Islam - What's your view on it?

[Imari]

Can't we all just be athiests so we stop having wars?

Not really. I don't really think most big wars tend to happen because of religion or whatever. People who rise into the leadership of big groups of people tend not to fight over essentially nothing. Ultimately they're fighting over power, land, money, or whatever. Religion is just the name that they put on it.

Atheists still fight, they just put different names on it.

The US would still go to war with Iraq if there's something in it for them. Israel would still fight with Palestine over land. ISIS would still try to create a worldwide dictatorship. They'd just make up different justifications. The closest anyone gets to a justified aggressive war is "get them before they get us", and even that's pretty iffy. The rest is just excuses for taking someone else's stuff.

 

[novcze]

budhist terrorists are now comparable with ISIL? ... just joking, I know that original argument was different, but from western perspective islamic terrorism is still the biggest threat, along with unknown support of ISIL and their ideas among muslims living in EU/USA.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

A conversation that is symptomatic of the west's relationship with Islam:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-...n-abdel-magied--in-fiery-qanda-debate/8267212

Jacqui Lambie, a populist politician who is as outspoken as she is uninformed, tries to suggest that Islam and sharia law are one and the same. When Yassmin Abdel-Magied, an educated and prominent Muslim, tries to show her otherwise, Lambie - the original bogan senator - goes on the attack rather than trying to inform herself of the issues.

So because Yassmin Abdel-Magied said in your source:

"Islam to me is the most feminist religion. We got equal rights well before the Europeans. We don't take our husbands' last names because we ain't their property."

I can say this is symptomatic of the delusions Muslims have?

Ooh I quite like this way of thinking

Still, not quite as "deluded" as Sweden's "first feminist government":

For those who actually think that Muslims are the only people that kill in the name of religion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

So that covers the other main Abrahamic religions, who turn out to be entirely as touchy as Muslims but in a bit of a downswing at the moment. Don't worry, I'm sure they'll be back at it before long.

While we're at it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron_terror
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

That covers just about all the major religions.

And....proportionality? I gave you four days of Islamic violence, which was spread across at least 5 different countries. I challenge you to show me those other religion's violent antics over....hmmmm let's make it easy....40 days? Let's just say 2017 as a whole.

And just for a little perspective, since by the way the "likes" are going I think some is required, let's take a gander at only Muslim violence on Christians in 2017:


2017.01.31 USA Denver, CO 1 killed. A pastor working as a security guard is shot to death at a transit office by a 'radicalized' Muslim.

2017.01.26 Trinidad Arima 1 killed. A Muslim teen is shot dead for having a Christian boyfriend, who is badly injured.

2017.01.15 Uganda Katira Angered by conversion efforts, a Muslim mob enters a church, beats parishioners and rapes fifteen women.

2017.01.13 Egypt Asyut 1 killed. Radicals slit the throat of a Coptic doctor in his home.

2017.01.07 Nigeria Kwayine 10 killed. Ten people are killed when Fulani militants storm a Christian village.

2017.01.06 Egypt Tukh el-Dalkah 2 killed. Muslims slit the throats of a Coptic couple in their own bed.

2017.01.03 Egypt Cairo 1 killed. A Christian businessman's throat is slashed for selling alcohol.

*Correction: The Uganda beating and rape happened in January and shouldn't have been in the original 4 day post from earlier

Scaff - I see your post but I have a feeling it will take a while to respond to so will do later on

 

[Scaff]

So because Yassmin Abdel-Magied said in your source:


I can say this is symptomatic of the delusions Muslims have?

Ooh I quite like this way of thinking

Still, not quite as "deluded" as Sweden's "first feminist government":

And....proportionality? I gave you four days of Islamic violence, which was spread across at least 5 different countries. I challenge you to show me those other religion's violent antics over....hmmmm let's make it easy....40 days? Let's just say 2017 as a whole.

And just for a little perspective, since by the way the "likes" are going I think some is required, let's take a gander at only Muslim violence on Christians in 2017:


2017.01.31 USA Denver, CO 1 killed. A pastor working as a security guard is shot to death at a transit office by a 'radicalized' Muslim.

2017.01.26 Trinidad Arima 1 killed. A Muslim teen is shot dead for having a Christian boyfriend, who is badly injured.

2017.01.15 Uganda Katira Angered by conversion efforts, a Muslim mob enters a church, beats parishioners and rapes fifteen women.

2017.01.13 Egypt Asyut 1 killed. Radicals slit the throat of a Coptic doctor in his home.

2017.01.07 Nigeria Kwayine 10 killed. Ten people are killed when Fulani militants storm a Christian village.

2017.01.06 Egypt Tukh el-Dalkah 2 killed. Muslims slit the throats of a Coptic couple in their own bed.

2017.01.03 Egypt Cairo 1 killed. A Christian businessman's throat is slashed for selling alcohol.

*Correction: The Uganda beating and rape happened in January and shouldn't have been in the original 4 day post from earlier

Scaff - I see your post but I have a feeling it will take a while to respond to so will do later on

Is the murder, rape and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Myanmar by Buddhist nationalists no occuring then?

Or those carried out in Sri Lanka against both Muslims and Christians?

Not that this is actually a new situation, just one people prefer to ignore.

http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/

Of course we don't have to go back that far for it to be Christians persecuting Muslims by the thousands:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7626c5ef5fb_story.html?utm_term=.493386f48179

A situation that even Europe was not immune to in my lifetime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I can say this is symptomatic of the delusions Muslims have?

As much as it would amuse me to watch you tie yourself up in hypocritical knots, I don't have the time. So let me just ask you this: if Yassmin Abdel-Magied was subject to an oppressive religion, how come that oppressive religion didn't stop her from saying what she said?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Is the murder, rape and ethnic cleansing of Muslims in Myanmar by Buddhist nationalists no occuring then?

Or those carried out in Sri Lanka against both Muslims and Christians?

Not that this is actually a new situation, just one people prefer to ignore.

http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/

Of course we don't have to go back that far for it to be Christians persecuting Muslims by the thousands:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7626c5ef5fb_story.html?utm_term=.493386f48179

A situation that even Europe was not immune to in my lifetime:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_genocide

http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/

Over the past year in Buddhist-majority Burma, scores, if not hundreds, have been killed in communal clashes, with Muslims suffering the most casualties [....] Meanwhile in Thailand’s deep south, where a Muslim insurgency has claimed some 5,000 lives since 2004, desperate Buddhist clerics are retreating into their temples with Thai soldiers at their side.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7626c5ef5fb_story.html?utm_term=.493386f48179

Christians have also been victims of violence, targeted by Muslims in this complex communal conflict that U.N. and humanitarian officials fear could implode into genocide. Several hundred thousand Christians remain in crowded, squalid camps, unable or too afraid to return home.

From a contained link:

Michel Djotodia, a [Muslim] rebel leader who hails from his country’s north, had seized control of the Central African Republic in March with the help of thousands of armed fighters, ousting the president. On Friday, he agreed to step aside, along with his prime minister, at a regional summit in Chad amid mounting international pressure.

More than 1,000 people were killed in December as bloodshed erupted along religious fault lines, prompting nearly 1 million people to flee their homes. Djotodia’s fighters were predominantly Muslim, and their attacks on the majority Christian civilian population during their rule had led to Christian militias attacking mosques and killing Muslim civilians accused of supporting Djotodia and his rebel movement, known as Seleka.

 

[Imari]

I can say this is symptomatic of the delusions Muslims have?

It's funny. Pretty much all the Abrahamic religions treat women really, really badly. REALLY badly. That includes Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

On the other hand, some of the teachings of Islam are actually pretty feminism, and Islamic societies were actually fairly early in pushing towards women being treated at least in some ways as equivalents or near equivalents to men.

Muslim societies today often don't reflect a lot of that, but it doesn't mean that it isn't there in Islam. Just that they choose to ignore it, like most Christians choose to ignore the bits about stoning homosexuals and selling your daughter to rapists.

And....proportionality?

Nobody said anything about proportionality. They said that only Islam kills. That is false.

And just for a little perspective, since by the way the "likes" are going I think some is required, let's take a gander at only Muslim violence on Christians in 2017:

Why look at Christians? Are they more important than other people?

 

[Scaff]

http://world.time.com/2013/06/20/extremist-buddhist-monks-fight-oppression-with-violence/


https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...7626c5ef5fb_story.html?utm_term=.493386f48179
From a contained link:

Unless you can show me saying that Muslim extremist violence doesn't exist I don't really see the point in your post.

I know it does, just as violence from other religions does (something many have a very hard time accepting despite the volumes of evidence).

Or are you saying that violence against Muslims is valid because extremist elements within Islam use such tactics?

 

[Imari]

Still, not quite as "deluded" as Sweden's "first feminist government":

Huh, I just looked up the news article associated with that picture. So it's deluded to follow the customs in other countries when visiting now? I thought that was exactly the problem that a lot of Americans had with Muslims in the US.

It's not Sweden's job to fight Iran's unjust laws and protect Iran's people. Sweden's government exists for Sweden. If they think that there's more benefit to Sweden by them obeying the laws of a land in a country where they're engaging in diplomacy, then more power to them. They achieve nothing by immediately thumbing their noses at Iran, even if their ultimate goal is to spread feminist attitudes.

Following local customs and laws with regard to dress is exactly what one should expect of diplomats. It's exactly as harmless as it looks. Sounds like they know their job better than you do.

 

[Scaff]

Mass sexual assaults by Muslims in Frankfurt were made up:

https://www.thelocal.de/20170214/mass-sexual-assaults-by-refugees-in-frankfurt-completely-made-up

 

[Johnnypenso]

Unless you can show me saying that Muslim extremist violence doesn't exist I don't really see the point in your post.

I know it does, just as violence from other religions does (something many have a very hard time accepting despite the volumes of evidence).

Or are you saying that violence against Muslims is valid because extremist elements within Islam use such tactics?

I find it rather curious that in two of the examples you used, the violence on the part of the Christians and Buddhists followed a period of much greater violence on the part of Muslims. One person's ethnic cleansing is another's self preservation or self defence.

 

[Scaff]

I find it rather curious that in two of the examples you used, the violence on the part of the Christians and Buddhists followed a period of much greater violence on the part of Muslims. One person's ethnic cleansing is another's self preservation or self defence.

The exact same argument that AQ and ISIS have used to justify the attacks they have carried out.

I'm also not sure I would agree with your characterization of 'much great violence'; either given that in the '70's in Thailand Phra Kittiwuttho stated that killing communists didn't violate Buddhism in any way (indicating that Buddhism as a faith is perfectly capable of violence without a 'trigger', or that in Myanmar the impact on the Muslim population is far, far greater than on the Buddhist population (given that even without the violence, Muslims in Myanmar do not have equal rights and are not even considered citizens of the country) or that violent Buddhist nationalism has occurred in Sri Lanka against anyone who is seen as a threat.

In the CAR the violence was as bad on both sides an has been the case since what started as a civil war splintered down religious and ethnic divides. Which actually re-enforces the point I am making, violence against others (regardless of the cause) is not limited to a single religion, despite what is repeatedly claimed in this thread.

 

[Dotini]

the point I am making, violence against others (regardless of the cause) is not limited to a single religion, despite what is repeatedly claimed in this thread.

Violence against others also issues from atheist states China and North Korea. I'm not quite sure how to characterize the religion of the 3rd Reich, though the Roman Catholic Church was guaranteed certain rights.

Let's admit it, mankind is a violent species, the top predator.

 

[novcze]

What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?

... apparently we need to change our politicians because they are doing the exact opposite.

(even though Czech rep. and Slovakia is not included in the poll, numbers would be more or less the same as in Poland)

 

[Scaff]

What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration?

... apparently we need to change our politicians because they are doing the exact opposite.

(even though Czech rep. and Slovakia is not included in the poll, numbers would be more or less the same as in Poland)

In a large part because, as the article itself states, they seriously overestimate the number that are already in Europe, often by a factor of 3 or 4.

Also not helped by the fantasy stories such as the one above and the made up 'Muslim mob tries to burn down a church' that Breitbart made up.

 

[novcze]

In a large part because, as the article itself states, they seriously overestimate the number that are already in Europe, often by a factor of 3 or 4.

I wouldn't say that one leads to another, population overestimates and anti-muslim immigration views are just manifestations of the same public concern.

 

[Scaff]

Violence against others also issues from atheist states China and North Korea. I'm not quite sure how to characterize the religion of the 3rd Reich, though the Roman Catholic Church was guaranteed certain rights.

Let's admit it, mankind is a violent species, the top predator.

I would not disagree with the basic concept you put forward (however atheism isn't an ideology in that regard - the cultural revolution didn't happen because of an atheist view, it happened because of a Maoist ideology).

I wouldn't say that one leads to another, population overestimates and anti-muslim immigration views are just manifestations of the same public concern.

So nationalist targeting of 'others' as the cause of a societies ills b a mixture of actual events, exaggeration and outright lies could play no part at all in that view?

After all its not as if the press has ever been misleading in this regard at all is it:
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/muslims
http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/immigration



Did you miss the part of your own source that pointed out those most against immigrants are the ones least likely to have actually encountered them? Given that how has that public concern that the number’s are up to four times higher than reality come about?

 

[Com Fox]

Can someone get the run down on Sharia Law and what it actually is and means.

I hear several debates on Sharia Law and the Quaran being a special connection with God and not actual laws to overthrow existing laws however from what I also hear it is massively discriminatory against Women and Minorities and allows mass killings in the name of god for trivial things.

Anyone want to bring light on this for me, I watch a pro-Sharia Law video recently and want to know the details to make a fair judgement.

 

[Scaff]

Can someone get the run down on Sharia Law and what it actually is and means.

I hear several debates on Sharia Law and the Quaran being a special connection with God and not actual laws to overthrow existing laws however from what I also hear it is massively discriminatory against Women and Minorities and allows mass killings in the name of god for trivial things.

Anyone want to bring light on this for me, I watch a pro-Sharia Law video recently and want to know the details to make a fair judgement.

As with any legal system (based on religion or not) its massively complex and subject to great debate.

The Wiki on it is actually not bad as a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Islamic_jurisprudence_.28Fiqh.29

In short it has a number of different areas, covering such diverse topics as hygiene, dress code and ritual, through financial and family law and even into criminal law.

Not every sect of Islam agree on how these areas should be interpreted or even which ones should still stand and which ones should not. Which again is common for any form of religious law (Judaism for example has the same issue with regard to what takes precedent and when - again split over the various sects and how orthodox they are).

In regard to treatment of women and minorities its a tricky one, as by modern standards its discriminatory (as are Christian and Jewish religious law), but for the time would have been seen as potentially quite liberal. As an example Jewish and Christian religious law doesn't grant women the right to divorce at all, which Islam did (but not on the same terms as men). However it did impose a large penalty on men who divorce women via Talaq which is the 'men' only process as any dowry had to be returned to the wife, which would then often effectively bankrupt the husband. As a result historically is was more common for both sides to use Khul or mutual divorce, which is closer to an agreed settlement that we would understand as divorce.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_Islam

As the single example above illustrates its a massively deep and complex subject area, and anyone who is happy to start that Sharia only has one interpretation is either massively unaware of the complexity it has (as every legal system does) or is pushing an agenda.

 

[Johnnypenso]

As with any legal system (based on religion or not) its massively complex and subject to great debate.

The Wiki on it is actually not bad as a starting point:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia#Islamic_jurisprudence_.28Fiqh.29

In short it has a number of different areas, covering such diverse topics as hygiene, dress code and ritual, through financial and family law and even into criminal law.

Not every sect of Islam agree on how these areas should be interpreted or even which ones should still stand and which ones should not. Which again is common for any form of religious law (Judaism for example has the same issue with regard to what takes precedent and when - again split over the various sects and how orthodox they are).

In regard to treatment of women and minorities its a tricky one, as by modern standards its discriminatory (as are Christian and Jewish religious law), but for the time would have been seen as potentially quite liberal. As an example Jewish and Christian religious law doesn't grant women the right to divorce at all, which Islam did (but not on the same terms as men). However it did impose a large penalty on men who divorce women via Talaq which is the 'men' only process as any dowry had to be returned to the wife, which would then often effectively bankrupt the husband. As a result historically is was more common for both sides to use Khul or mutual divorce, which is closer to an agreed settlement that we would understand as divorce.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_in_Islam

As the single example above illustrates its a massively deep and complex subject area, and anyone who is happy to start that Sharia only has one interpretation is either massively unaware of the complexity it has (as every legal system does) or is pushing an agenda.

Just following the links you provided:

Some Muslim scholars claim that women and children prisoners of war cannot be killed under any circumstances, regardless of their faith,[18] but that they may be enslaved, freed or ransomed. Women who are neither freed nor ransomed by their people were to be kept in bondage and referred to as ma malakat aymanukum (slaves).

These punishments range from public lashing to publicly stoning to death, amputation of hands and crucifixion.[11] The crimes against hudud cannot be pardoned by the victim or by the state, and the punishments must be carried out in public.[12

In most Muslim nations in modern times public stoning and execution are relatively uncommon[citation needed], although they are practised in Muslim nations that follow a strict interpretation of sharia, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.[13][14]

The requirement of four male witnesses before a victim can seek justice has been criticized as leading to "hundreds of incidents where a woman subjected to rape, or gang rape, was eventually accused of zināʾ" and incarcerated,[52] in Pakistan. Hundreds of women in Afghanistan jails are victims of rape or domestic violence, accused of zina, when the victim failed to present witnesses.[53] In Pakistan, over 200,000 zina cases against women under the Hudood laws were under way at various levels in Pakistan's legal system in 2005.[54] In addition to thousands of women in prison awaiting trial for zina-related charges, there has been a severe reluctance to even report rape because the victim fears of being charged with zina.[55]

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia requires Muslim women to cover their hair and all women have to wear a full-body garment.[79] Saudi women commonly wear the traditional abaya robe, while foreigners sometimes opt for a long coat.[79] These regulations are enforced by the religious police and vigilantes.[79] In 2002 the Saudi religious police were accused by Saudi and international press of hindering the rescue of schoolgirls from a fire because they were not wearing hijab, which resulted in 15 deaths.[80]

 

[TenEightyOne]

Just following the links you provided:

Which all reinforces @Scaff's comments about the differences in interpretation (or acceptance) of laws in different states, Shariah being no exception... I was under the impression that you were going to try to disagree with him?

 

[Johnnypenso]

Which all reinforces @Scaff's comments about the differences in interpretation (or acceptance) of laws in different states, Shariah being no exception... I was under the impression that you were going to try to disagree with him?

Oh no, just showing my agreement that some of Sharia Law wouldn't be out of place in the Dark Ages. Perhaps best to avoid that Sharia and only use the good Sharia?

 

[PeterJB]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-38995832

Just another day in Iraq...

 

[Scaff]

Oh no, just showing my agreement that some of Sharia Law wouldn't be out of place in the Dark Ages. Perhaps best to avoid that Sharia and only use the good Sharia?

Or avoid any legal system based on any religion and leave it as a custom based function that is only allowable when it doesn't impact on the rights of another.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Oh no, just showing my agreement that some of Sharia Law wouldn't be out of place in the Dark Ages. Perhaps best to avoid that Sharia and only use the good Sharia?

Yes, that's how societies progress into modern interpretations of law. Laws such as not being able to fill your garden water-trough after 5 am or not being allowed to remove bandages in a public place are equally archaic but their use/enforcement ceases or adapts as modern tests are brought.

 

[novcze]

So nationalist targeting of 'others' as the cause of a societies ills b a mixture of actual events, exaggeration and outright lies could play no part at all in that view?

What? I didn't disagree on that. I'm just saying that people don't have anti-muslim immigration views because they overestimate their population. As you suggested in this.

In a large part because, as the article itself states, they seriously overestimate the number that are already in Europe, often by a factor of 3 or 4.

btw. The article doesn't make any conclusions, it just points to another poll and states that there is a concern over muslim immigration.

"It is also true that people in Europe vastly overestimate the number of Muslims living in their countries. An IpsosMORI poll in autumn 2016 found that public estimates of Muslim populations were more than four times the actual level in France, and three times higher than the actual figure in the UK. But, that said, these results point to significant and widespread levels of public anxiety over immigration from mainly Muslim states."

Did you miss the part of your own source that pointed out those most against immigrants are the ones least likely to have actually encountered them?

Yes I did, because again the article doesn't make any conclusions so it is rather you pointing that out (btw. I don't disagree). I can also point out that people who will be most affected by immigration (poor/low education) are ones who are most against immigration. Which is like stating the obvious and it really doesn't matter in democracy?

Given that how has that public concern that the number’s are up to four times higher than reality come about?

Muslims causing more trouble than they should, non-proportionally to size of their population so people compensate?



My original point was that politicians have no idea what people want, looks to me like people would prefer more conservative approach to mass muslim immigration.

 

[Scaff]

What? I didn't disagree on that. I'm just saying that people don't have anti-muslim immigration views because they overestimate their population. As you suggested in this.

And you can be sure they don't how?

btw. The article doesn't make any conclusions, it just points to another poll and states that there is a concern over muslim immigration.

"It is also true that people in Europe vastly overestimate the number of Muslims living in their countries. An IpsosMORI poll in autumn 2016 found that public estimates of Muslim populations were more than four times the actual level in France, and three times higher than the actual figure in the UK. But, that said, these results point to significant and widespread levels of public anxiety over immigration from mainly Muslim states."

Which is pretty much dismissing it as a factor with no evidence to support doing so.

Yes I did, because again the article doesn't make any conclusions so it is rather you pointing that out (btw. I don't disagree). I can also point out that people who will be most affected by immigration (poor/low education) are ones who are most against immigration. Which is like stating the obvious and it really doesn't matter in democracy?

How exactly are they affected by immigration?

Muslims causing more trouble than they should, non-proportionally to size of their population so people compensate?

Citation required, particularly as I posted ample details of how elements of the media have grossly exaggerated this and it a number of cases created it out of thin air.

My original point was that politicians have no idea what people want, looks to me like people would prefer more conservative approach to mass muslim immigration.

Do people know what they want if they are basing that judgement on inaccurate assumptions and made up stories?

 

[novcze]

And you can be sure they don't how?

Did I say that I'm 100% sure?

Which is pretty much dismissing it as a factor with no evidence to support doing so.

The article is providing numbers, again it doesn't imply anything and I applaud them for that. (I had philosophical issue with last sentence of the article, but other than that it's fine)

How exactly are they affected by immigration?

job competition, more likely to be exposed to cultural tensions, etc.

Citation required, particularly as I posted ample details of how elements of the media have grossly exaggerated this and it a number of cases created it out of thin air.

What citation, it's my opinion, and again I'm not dismissing your point, I only think that there is enough of the real news.

btw. Fake news (in general) are problem, no question about it.

Do people know what they want if they are basing that judgement on inaccurate assumptions and made up stories?

And do they?

 

[CSLACR]

And you can be sure they don't how?



Which is pretty much dismissing it as a factor with no evidence to support doing so.



How exactly are they affected by immigration?



Citation required, particularly as I posted ample details of how elements of the media have grossly exaggerated this and it a number of cases created it out of thin air.



Do people know what they want if they are basing that judgement on inaccurate assumptions and made up stories?

You need proof that Muslims are causing problems disproportionate to their population in the West?

Like we're going to pretend that terror attacks by Muslims don't happen all the time? I mean I guess I could get you the statistics on how many times more likely a terror attack is committed by a Muslim than non-muslims, but it sounds like you're in denial.

 

[Scaff]

You need proof that Muslims are causing problems disproportionate to their population in the West?

Like we're going to pretend that terror attacks by Muslims don't happen all the time? I mean I guess I could get you the statistics on how many times more likely a terror attack is committed by a Muslim than non-muslims, but it sounds like you're in denial.

Oh I'm well aware of the rates of terrorist attacks and also how they compare in both a contemporary and historical context.

However the point was around how much much 'trouble' they cause, not just terrorism.

It's another example of attributing the issues of a minority to the whole population based on a single shared trait.

So no denial, simply the ability to not read 'terrorism' into every single claim of trouble from Muslims.