Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

So everyone who wants to stop mass immigration, have peace in the middle east and is aware of potential danger of islam is now far-right?

Not what I said at all.

That's not correct, I don't make assumptions about individuals and their motivation from forum posts, unlike you.

Really, so why refuse to answer the question?

You will not state what contact, if any you have had. I suspect because it's close to or at zero. So what exactly are you using to form your opinion.

Out of curiosity, who is this YouTube conspiracy nutter?

He's a fan of Infowars and like to bang on about Sweden a lot.

Reasonable by what standard? It wasn't relevant to my point and was laughable, because I don't care about religion of the people I meet.

It's directly relevant to the point, if you are claiming one form of obtaining information is better than another in regard to how Muslims live and interact and what motivates them, then experience of both is pretty important to be able to speak on it.

Did I assume that? Probably poorly written on my side, point was that people living in these states have no other choice but to submit to conception of islam of their government. (which was my point, division between people and ideology)

Oh you certainly did and that's exactly how it comes across.

However let me ask you again, how do you know this. How many times have you either spoken to people from these countries or been to these countries?

If it's none, then what exactly are you using to form this opinion?

 

[novcze]

He's a fan of Infowars and like to bang on about Sweden a lot.

no idea, maybe Angry Foreigner?

It's directly relevant to the point,

your made up point

if you are claiming one form of obtaining information is better than another in regard to how Muslims live and interact and what motivates them

see, I'm not claiming such thing ... citation needed.

If it's none, then what exactly are you using to form this opinion?

I have no idea what you think is my opinion, but I'm using Facts on Islamic world, what societes they form, what ideas they hold.

 

[Imari]

so not all but majority turned a blind eye , happier?

Not really.

Some Germans knew what was going on but were terrified that if they spoke up they would be next. And rightly so, given the examples of people like the Scholls. Some more straight up weren't fully informed about what was going on, given the control that the Reich had over the media.

Don't get me wrong, it was a bad time and there was a lot of anti-Jewish sentiment in Germany. And basically all eventually knew about the concentration camps at least, although the "Final Solution" was kept very secret, and one could argue that it's a big part of what makes what was going on so horrific.

Simply having internment camps is something that Australia still has, and there's very little fuss about it. Certainly no one is going to war over it, despite the way people are treated in them.

I think to say that people turned a blind eye is something that you don't seem to have evidence for. Some probably did. Others took part gleefully. Others reluctantly, or simply out of fear for their own safety. Or for other reasons of their own.

You so far haven't provided any evidence to prefer any one of these over the other as a common sentiment amongst German citizens, and so I'm loath to accept your pronouncement of what the majority thinks as any more than you projecting what you want to think.

I'm using Facts on Islamic world, what societes they form, what ideas they hold.

You're using facts about what ideas they hold?

I see. Where are you getting these "facts" from?

 

[Scaff]

no idea, maybe Angry Foreigner?

That's the one.

your made up point

I'm yet to see you refute that interpersonal contact doesn't form a part of understanding how people function.

see, I'm not claiming such thing ... citation needed.

Ok.

That's why I see talk about personal contact rather useless,

I have no idea what you think is my opinion, but I'm using Facts on Islamic world, what societes they form, what ideas they hold.

Cite them then.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I have no idea what you think is my opinion,

I'm going with the one you express so often in the Opinions thread.

I'm using Facts on Islamic world, what societes they form, what ideas they hold.

Oh yes, magic internet facts. Meeting people from "Islamic world", living and working with those people, that's probably irrelevant when you can just read Breitbart.

 

[novcze]

Some Germans knew what was going on but were terrified that if they spoke up they would be next. And rightly so, given the examples of people like the Scholls. Some more straight up weren't fully informed about what was going on, given the control that the Reich had over the media.

right, so not unlike Saudi Arabia? ... you don't see any similarity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohammed_Baqir_al-Nimr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011–12_Saudi_Arabian_protests


I agree that "turned a blind eye" doesn't describe situation in all detail, it wasn't meant to. It was more about end result and that's submission to state ideology, again in my opinion not unlike Saudi Arabia.

I'm yet to see you refute that interpersonal contact doesn't form a part of understanding how people function.

That will be a long wait, because it isn't my objective to refute this point. And never was, I don't know if you remember origin of this "discussion", this one What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration? and you mainly blamed it on lack of personal contact, which is in my opinion not entirely accurate interpretation of the poll results although it play a part.

Oh yes, magic internet facts. Meeting people from "Islamic world", living and working with those people, that's probably irrelevant when you can just read Breitbart.

I'm using Wikipedia mainly, I don't read Breitbart, only thing I know about Breitbart is that Milo is their editor.

 

[Scaff]

right, so not unlike Saudi Arabia? ... you don't see any similarity?

How about you outline them.

That will be a long wait, because it isn't my objective to refute this point. And never was, I don't know if you remember origin of this "discussion", this one What Do Europeans Think About Muslim Immigration? and you mainly blamed it on lack of personal contact, which is in my opinion not entirely accurate interpretation of the poll results although it play a part.

I'm part it was, it was also about how you formed your opinions, a simple question regarding which you are still avoiding.

I'm using Wikipedia mainly, I don't read Breitbart, only thing I know about Breitbart is that Milo is their editor.

Ex-editor.

Actually the main sources I've seen you use are a YouTube bloger who an Infowars fan and a website that has a know extreme bias.

Still not seen the facts however.

 

[novcze]

I'm part it was, it was also about how you formed your opinions, a simple question regarding which you are still avoiding.

The first question you asked was how many muslims I met. I already explained why it is laughable to ask me such a question. If you talk about my opinions you must say what opinions you are on, I'm sure I already said enough about beforementioned poll.

Ex-editor.

Good for him, I guess ...

Actually the main sources I've seen you use are a YouTube bloger who an Infowars fan and a website that has a know extreme bias.

I'm not sure if posting videos equals using them as a source to form opinion, but whatever ...

Regarding Angry Foreigner, he is Swede so he is talking about effects of mass immigration in Sweden, I'm not aware of him being Infowars fan, maybe other way around. And when was the last time I posted something from Gatestone?

Still not seen the facts however.

Wikipedia doesn't provide facts? ... ahh, ok. At this point I would suggest return to the thread topic because this is not going anywhere, again.

 

[Scaff]

The first question you asked was how many muslims I met. I already explained why it is laughable to ask me such a question. If you talk about my opinions you must say what opinions you are on, I'm sure I already said enough about beforementioned poll.

Why is it laughable?

Not that claiming it's such is a valid reason to not answer.

I'm not sure if posting videos equals using them as a source to form opinion, but whatever ...

Then why are you posting them.

Regarding Angry Foreigner, he is Swede so he is talking about effects of mass immigration in Sweden, I'm not aware of him being Infowars fan, maybe other way around. And when was the last time I posted something from Gatestone?

So his qualifications to discuss them and the sources of his claims are? Being Swedish alone doesn't amount to that.

He also has a playlist dedicated to Infowars, so I would suggest that indicates he's a fan, odd that you post his videos but don't know this.

As for Gatestone, I don't know the exact date, but it wasn't that long ago.

Wikipedia doesn't provide facts? ... ahh, ok. At this point I would suggest return to the thread topic because this is not going anywhere, again.

No. I'm talking about the 'facts' you are saying you have posted. Which ones specifically.

 

[CSLACR]

Why is it laughable?

Not that claiming it's such is a valid reason to not answer.



Then why are you posting them.


So his qualifications to discuss them and the sources of his claims are? Being Swedish alone doesn't amount to that.

He also has a playlist dedicated to Infowars, so I would suggest that indicates he's a fan, odd that you post his videos but don't know this.

As for Gatestone, I don't know the exact date, but it wasn't that long ago.


No. I'm talking about the 'facts' you are saying you have posted. Which ones specifically.

It's laughable that you asked how many Muslims he's met because we already know your response.
A. He says a number, to which you reply you can't judge based off those you've met.
B. He says none, to which you reply he can't know if he hasn't met any.

Ergo, a completely useless question.

 

[Scaff]

It's laughable that you asked how many Muslims he's met because we already know your response.
A. He says a number, to which you reply you can't judge based off those you've met.
B. He says none, to which you reply he can't know if he hasn't met any.

Ergo, a completely useless question.

Closeish, but not quite.

If it's a number then it's the start of a discussion about how that contact was and why it could it should be representative of the wider community.

If it's none then it's the start of a discussion about how impressions based only only third party sources can be representative and the question of bias (in both ways) those sources may have (a topic I have already open a discussion in and been ignored, given that it's how some of the UK media stereotype eastern Europeans).

So neither useless or laughable.

 

[Imari]

right, so not unlike Saudi Arabia? ... you don't see any similarity?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Mohammed_Baqir_al-Nimr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011–12_Saudi_Arabian_protests

Where did I say I didn't see any similarity? You find that for me.

I agree that "turned a blind eye" doesn't describe situation in all detail, it wasn't meant to. It was more about end result and that's submission to state ideology, again in my opinion not unlike Saudi Arabia.

It doesn't describe the situation at all. Especially not compared to other phrases you could have chosen, like "living under an oppressive regime" which tends to indicate that a lot of the problem is with the government and the culture rather than individuals.

It's laughable that you asked how many Muslims he's met because we already know your response.
A. He says a number, to which you reply you can't judge based off those you've met.
B. He says none, to which you reply he can't know if he hasn't met any.

Ergo, a completely useless question.

If you assume that the conversation is merely a willy-waving contest. If you're actually talking with someone, asking them how they got their information is totally valid. It's a first stage to comparing how your opinion might be different to theirs because of the different experiences you've had, which is a common thing.

Admittedly it's the internet and willy-waving is what the cool kids do, but at some point you just have to assume that people are being legitimately curious. If Scaff or anyone else misuses that information to shut down conversation, there's plenty of time afterwards to point out what they're doing.

 

[CSLACR]

Closeish, but not quite.

If it's a number then it's the start of a discussion about how that contact was and why it could it should be representative of the wider community.

If it's none then it's the start of a discussion about how impressions based only only third party sources can be representative and the question of bias (in both ways) those sources may have (a topic I have already open a discussion in and been ignored, given that it's how some of the UK media stereotype eastern Europeans).

So neither useless or laughable.

Where did I say I didn't see any similarity? You find that for me.



It doesn't describe the situation at all. Especially not compared to other phrases you could have chosen, like "living under an oppressive regime" which tends to indicate that a lot of the problem is with the government and the culture rather than individuals.



If you assume that the conversation is merely a willy-waving contest. If you're actually talking with someone, asking them how they got their information is totally valid. It's a first stage to comparing how your opinion might be different to theirs because of the different experiences you've had, which is a common thing.

Admittedly it's the internet and willy-waving is what the cool kids do, but at some point you just have to assume that people are being legitimately curious. If Scaff or anyone else misuses that information to shut down conversation, there's plenty of time afterwards to point out what they're doing.

I wasn't saying I necessarily agree that that's the response Scaff would have given, rather it's a typical response and not necessarily invalid either.

If it's really broken down it's impossible to know exactly what's in any "group" of peoples minds because they'll always think differently than one another.

We can all share links all day long, I know a couple decent ones myself, but I know they'll simply be countered by a video that says something different.

If we're saying all people are the same, I dare say prove it. There are differences and it's not just "black guys can play sports and have big weiners". To say those are the only differences between people is nearly scientifically impossible. If physical differences exist, mental differences also most likely exist.
What I'm wondering is why we aren't hearing what they are. You cannot embrace diversity by hiding differences.

 

[Scaff]

I wasn't saying I necessarily agree that that's the response Scaff would have given, rather it's a typical response and not necessarily invalid either.

If it's really broken down it's impossible to know exactly what's in any "group" of peoples minds because they'll always think differently than one another.

A very valid point, but one that will also apply to video blogs, the media, etc.

Hence the example I used around the treatment of Eastern Europeans by some elements of the UK media.

To use this argument to invalidate or minimise interpersonal contact as a way of getting to know a group of people, should also invalidate the sources used as 'substitutes'.

The argument that people lies is quite right raised, but that again can be turned around and the utterly fake pieces by Brietbart and the Daily Express around NYE attacks used to illustrate this.

Human interaction is a valid and important way of getting to understand a community or group, both the good and the bad.

We can all share links all day long, I know a couple decent ones myself, but I know they'll simply be countered by a video that says something different.

If we're saying all people are the same, I dare say prove it. There are differences and it's not just "black guys can play sports and have big weiners". To say those are the only differences between people is nearly scientifically impossible. If physical differences exist, mental differences also most likely exist.
What I'm wondering is why we aren't hearing what they are. You cannot embrace diversity by hiding differences.

What is it that you are missing?

A genuine question, more than happy to help see if it exists.

 

[Imari]

What I'm wondering is why we aren't hearing what they are. You cannot embrace diversity by hiding differences.

Mostly I suspect that it's because life is lived on a personal level. For example, it's not really even up for discussion that male athletes at the very peak of their sport have higher performance than female athletes at the peak of their sport. For the same effort and training, the best male in the world pretty much always seems to outclass the best female in the world pretty substantially when it comes to pure physicality.

However, people don't make a big fuss about this because on an individual level it's largely irrelevant outside of very specific circumstances. Just because in general men are better athletes than women, doesn't mean that Jimmy isn't a 400lb lardarse that struggles to reach the next bag of crisps while Jenny can run marathons, do triathlons and drag Jimmy up a flight of stairs to get out of the basement when his Xbox catches fire.

Ditto mental differences. While there are statistical differences on a large scale, on a small scale the variance is such that the difference in median means basically nothing. Maybe Asians are genetically better at math or whatever, but when you're hiring someone you look at their specific skills because a really smart Pole is a better hire than a mathematically incompetent Korean.

There's potentially more to read into culture, but there I think care needs to be taken to talk about general trends rather than individuals. And if you're going to talk about general trends sensibly then you need to address the variance rather than simply the median. In fact, the variance tends to tell more than the median or mean, simply because that's where you start getting meaningful differences on population levels. See things like why incest is bad long term.

On the other hand, if we're going to talk about specific instances and behaviour it should almost certainly be reduced to specific individuals and how those individuals or individuals of a similar relevant type behave. If one is talking about ISIS, it's sensible to talk about Wahhabists but not so sensible to talk about the entirety of Islam as ISIS doesn't accurately represent that.

For example, if you're talking about Muslim extremists then you'll get more similarity between two Salafists even if they're Afghani and German than you will between two Iranians who happen to be Salafist and Usuli, even though they all believe in Islam. Painting whole regions or races with a single brush because part of them happens to belong to an extremist religion is disingenuous, much like describing all Americans as white supremacist rednecks with a hard on for guns, casual violence, incest and child molestation.

And so if we're talking about individuals or groups of individuals, then it becomes relevant what information you have and where you've got it from. Is this information from a source with an agenda? Is it from a source that's really reliable? These people that you met, were they of a relevant group to form opinions? What did you observe that led you to form the opinions you did? And so on.

 

[novcze]

No. I'm talking about the 'facts' you are saying you have posted. Which ones specifically.

So at first it was about facts I use to form my own opinion, now it is about things I post here?

It's laughable that you asked how many Muslims he's met because we already know your response.
A. He says a number, to which you reply you can't judge based off those you've met.
B. He says none, to which you reply he can't know if he hasn't met any.

Ergo, a completely useless question.

Yes, and

C. I don't know, as I already said I don't care about religion of people I meet. But we have a mosque in the city so "they" are here. (that's sarcasm not othering )

Especially not compared to other phrases you could have chosen, like "living under an oppressive regime" which tends to indicate that a lot of the problem is with the government and the culture rather than individuals.

Yes, although choice to submit is choice of the individual. Of course this is not indication of them being bad people on personal level.

If you assume that the conversation is merely a willy-waving contest.

Yes I do and I have a good reason to think that. If you look at the start of this, Scaff got going when I slightly disagreed on his interpretation of the poll result.


No one else gave any opinions on the poll so I'll just leave it ...


btw. nicely written Imari

Mostly I suspect that it's because life is lived on a personal level. For example, it's not really even up for discussion that male athletes at the very peak of their sport have higher performance than female athletes at the peak of their sport. For the same effort and training, the best male in the world pretty much always seems to outclass the best female in the world pretty substantially when it comes to pure physicality.

However, people don't make a big fuss about this because on an individual level it's largely irrelevant outside of very specific circumstances. Just because in general men are better athletes than women, doesn't mean that Jimmy isn't a 400lb lardarse that struggles to reach the next bag of crisps while Jenny can run marathons, do triathlons and drag Jimmy up a flight of stairs to get out of the basement when his Xbox catches fire.

Ditto mental differences. While there are statistical differences on a large scale, on a small scale the variance is such that the difference in median means basically nothing. Maybe Asians are genetically better at math or whatever, but when you're hiring someone you look at their specific skills because a really smart Pole is a better hire than a mathematically incompetent Korean.

There's potentially more to read into culture, but there I think care needs to be taken to talk about general trends rather than individuals. And if you're going to talk about general trends sensibly then you need to address the variance rather than simply the median. In fact, the variance tends to tell more than the median or mean, simply because that's where you start getting meaningful differences on population levels. See things like why incest is bad long term.

On the other hand, if we're going to talk about specific instances and behaviour it should almost certainly be reduced to specific individuals and how those individuals or individuals of a similar relevant type behave. If one is talking about ISIS, it's sensible to talk about Wahhabists but not so sensible to talk about the entirety of Islam as ISIS doesn't accurately represent that.

For example, if you're talking about Muslim extremists then you'll get more similarity between two Salafists even if they're Afghani and German than you will between two Iranians who happen to be Salafist and Usuli, even though they all believe in Islam. Painting whole regions or races with a single brush because part of them happens to belong to an extremist religion is disingenuous, much like describing all Americans as white supremacist rednecks with a hard on for guns, casual violence, incest and child molestation.

And so if we're talking about individuals or groups of individuals, then it becomes relevant what information you have and where you've got it from. Is this information from a source with an agenda? Is it from a source that's really reliable? These people that you met, were they of a relevant group to form opinions? What did you observe that led you to form the opinions you did? And so on.

 

[Scaff]

So at first it was about facts I use to form my own opinion, now it is about things I post here?

How on earth could it be about anything other that what you post on here?

Yes, and

So you know how I think and would respond?

No you don't.

C. I don't know, as I already said I don't care about religion of people I meet. But we have a mosque in the city so "they" are here. (that's sarcasm not othering )

Thank you, not to hard now was it.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Hmm I dunno if there is any point with the back and forth Mr Scaff so I'll just ask that despite all the facts, figures and articles presented, do you believe there is no concerted effort for Islam to invade and spread throughout the world - that there exists no desire nor action for lands to fall under the dar al-Islam?

Meanwhile, and I think even the liberals will love the irony of this, on a recent visit to Saudi Arabia a UN chief blamed Islamophobia for the rise of Islamic terrorism.

http://www.gulf-times.com/story/534214/UN-chief-s-concern-about-Islamophobia-a-timely-rem

Since that statement was made (12 Feb) 3 Christians have lost their lives (one burnt alive) for being Christians in Islamic dominated areas.

Priorities: The UN's got em covered!

 

[Scaff]

Hmm I dunno if there is any point with the back and forth Mr Scaff so I'll just ask that despite all the facts, figures and articles presented, do you believe there is no concerted effort for Islam to invade and spread throughout the world - that there exists no desire nor action for lands to fall under the dar al-Islam?

All of Islam? No.
For a very small percentage of them? Yes.

Meanwhile, and I think even the liberals will love the irony of this, on a recent visit to Saudi Arabia a UN chief blamed Islamophobia for the rise of Islamic terrorism.

http://www.gulf-times.com/story/534214/UN-chief-s-concern-about-Islamophobia-a-timely-rem

Is it a factor in an ongoing cycle of violence? I would say its one of them. ISIS have been quite clear that an increase in intolerance for Muslims in the west acts as a recruiting tool for them. That's not exactly a new factor, nor unique to them, the exact same was true for both Republican and Loyalist terrorists during the troubles. I dare says its likely the same for any terrorist group.

Since that statement was made (12 Feb) 3 Christians have lost their lives (one burnt alive) for being Christians in Islamic dominated areas.

Priorities: The UN's got em covered!

Which is an act I utterly condemn, however as it took place in Egypt what exactly are you suggesting the UN should have done?

Three people were shot, one of whom was killed for being Muslim in a Christian dominated area late last week (that they were not actually Muslims is simply down to the gunman assuming anyone vaguely Middle Eastern looking is just that). The simple fact remains that the largest victim group of Islamic Terrorists remains Muslims, if a "concerted effort for Islam to invade and spread throughout the world" existed then we would not see that.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

All of Islam? No.
For a very small percentage of them? Yes.

But that disagrees with what's been happening recently

Is it a factor in an ongoing cycle of violence? I would say its one of them. ISIS have been quite clear that an increase in intolerance for Muslims in the west acts as a recruiting tool for them. That's not exactly a new factor, nor unique to them, the exact same was true for both Republican and Loyalist terrorists during the troubles. I dare says its likely the same for any terrorist group.

You don't find the timing of the statement, in Saudi Arabia of all places ironic? And can you not see the end result of such thinking:

- Go to the West and carry out atrocities
- Wait for the West to condemn you and carry out atrocities

Which is an act I utterly condemn, however as it took place in Egypt what exactly are you suggesting the UN should have done?

I propose more to be done in acts of anti-Christian violence/anti Christian measures

Here is a list where it's the worst place to be a Christian. Guess which religion is usually the dominant one in that area:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/n...the-world-is-it-worst-place-to-be-a-christian

Here is another article showing the extent of Christian persecution in Muslim lands:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7046/christian-slaughter

Three people were shot, one of whom was killed for being Muslim in a Christian dominated area late last week (that they were not actually Muslims is simply down to the gunman assuming anyone vaguely Middle Eastern looking is just that).

Is there a link to that please

The simple fact remains that the largest victim group of Islamic Terrorists remains Muslims, if a "concerted effort for Islam to invade and spread throughout the world" existed then we would not see that.

Of course we would! That's what I've been hinting at - a Muslim world will be a violent world, and see violence against anyone

----

Meanwhile, protection is granted to a Muslim lecturer at Oxford as a convert from Islam to Christianity is barred from asking questions critical of Islam, in which the lecturer argued that Islam is a "religion of love":

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/...rer-on-islam-from-hard-questions-by-ex-muslim

 

[TenEightyOne]

But that disagrees with what's been happening recently

Got a source for a majority (or significant minority) undertaking Gospel attacks?

I propose more to be done in acts of anti-Christian violence/anti Christian measures

Here is a list where it's the worst place to be a Christian. Guess which religion is usually the dominant one in that area:

Look at somewhere like Sweden where you have large gangs gathering and attacking people who may well be Christian, Germany where you have attacks on firefighters and refugee volunteer personnel, surely we should be looking at those attacks on Christians? Remember they're majority-Christian countries so every citizen there is a fully-practising church-attending botherer of the first water.

Of course we would! That's what I've been hinting at - a Muslim world will be a violent world, and see violence against anyone

Same old story - that would be true of any Insert Name of Religion world where violent fundamentalism is the norm. That goes as much to the mindset of those practicing their version as it does to the literal word of ancient texts.

It works for "Christian World", it sure as hell works for "Jewish World", it works for "Hindu World" and "Sikh World".Even "Buddhist World", non-religion caveats aside. They all sound like slightly odd theme parks now I think of it, but anyway... the violent struggles aren't actually about which versions of the bibbles are best but who gets to exercise power in their favour.

I seem to remember @Scaff disagrees with me about Hitler being literally non-theist but my own research leads me to firmly believe he was (even his occultism was opportunistic pro-paganism) and that the only time he invoked or tolerated religion was to further his own reach of power.

There, I mentioned Hitler, I must win now!

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I propose more to be done in acts of anti-Christian violence/anti Christian measures

Protect Christians before anyone else?

That'll end well.

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Protect Christians before anyone else?

That'll end well.

Huh? I didn't say that....

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Huh? I didn't say that....

Where do you think that the resources used to protect Christians from anti-Christian violence are going to come from? That's right - from the resources currently being spent protecting other minorities.

 

[Imari]

Yes, although choice to submit is choice of the individual.

Technically yes, although you'll find few people who will actually argue that choice with a gun to your head is much of a choice at all.

Realistically you're put in a position where whatever choice you make is a terrible one, and that position is not through your own making. It's essentially the adult equivalent of giving someone the option of jumping out of the tree or getting thrown out.

The choice is an illusion, all the power resides with the person making the threats. Ultimately, they're calling the shots and any choice you have is at their say so.

Huh? I didn't say that....

You did when you specified anti-Christian violence. You could have just said prevent violence, but you chose to limit it to Christians.

Why?

...do you believe there is no concerted effort for Islam to invade and spread throughout the world - that there exists no desire nor action for lands to fall under the dar al-Islam?

Islam doesn't have a concerted Islamic effort at anything, because there is no central leadership of Islam. Just as there's no central leadership of Christianity. Certain groups of both religions have more or less violent expansionist policies, but that's no surprise to anyone.

Since that statement was made (12 Feb) 3 Christians have lost their lives (one burnt alive) for being Christians in Islamic dominated areas.

How many Muslims have lost their lives for being Muslims in Christian dominated areas?

Honestly, on a global scale 3 people in two weeks is a drop in the bucket. It's a shame people are being killed for silly reasons anywhere, regardless of their religion. But frankly there are way, way, WAY bigger things to deal with than one and a half dead Christians a week.

I'd put good odds that the US killed more Muslims than that with drone strikes in those two weeks. Two thousand people died in January in the Syrian Civil War. The Iraq Civil War rages on. Israel and Palestine do their thing. Boko Haram continue to compete for the title of "World's Biggest Douchebags". And probably all sorts of other terrorists and wars that don't spring to mind.

If three dead Christians is what troubles you most in the world at the moment, I'm afraid you're not very Christian at all.

 

[Scaff]

But that disagrees with what's been happening recently

Citation required.

You don't find the timing of the statement, in Saudi Arabia of all places ironic? And can you not see the end result of such thinking:

- Go to the West and carry out atrocities
- Wait for the West to condemn you and carry out atrocities

Of course ISIS (and just about every terrorist organisation that has ever existed) is aware of the cause and effect it produces. Which is exactly why its a well known situation and is not limited to this single example.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-extremist-propaganda/?utm_term=.ea2cdc1df844
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...EvrZGzsIaUKAC84Bg&sig2=sBC62KZZTOAU7RDZJVsSNw
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...7DRdETOSvp-ZGUH7Q&sig2=Kq1br36G6pR_wi7_C4-i1w
http://jeps.efpsa.org/articles/10.5334/jeps.bo/

You will notice that these are just random blogs and include well researched, sourced scholarly papers.

I propose more to be done in acts of anti-Christian violence/anti Christian measures

That doesn't answer my que

Here is a list where it's the worst place to be a Christian. Guess which religion is usually the dominant one in that area:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/n...the-world-is-it-worst-place-to-be-a-christian

And the non-Muslim countries, do they get a free pass? Not to mention what happens when you separate out all the war-zones in the list.

Here is another article showing the extent of Christian persecution in Muslim lands:

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7046/christian-slaughter

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7046/christian-slaughter
Can you point me to a Gatestone article that looks at situations in which Christian persecution in non-Muslim lands? Or religious persecution in any form that doesn't focus on one religion being the problem?

Gatestone is not an 'honest broker' and despite this being pointed out before you continue to use it, despite its clear bias.

http://www.thenation.com/article/168374/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki.../misinformed-expert-or-misinformation-network
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...3-the-paranoid-style-in-islamophobic-politics


Not to mention that 'Mo' specifically signed a declaration protecting Christians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad

"
This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is Omnipotent, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disbeliever and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam. Whenever Christian monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases them—they must not be offended, or disturbed, or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

No one is allowed to plunder these Christians, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger.

Jizya should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My Protection and the testament of My Safety, against all things which they abhor.

No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them. Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them 'this is too much', or ask them to pay any tax.

As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve drachmas a head per year (i.e. about 200 modern day US dollars).

They shall not be imposed upon by anyone to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Muslims have to fight for them. Do no dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse recorded in the Quran, to wit: ‘Do not dispute or argue with the People of the Book but in that which is best’ [29:46]. Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

Should any Christian woman be married to a Muslim, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. Their churches must be honored and they must not be withheld from building churches or repairing convents.

They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Muslims must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively incumbent upon every one of the follower of Islam not to contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world."

Is there a link to that please

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39081698

Three people shot (one of whom attempted to stop the attacker), one dead. The dead man and one of those wounded were Indian, however the attacker stated to a witness, who he asked to hide him, that he had killed two people from the Middle East.

Of course we would! That's what I've been hinting at - a Muslim world will be a violent world, and see violence against anyone

No we wouldn't. If it were a coordinated and mutually agreed ideology among all Muslims then they would not be subject to any disagreement or in-fighting.

That the largest group that are subject to attacks are Muslims and that the vast majority of deaths are among Muslims, and the largest number of people who are fighting back against them are Muslim indicates quite clearly that this is not an ideology with an agreed goal.

Meanwhile, protection is granted to a Muslim lecturer at Oxford as a convert from Islam to Christianity is barred from asking questions critical of Islam, in which the lecturer argued that Islam is a "religion of love":

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/02/...rer-on-islam-from-hard-questions-by-ex-muslim

OK, and?

BTW - spot any bias in your source at all?

 

[Scaff]

Interesting read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/02/27/who-was-abdul-sattar-edhi-pakistans-angel-of-mercy/

 

[Fat Tyre]

Interesting read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/02/27/who-was-abdul-sattar-edhi-pakistans-angel-of-mercy/

That is a beautiful story and it's truly inspiring, it's sad that there always have to be idiots to ruin things.

From the same article:

Criticism of Edhi's works
Edhi saw charity as a central tenet of Islam and lived humbly with his wife, Bilquis, in the same building as his organisation's offices.

But unlike Mother Teresa who he was often compared to, Edhi had to surmount many obstacles including regular death threats.

His ambulances were attacked as were volunteers who worked for his foundation.

In October 2013, Islamists occupied one of his Karachi facilities and stole £400,000 (it was quickly replaced with a flood of donations), and the baby cradles he and Bilquis set up to accept unwanted babies were criticised as encouraging out-of-wedlock births.

"They call him an infidel, saying that he does not say his prayers," Bilquis told the Guardian.

"What we are doing should be done by the government and should be appreciated, but instead we are blamed."

Before people start saying that this is proof once again that Islam is evil I guess we can make an analogy with death threats to abortion clinics in the US (is that considered terrorism over there?).

 

[DLR_Mysterion]

Look at somewhere like Sweden where you have large gangs gathering and attacking people who may well be Christian, Germany where you have attacks on firefighters and refugee volunteer personnel, surely we should be looking at those attacks on Christians? Remember they're majority-Christian countries so every citizen there is a fully-practising church-attending botherer of the first water.

Are you suggesting they're being attacked because of their religion?

Same old story - that would be true of any Insert Name of Religion world where violent fundamentalism is the norm. That goes as much to the mindset of those practicing their version as it does to the literal word of ancient texts.

It works for "Christian World", it sure as hell works for "Jewish World", it works for "Hindu World" and "Sikh World".Even "Buddhist World", non-religion caveats aside. They all sound like slightly odd theme parks now I think of it, but anyway... the violent struggles aren't actually about which versions of the bibbles are best but who gets to exercise power in their favour.

I seem to remember @Scaff disagrees with me about Hitler being literally non-theist but my own research leads me to firmly believe he was (even his occultism was opportunistic pro-paganism) and that the only time he invoked or tolerated religion was to further his own reach of power.

There, I mentioned Hitler, I must win now!

You're saying that a majority Islamic world would be no different to a majority Insert Name of Religion world? I mean...do I really have to show that list of the best and worst places to live again? It's a liberal fallacy that everyone and everything are equal, and yet, despite the polls turning against you liberals still cling to this notion.

You did when you specified anti-Christian violence. You could have just said prevent violence, but you chose to limit it to Christians.

Why?

That was to show how much of a concern "Islamophobia" is but in proportion to actual attacks and killings against Christians it receives far more undeserved attention.

Islam doesn't have a concerted Islamic effort at anything, because there is no central leadership of Islam. Just as there's no central leadership of Christianity. Certain groups of both religions have more or less violent expansionist policies, but that's no surprise to anyone.

You don't need a central leadership to have an overarching goal. Your point is moot and flies in the face of what I provided in the past few pages

How many Muslims have lost their lives for being Muslims in Christian dominated areas?

I dunno, how many in 2017?

Honestly, on a global scale 3 people in two weeks is a drop in the bucket. It's a shame people are being killed for silly reasons anywhere, regardless of their religion. But frankly there are way, way, WAY bigger things to deal with than one and a half dead Christians a week.

I know, probably like ignoring this:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a-slow-motion-christian-genocide-we-cant-ignore-it-anymore-137044/

Or this:

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/03/raymond-ibrahim-the-slow-motion-genocide-of-egypts-christians

I'd put good odds that the US killed more Muslims than that with drone strikes in those two weeks. Two thousand people died in January in the Syrian Civil War. The Iraq Civil War rages on. Israel and Palestine do their thing. Boko Haram continue to compete for the title of "World's Biggest Douchebags". And probably all sorts of other terrorists and wars that don't spring to mind.

But were the drone strikes aimed to kill because they were Muslims?

If three dead Christians is what troubles you most in the world at the moment, I'm afraid you're not very Christian at all.

Interesting, but I was making the point that we go on and on about Islamophobia and highlighting how many Christians had actually lost their life for their faith by Muslims.

Citation required.

What? I've provided how many arguments based on facts and figures over the past few pages....

That doesn't answer my que

How much does the UN speak about "Islamophobia" when proportionally Muslims aren't the most persecuted religion.

And the non-Muslim countries, do they get a free pass? Not to mention what happens when you separate out all the war-zones in the list.

Huh? No they don't get a "free pass" and have you considered why they might be war-zones in the first place?

Can you point me to a Gatestone article that looks at situations in which Christian persecution in non-Muslim lands? Or religious persecution in any form that doesn't focus on one religion being the problem?

Gatestone is not an 'honest broker' and despite this being pointed out before you continue to use it, despite its clear bias.

http://www.thenation.com/article/168374/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-14/debunking-the-muslim-nogo-zone-myth
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourki.../misinformed-expert-or-misinformation-network
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...3-the-paranoid-style-in-islamophobic-politics

I have no idea what you're trying to say with those links?

Not to mention that 'Mo' specifically signed a declaration protecting Christians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashtiname_of_Muhammad


"
This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is Omnipotent, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Jesus the Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disbeliever and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam. Whenever Christian monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases them—they must not be offended, or disturbed, or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

No one is allowed to plunder these Christians, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger.

Jizya should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My Protection and the testament of My Safety, against all things which they abhor.

No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them. Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them 'this is too much', or ask them to pay any tax.

As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve drachmas a head per year (i.e. about 200 modern day US dollars).

They shall not be imposed upon by anyone to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Muslims have to fight for them. Do no dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse recorded in the Quran, to wit: ‘Do not dispute or argue with the People of the Book but in that which is best’ [29:46]. Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

Should any Christian woman be married to a Muslim, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. Their churches must be honored and they must not be withheld from building churches or repairing convents.

They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Muslims must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively incumbent upon every one of the follower of Islam not to contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world."

Yeah....that kinda contradicts stuff in the Koran:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/friends-with-jews-christians.aspx

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

....his invasion of Christian Byzantines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_views_on_Christians

....Or his deathbed speech:

"When the disease of Allah's Apostle got aggravated, he . . . . would say, ". . . May Allah curse the Jews [and] Christians because they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship." By that he warned his follower of imitating them, by doing that which they did. (Bukhari)"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-39081698

Three people shot (one of whom attempted to stop the attacker), one dead. The dead man and one of those wounded were Indian, however the attacker stated to a witness, who he asked to hide him, that he had killed two people from the Middle East.

Sad as that is, that isn't an "Islamophobic" attack....

No we wouldn't. If it were a coordinated and mutually agreed ideology among all Muslims then they would not be subject to any disagreement or in-fighting.

That the largest group that are subject to attacks are Muslims and that the vast majority of deaths are among Muslims, and the largest number of people who are fighting back against them are Muslim indicates quite clearly that this is not an ideology with an agreed goal.

Erm. You're kinda proving my point here aren't you by saying that....there will be violence

OK, and?

BTW - spot any bias in your source at all?

Meh, just an aside to show what state this country is in

 

[Scaff]

What? I've provided how many arguments based on facts and figures over the past few pages....

That show the majority of Muslims are committing terrorists attacks? I don't think you have, and the point you disputed was that the vast majority are not responsible for the attacks.

So a citation is still required.

How much does the UN speak about "Islamophobia" when proportionally Muslims aren't the most persecuted religion.

Citation required.

Huh? No they don't get a "free pass" and have you considered why they might be war-zones in the first place?

Why Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. are war zones? Power vacuums left after failed Western interventions to force regime change.

I have no idea what you're trying to say with those links?

The you are not bothering to read my posts before replying to them: "Gatestone is not an 'honest broker' and despite this being pointed out before you continue to use it, despite its clear bias."

Oh and you forgot to address this point: Can you point me to a Gatestone article that looks at situations in which Christian persecution in non-Muslim lands? Or religious persecution in any form that doesn't focus on one religion being the problem?

Yeah....that kinda contradicts stuff in the Koran:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/friends-with-jews-christians.aspx

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people."

....his invasion of Christian Byzantines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad's_views_on_Christians

....Or his deathbed speech:

"When the disease of Allah's Apostle got aggravated, he . . . . would say, ". . . May Allah curse the Jews [and] Christians because they took the graves of their prophets as places of worship." By that he warned his follower of imitating them, by doing that which they did. (Bukhari)"

Sad as that is, that isn't an "Islamophobic" attack....

Oooo a relgion being contradictory, is Islam alone is that? Has no other faith ever used that as a justification for any action?

By the way, why does your source change the word 'allies' to 'friends' it is version? Could it be to change the meaning of the quoted section to move it away from a piece of text about not converting and to one that implies you can't be 'friends'.

How about from now on when you want to quote the Koran, you actual quote the Koran, not a version that been put through a filter of an organisation known for its bias?

Erm. You're kinda proving my point here aren't you by saying that....there will be violence

Nope not what I said at all, and I did't say "there will be violence" so don't attempt to make it appear as if I did again.

Meh, just an aside to show what state this country is in

Avoiding the question totally.

Do you think that source contains no bias at all?

Are you even aware of the link (in terms of funding) that almost all of your sources have (Jihad Watch, Gatestone, 'Religion of peace', etc.)?