab woman," Arafat says smugly, promising ultimate victory over the Jews, "is my strongest weapon."

"Globally, Muslims have the highest fertility rate, an average of 3.1 children per woman—well above replacement level (2.1) due to young age of Muslims (median age of 23) compared to other religious groups"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_population_growth

You also ignored this:

EI-CM317_MUSLIM_16U_20150402094215.jpg


Aaaaand this:

galepeachestimates.jpg

(Which neatly compares the three dominant South Asian religions that you brought up and, I hope, shows your theory doesn't hold up)
Scaff
This is simply dog-whistle nonsense that appeals to the far right and has no basis in either fact or accurate analysis.
U1PHT7H.gif

Is this liberal logic I'm not privvy to ;)

Scaff
So which religious group right now suffers the most deaths at the hands of terrorists or religious attacks?
Erm, that would be Muslims since they are largely in Islamic controlled territory which commits the attacks....

Better yet, google:

"What is the most persecuted religion"

20160102_MAC852.png

Scaff
Now I forgot to get back to you on the above when you posted it. YOu seem to be using this as if it were proof that Christians are either being forced to convert or forced out of these countries due to 'Islam'.

However a couple of issues exist with that, of the countries that a drop has occurred two have been conflict zones for over a decade, one has undergone serious political change and rioting, one is semi-blockaded and one is about as non-Muslim as you can get (seriously your attempting to use a chart that shows a drop in Christians in Israel and paint the cause as Islam).

Then we come onto the other odd part, that two of these Muslim countries have seen an increase in the Christian population, one of which is the centre of Islam and the other of which now has a Christian population that is, by percentage of total population, significantly greater than the Muslim population in most European countries!

Its almost as if it a combination of various different factors, none of which actually support the claim you made.
So the immigration can be explained by:

"These Christians are
mostly migrants from the
Philippines, South Korea, and
other countries working in oil
production, construction, domestic
tasks, and other jobs in the service
industry."


And do you want to go into what working conditions can be like for these workers? Really?
And the Israel thing is not used to "paint the cause" as Islam. I used the graph to show a general trend in Muslim dominated countries - obviously if I created it myself it wouldn't be in there.
 
Someone really, really, really missed the point that I cherry picked to illustrate exactly how you had cherry picked data in the first place.

Thank you for then taking the point and running with it, and then re-enforce it by citing the Gatestone Institute (who have quite a track record for an anti-Muslim stance - islamaphobia is a mental illness apparently).

None of which still constitutes an invasion (despite a claim by a source that works with Pam Gellar and was banned from the UK), unsurprisingly they get the definition wrong.

Oh and I know exactly what is happening in regard to the changing demographics in the region, my family lived in it for a decade and I still travel and work in it.

I'm not the one attempting to paint it as a one issue situation.
 
Last edited:
So you admit cherry picking data to show how I cherry picked data even though you couldn't prove I cherry picked data....?

And because I formulated an argument with facts and figures, countered your points with facts and figures and continue to hold the opinion that Europe and world stability is under threat from Islam, I suffer from a pseudo-mental illness - namely "Islamophobia"?

Whereas you can insist on blithely saying "none of which still constitutes an invasion" despite it being an Islamic MO for over a milennia, responding by attacking a source (again) just because they worked with Pam Gellar and were banned from the UK and not expect a similar accusation to be levied on you....

I guess in your world you'd wish this would happen to Gatestone:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/265553/islamofascist-assault-free-speech-joseph-klein

This isn't 2014 anymore. People can't go around yelling "bigot" and crying "Islamophobia" when the religion is called out for what it truly is. Maybe those so called "feminists" should consider going on a march against the sex slave selling of Yazidi women by muslim monsters in the Mid East

yazidi-women.jpg


Or how about against the live streaming assault of a woman in Sweden by Afghan migrants

IMAGE OF ALLEGED SEXUAL ASSAULT REMOVED

.......

Nah, thought not
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So you admit cherry picking data to show how I cherry picked data even though you couldn't prove I cherry picked data....?

Pimp-My-Ride-619-386.jpg


===

I'm keeping my eye on the border towns between Switzerland and Germany where there are plenty of refugees crossing back and forth unchecked. Isn't it a gateway for extremists to do what they like to do?
 
So you admit cherry picking data to show how I cherry picked data even though you couldn't prove I cherry picked data....?
You ignored half of the graph and focused only on a period from the mid 2000's only to try and disprove a comparison across the entire time scale of the graph. That's cherry picking.


And because I formulated an argument with facts and figures, countered your points with facts and figures and continue to hold the opinion that Europe and world stability is under threat from Islam, I suffer from a pseudo-mental illness - namely "Islamophobia"?
Oh I didn't accuse you of a "pseudo-mental illness", that claim comes from your own sourxce not me.


Whereas you can insist on blithely saying "none of which still constitutes an invasion" despite it being an Islamic MO for over a milennia, responding by attacking a source (again) just because they worked with Pam Gellar and were banned from the UK and not expect a similar accusation to be levied on you....
Except the Arabic word cited doesn't mean that at all. It's akin to claiming that the word 'Exodus' actually means invasion.

The term is used to describe a journey, which had you actually looked at the meaning of the word in Arabic, rather than rely on interpretations of it from the far right you might have found out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegira


I guess in your world you'd wish this would happen to Gatestone:
Don't guess and don't attempt to put words in my mouth.

Oh and post images of an alleged sexual assault here again and it will be the end of your membership here.
 
You ignored half of the graph and focused only on a period from the mid 2000's only to try and disprove a comparison across the entire time scale of the graph. That's cherry picking.
I really have to disagree with you again. I reported on an aspect of the graph - namely the recent trend. By your definition of cherry picking, you're guilty of this too as you only reported on another aspect - namely the mode. I'd also wager that my point is more pertinent to the discussion, a fact backed by Europol's statement in describing EU nation's concerns as of 2016.

People generally don't want to be told "Well gee, Islamic terrorism is killing scores of people over the past few years but at least it's not as bad as the seventies!" Essentially you are also saying that climatologists are cherry picking when they are given a graph of global temperatures throughout Earth's history and then focus on the recent trend rather than when it was hottest. I'd also like your comments on what this graph would look like without the red (Islamic attacks) on it:

terror20161220-i2.png




Scaff
Oh I didn't accuse you of a "pseudo-mental illness", that claim comes from your own sourxce not me.
That's because "phobia" is listed under the DSM-5, the standard classification of mental disorders used by medical professionals as such:

  • Marked and out of proportion fear within an environmental or situational context to the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation
  • Exposure to the phobic stimulus provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed panic attack.
  • The person recognizes that the fear is out of proportion.
  • The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.
  • The avoidance, anxious anticipation or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia.
So "Islamophobia" must therefore constitute some sort of mental illness.

I'd also like to ask a direct question at this stage. Do you (or any other members :)) consider me an "Islamophobe" or "anti-Muslim"?

Scaff
Except the Arabic word cited doesn't mean that at all. It's akin to claiming that the word 'Exodus' actually means invasion.

The term is used to describe a journey, which had you actually looked at the meaning of the word in Arabic, rather than rely on interpretations of it from the far right you might have found out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegira
Not quite. For a start the original Hijrah bears little resemblence to the Exodus since Muhammad stirred up **** in a relatively peaceful community, stating that only his religion was the true religion, mocking other religions, ridiculing their gods and stating that because the Quraysh's ancestors weren't Muslims they were burning in hell. This led to him being chased out of Mecca.

So basically he was doing things far worse than what he later killed for

Abu 'Afa, killed February 624 for opposing Muhammad through poetry

than what led to him being driven out of Mecca

But anyway, even if we take your original Arabic meaning, it's use today is the same as it has been for centuries, and that is immigration into countries and the propagation of Islam, whether through subversion or just outright breeding. You again don't bother to argue against the points of the articles, instead labelling them as "far right" and thinking that's justification to completely ignore all the evidence against your hypothesis

[
quote=Scaff]Don't guess and don't attempt to put words in my mouth.[/quote]
The guessing came from the fact that you're happy to disregard entire articles solely because the author was banned from entering Britain for "Islamophobia" - incidentally by a home secretary that said the British people could benefit from Shariah law....

I mean you have singularly refused to address any of the points of the article, instead hiding behind the censorship that comes with banning speakers from entering a country.

And people wonder why we have a Conservative majority, Brexit, and Trump as President :banghead:
 
I really have to disagree with you again. I reported on an aspect of the graph - namely the recent trend. By your definition of cherry picking, you're guilty of this too as you only reported on another aspect - namely the mode. I'd also wager that my point is more pertinent to the discussion, a fact backed by Europol's statement in describing EU nation's concerns as of 2016.

People generally don't want to be told "Well gee, Islamic terrorism is killing scores of people over the past few years but at least it's not as bad as the seventies!" Essentially you are also saying that climatologists are cherry picking when they are given a graph of global temperatures throughout Earth's history and then focus on the recent trend rather than when it was hottest. I'd also like your comments on what this graph would look like without the red (Islamic attacks) on it:

terror20161220-i2.png
Which still misses the point I made in the first place. That terrorist violence goes in cycles, with one religion or ideology being the biggest factor at any given time and as one dies down another one starts. I have repeatedly acknowledged that currently attacks by Islamic extremists are current an issue, and my point in regard to using that graph was to put them in a historic context.

That's because "phobia" is listed under the DSM-5, the standard classification of mental disorders used by medical professionals as such:

  • Marked and out of proportion fear within an environmental or situational context to the presence or anticipation of a specific object or situation
  • Exposure to the phobic stimulus provokes an immediate anxiety response, which may take the form of a situationally bound or situationally predisposed panic attack.
  • The person recognizes that the fear is out of proportion.
  • The phobic situation(s) is avoided or else is endured with intense anxiety or distress.
  • The avoidance, anxious anticipation or distress in the feared situation(s) interferes significantly with the person's normal routine, occupational (or academic) functioning, or social activities or relationships, or there is marked distress about having the phobia.
So "Islamophobia" must therefore constitute some sort of mental illness.
If it makes you happy, not my words once again, but your sources.


I'd also like to ask a direct question at this stage. Do you (or any other members :)) consider me an "Islamophobe" or "anti-Muslim"?
From your posts you seem to wish to make no distinction between those who follow the religion peacefully and the small minority that what to enforce the faith via nay means they can.

Pick what ever label you like off the back of that.


Not quite. For a start the original Hijrah bears little resemblence to the Exodus since Muhammad stirred up **** in a relatively peaceful community, stating that only his religion was the true religion, mocking other religions, ridiculing their gods and stating that because the Quraysh's ancestors weren't Muslims they were burning in hell. This led to him being chased out of Mecca.

So basically he was doing things far worse than what he later killed for
So claiming his version of the faith was the only true one and the only way to be saved? That sounds the same as any of the three Abrahamic faiths.

That however still doesn't change the fact that your sources do not provide one piece of evidence beyond a basic 'go and spread the word of God, which is a refrain found in just about any faith on the planet. The 'evil' subtext is all the authors of the articles own.

Now lets look at the evidence they supplied.

A claim that IS would send half a million refugees to sea at the exact same time (from the ever trustworthy Daily Mail - in a story so waterproof that even they hedge their bets) if they are attacked. A claim made in Feb 2015. Well they were attacked and it didn't happen (I think 500,000 people al at sea at the exact same time would have been noticed).

"Transcripts of telephone intercepts published in Italy claim to provide evidence that ISIS is threatening to send 500,000 migrants simultaneously out to sea in hundreds of boats in a 'psychological weapon' against Europe if there is military intervention against them in Libya."

Now a vast number of refugees have entered Europe, how many of them (as a percentage) have committed acts of terrorism or been arrested on terrorist related offences?

Another claim it makes is that this must be true because the refugees are not going to Muslim countries. Quite is utter and complete bollocks. The single largest host country for them is Turkey, followed by Pakistan, Lebanon and then Jordan.

Now I would quite happily agree that Saudi (for example) could be doing a lot more. However when you source claims:

"Meanwhile, no one is bothering even to ask, much less answer, one central question: why is it incumbent upon Europe have to absorb all these refugees? Why not Saudi Arabia or the other Muslim countries that are oil-rich and have plenty of space? The answer is unspoken because non-Muslim authorities refuse to believe it and Muslims don’t want it stated or known: these refugees have to go to Europe because this is a hijrah."

It is clearly and factually talking nonsense, as the vast majority of Muslim refugees go to Muslim countries, so if the claimed definition of 'hijrah' were true they are getting it very, very wrong.

Please feel free to use UNHCR stats to disprove any of the above.

than what led to him being driven out of Mecca
Religion makes people do stupid things, I quite agree, but as long as they are not doing stupid things to others in the name of God/Jebus/Mo/Sky Fairy X then I have no issue with them. Nor do I think that all followers of God/Jebus/Mo/Sky Fairy X are like that.


But anyway, even if we take your original Arabic meaning, it's use today is the same as it has been for centuries, and that is immigration into countries and the propagation of Islam, whether through subversion or just outright breeding. You again don't bother to argue against the points of the articles, instead labelling them as "far right" and thinking that's justification to completely ignore all the evidence against your hypothesis

The only proof for which they offer is, well nothing actually. A Daily Mail article of a threat that didn't happen, a miss-used series of quotes from the Koran (that are no worse than those found in any of the Abrahamic Texts) and five people arrested when trying to enter Europe.

Oh and one total and utter lie that attempts to by the articles stinger.
 
I think we all want integration, I think it is very important to respect the culture of a new place you might visit or move to. I think most of the hatred and violence associated with muslims and the area is fueled by a select few who are playing people against one another for their own gain.

It's unfortunate that there is not more education in a lot of those areas but education alone is not particularly necessary, it seems to me many of them have a proud culture and love for one another. It's always the rats, damn those damn rats.
 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/76...g-arms-problems-islam-donald-trump-muslim-ban

She had some good questions I think, so what are these Islamic countries doing to better their people? If there are divisions within the religion itself, what is being done on that end? Although refugees may find a new life somewhere else, they also import their thinking from back home which may cause issues in their new home. (integration?)
So on that basis you would approve of a ban on Christians moving to any other country than the one they were born in?

After all the history of sectarian violence is long and still exists today!

As for 'why it's Christian country that have to sort them out'? Didn't the idea of 'white man's burden die with the empire'.

The vast majority of those leaving the countries in question have suffered directly at the hands of extreme sectarian violence, they are not trying to import it, they are trying to escape it.

She also forgot to mention that even prior to the ban the US had one of the strongest vetting programmes on the planet in place. With it taken an average of 18 to 24 months of checks before a refugee got to set foot on US soil.

Then again this is the same women who advocated using gunboats on refugees and didn't care if they died, so I'm not surprised at all.
 
The vast majority of those leaving the countries in question have suffered directly at the hands of extreme sectarian violence, they are not trying to import it, they are trying to escape it.

That is fact but let us not forget who has fueled the fire and left the void.
 
Back