Islam - What's your view on it?

[Scaff]

The latter has already been answered. The former, yes. It's not like I'm making up stuff from my head here. For the record, it has been told many times that if there ever is an inconsistency in the Quran, a newer verse always erases the older one. Violent verses just happen to be newer than the nicer ones.

Then you are clearly posting knowing that points you are making are misleading. Not a good idea at all.

You would also then know that many different interpretations of it exist depending on the sect in question, which is also very true the claim that newer verse erase older verses.

You would do well to watch the video posted above, from a(n atheist) man who has experience of the fundamental side of Islam first hand, who is lucky to be alive and has many friends who were not so lucky. He is more than aware that not every Muslim is like that, just as he is aware that not every Christian is like the WBO.

So there's still no difference, right? Funny, I keep wondering why Israel, the land of the Jews, turned out so much better than any Muslim country in the entire world... Surely it can't have anything to do with how much the predominant religion limits people's capabilities.

Based on what measure and from who's view point? I take it you have traveled to these countries to make such a claim (I have)?

I also didn't claim that no difference exists, however you can find parallels with most, if not all of those points in all of the Abrahamic faiths. That doesn't mean that all of those who follow it, follow the same interpretation. Most followers of the bible don't enlist child soldiers, take child brides or murder doctors; however some of them do.

 

[Carbonox]

You would do well to watch the video posted above, from a(n atheist) man who has experience of the fundamental side of Islam first hand, who is lucky to be alive and has many friends who were not so lucky. He is more than aware that not every Muslim is like that, just as he is aware that not every Christian is like the WBO.

Doesn't this just reinforce my viewpoint though? He does point out Muslim countries (including the so-called secular Turkey) rank the worst in various statistics in the entire world... not to mention that he's perfectly correct about cultural Marxism, which is used these days as an excuse to keep foreigner criminals around and treat them certainly much better than the proper good citizens...

 

[Scaff]

Doesn't this just reinforce my viewpoint though? He does point out Muslim countries (including the so-called secular Turkey) rank the worst in various statistics in the entire world... not to mention that he's perfectly correct about cultural Marxism, which is used these days as an excuse to keep foreigner criminals around and treat them certainly much better than the proper good citizens...

He also points out (if you know him and his work) that despite the issue that Islam has (and all religions) have, not all followers of these religions are fundamentalist lunatics and to brand them all the same will not solve the issues of extreme Islam.

Your clear viewpoint is that of the far right, that nothing about the religion is moderate or could be interpreted as moderate, and by association those who follow it are all part of the problem.

 

[Carbonox]

He also points out (if you know him and his work) that despite the issue that Islam has (and all religions) have, not all followers of these religions are fundamentalist lunatics and to brand them all the same will not solve the issues of extreme Islam.

Your clear viewpoint is that of the far right, that nothing about the religion is moderate or could be interpreted as moderate, and by association those who follow it are all part of the problem.

And he also points out that radicals aren't exactly a minority either. Statistics like 20% of London Muslims sympathizing with the terrorists who struck the town about a decade ago, along with the recent Salafist attack on anti-ISIS protestors (which wasn't the only one of its kind), don't do the religion's reputation any good.

Oh, and did I mention the no-go zones? What causes the unrest in those areas, if not the religion and culture of their inhabitants? Poverty, you say? I don't see many native Europeans burning cars and attacking cops because they're poor.

 

[Scaff]

And he also points out that radicals aren't exactly a minority either. Statistics like 20% of London Muslims sympathizing with the terrorists who struck the town about a decade ago, along with the recent Salafist attack on anti-ISIS protestors (which wasn't the only one of its kind), don't do the religion's reputation any good.

You are aware that 20% would make them a minority?

To take you posts at face value you make it seem as if its 80+% and it not and we have already discussed (well actually you have ignored) that surveys can and are easy to bias to get the answers you want.

Oh, and did I mention the no-go zones? What causes the unrest in those areas, if not the religion and culture of their inhabitants? Poverty, you say? I don't see many native Europeans burning cars and attacking cops because they're poor.

You seriously have utterly no idea what you are on about at all.

Liverpool in the UK has at least five no-go zones that have nothing at all to do with religion.

Then you have the history of riots in London, the vast majority of which are not religious based (we have had more riots in the UK based around football than religion) or the banlieue in France which have been the subject of huge amounts of unrest, again mainly driven by poverty.

In my own (rather quiet) town the one no-go area has nothing at all to do with religion, by contrast the area with the most Muslims in it (and the local Mosque) also has an Irish pub in it. They co-exist without issue at all, that's right an Irish pub with 200 meters of a Mosque with no issues from either side.

Once again you lack of actual real-world experience really does show.

 

[Carbonox]

You are aware that 20% would make them a minority?

To take you posts at face value you make it seem as if its 80+% and it not and we have already discussed (well actually you have ignored) that surveys can and are easy to bias to get the answers you want.



You seriously have utterly no idea what you are on about at all.

Liverpool in the UK has at least five no-go zones that have nothing at all to do with religion.

Then you have the history of riots in London, the vast majority of which are not religious based (we have had more riots in the UK based around football than religion) or the banlieue in France which have been the subject of huge amounts of unrest, again mainly driven by poverty.

In my own (rather quiet) town the one no-go area has nothing at all to do with religion, by contrast the area with the most Muslims in it (and the local Mosque) also has an Irish pub in it. They co-exist without issue at all, that's right an Irish pub with 200 meters of a Mosque with no issues from either side.

Once again you lack of actual real-world experience really does show.

Would you like to do something about said 20% though? Or is it OK to have them going around, acting as if they're good civilians while hiding a dark truth within themselves?

Funny, I see that things in France have escalated to the point where the PM would like to take the streets back by force... and he's specifically talking about foreigner-populated areas that are like enclaves in the middle of an otherwise peaceful region. I don't know why the military hasn't yet taken appropriate action - the police obviously aren't enough for dealing with this problem that is about much more than just a few petty thefts.

My neighbor Sweden already has areas where public workers don't want to go because they end up getting attacked. Why should I not feel intimidated by this, considering Finland is exercising the same type of liberal, "open borders" policy? Hell, we're already getting a few nice multicultural touches. On the news this week: IS related terrorists arrested, large fight broke out in a football game where the other team consisted of immigrants, who just happened to initiate the whole mayhem, and a violent street gang consisting primarily of immigrants is beating random people up, with the youngest victim being 10 years old.

 

[GBO Possum]

You are aware that 20% would make them a minority?

You are aware that the Muslim population of London (14%) exceeds a million, so 20% represents over 200,000 people sympathizing with causing religion-based death and destruction in the city in which they live?

It doesn't require that all Muslims be aligned with terror to be a problem.

Moving on, if we accept your premise that Islam is no more dangerous than any other religion, and estimate that the non-religious percentage of Londoners is, say 25%, then that says that the non-Muslim religious population of London is about 5 million.

Assuming the same 20% of these non-Muslim religious people also support religious violence and terror, then that gives us about 1 million non-Muslim supporters of terrorism in London.

When you put it like that, the Muslim threat to London is quite small in comparison, 200,000 vs 1,000,000.

Always assuming, of course, that all religions are equally as dangerous, which has been a theme of many of your postings.

 

[Scaff]

Would you like to do something about said 20% though? Or is it OK to have them going around, acting as if they're good civilians while hiding a dark truth within themselves?

First of all 20% showing support doesn't equate to 20% taking action. During the troubles 15-20% of the IRA's funding came from the US, yet we didn't have 15-20% of Irish Americans attacking anyone form the UK or Protestants in the US.

You are conflating passive verbal support for active action and the percentage figures will not be the same.

However that is not to say that thsoe who do pose a threat should be left alone, nor have I ever said anything like that.

Funny, I see that things in France have escalated to the point where the PM would like to take the streets back by force... and he's specifically talking about foreigner-populated areas that are like enclaves in the middle of an otherwise peaceful region. I don't know why the military hasn't yet taken appropriate action - the police obviously aren't enough for dealing with this problem that is about much more than just a few petty thefts.

You may want to do a little bit more digging into the background of French social unrest if you think its as simple as point and shouting Islam. Its not.

And as for calling in the army, exactly what do you think that would do? How would you use the military to solve this situation? When answering please take a look at just how effective that was for the British in Northern Ireland.

My neighbor Sweden already has areas where public workers don't want to go because they end up getting attacked. Why should I not feel intimidated by this, considering Finland is exercising the same type of liberal, "open borders" policy? Hell, we're already getting a few nice multicultural touches. On the news this week: IS related terrorists arrested, large fight broke out in a football game where the other team consisted of immigrants, who just happened to initiate the whole mayhem, and a violent street gang consisting primarily of immigrants is beating random people up, with the youngest victim being 10 years old.

No one should, and again I have not said they should (so stop inferring as much).

Oh and stop conflating multi-culturalism with fundamental Islamic violence. My own family is multicultural, as we terrorists? Do we pose a risk to the social order?

You are aware that the Muslim population of London (14%) exceeds a million, so 20% represents over 200,000 people sympathizing with causing religion-based death and destruction in the city in which they live?

It doesn't require that all Muslims be aligned with terror to be a problem.

Have I said otherwise?

Moving on, if we accept your premise that Islam is no more dangerous than any other religion, and estimate that the non-religious percentage of Londoners is, say 25%, then that says that the non-Muslim religious population of London is about 5 million.

Assuming the same 20% of these non-Muslim religious people also support religious violence and terror, then that gives us about 1 million non-Muslim supporters of terrorism in London.

When you put it like that, the Muslim threat to London is quite small in comparison, 200,000 vs 1,000,000.

A point I have made repeatedly in this thread.

The percentages are lower (from memory) but the overall numbers much higher as a result of the larger population, and to be honest this does very clearly show itself in the rise of far right Christian organisations in the UK. The main ones of which call for violence on a par with that of IS up to and including the execution of all Muslims. I don't for a moment believe that every Christian thinks he same way (actually I know that for a fact - just as I do in regard to Muslims).

Always assuming, of course, that all religions are equally as dangerous, which has been a theme of many of your postings.

No. I have not said that all religions are equally dangerous. I have said that the differences are not a great as has been made out by many on here, inferences have been that extremism from other religions is either not a problem or is such a low level problem that its not worth comparison or concern. That is simply not true.

I have been consistent in my approach on this, that extremism in any form, from any group is unacceptable. However targeting the majority because of a minority is not effective at anything other than furthering radicalization and that unless we engage the moderates within the groups we will not solve the problem at all.

I'm no apologist for any religion (or even religion itself), however I also am not stupid enough to believe that a gung-ho far right military approach is going to do anything to stop extremism in Europe.

 

[GBO Possum]

@Scaff - you are attributing my words to @Carbonox.

Let me explain my tongue in cheek post. It is you who interpret postings about Islam being attacks on the majority, and every time anyone mentions Islam's characteristics you jump to the defense and mention other religions as being bad too. I total agree about all religions being bad, however it is all a matter of degree.

For a moment let's ignore the parsing of the Quran and simply look at the consistent results of its teachings over recent centuries and longer.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff - you are attributing my words to @Carbonox.

My apologies.

Let me explain my tongue in cheek post. It is you who interpret postings about Islam being attacks on the majority, and every time anyone mentions Islam's characteristics you jump to the defense and mention other religions as being bad too. I total agree about all religions being bad, however it is all a matter of degree.

For a moment let's ignore the parsing of the Quran and simply look at the consistent results of its teachings over recent centuries and longer.

Which has been a very mixed bag of good and bad.

Without it a lot of knowledge would have been lost to the world and certainly from the fields of astronomy and mathematics, going back to the crusades in which they were arguably the 'better behaved side'.

Personally I see a concerning rise of fundamentalism (at differing paces) across all religions, much of which I put down to the growth of secularism and the fears those with a heavy investment in religion have. Spanning from Islamic fundamentalism, to the rise of violent Buddhist extremism to the Christian right and its homophobic activity in SS Africa and far right programs in Europe.

The key difference for me is that Islamic extremism has managed one thing that the others have not yet achieved, and that was forming what could almost be described as a 'club' of fundamentalist groups. However its not for want of trying in terms of particularity the Christian right.

It is however refreshing to start a discussion that doesn't contain overtones of 'lock them all up - they are all as bad as each other'.

 

[GBO Possum]

@Scaff, I'm not sure that we can credit Islam or the Quran with astronomical discoveries or advancements in mathematics!

And that was a long time ago. Islamic countries have been almost totally absent from such achievements in recent centuries, even the ones with vast oil wealth.

 

[Scaff]

@Scaff, I'm not sure that we can credit Islam or the Quran with astronomical discoveries or advancements in mathematics!

Certainly not the Koran, but the cultural influences of medieval Islam certainly created the conditions for a significant number of develops and the later transfer of them to Europe (and helped ensure that a number of Asian developments in this area remained with us following the Mongol takeover of much of Asia).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomy_in_medieval_Islam

And that was a long time ago. Islamic countries have been almost totally absent from such achievements in recent centuries, even the ones with vast oil wealth.

I don't disagree. The Ottoman empire was in its later centuries far more interested in furthering the arts than it was scientific advancement (not an automatic negative) and following its fall (1908 - 1922) much of the region in question was been administered by European powers before independence of one form or another (with continued involvements from the west) post 1945.

Its arguable that as a result the former Ottoman empire and those countries it 'touched' are in a form of 'dark ages' of one form or another. However to state that the sole cause of the fundamentalism that has grown from it is just religion is in my opinion an over simplification of the history (particularly since circa 1900) of the area.

 

[GBO Possum]

Interesting response by Sam Harris to the Affleck outburst on the Maher show.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/can-liberalism-be-saved-from-itself

 

[Scaff]

Worth watching:

http://www.ted.com/talks/karima_ben...om_sy8A&utm_content=awesm-publisher#t-1125980

 

[EF12345678]

Worth watching:

http://www.ted.com/talks/karima_ben...om_sy8A&utm_content=awesm-publisher#t-1125980

That was interesting, and I do agree with her that we, here in the west, identify muslims as terrorists or people with a violent nature. It's those few people who do those unspeakable things that ruin their image. The five pillars do not come anywhere near telling people to enact violence.

 

[GBO Possum]

Worth watching:

http://www.ted.com/talks/karima_ben...om_sy8A&utm_content=awesm-publisher#t-1125980

Yes, it's definitely worth watching. Brave people planning brave acts, insha'Allah.

I had no idea of the scope of mayhem in Algeria, which may be my failing or that I read the wrong news sources.

Back to "insha'Allah", which I heard used once again in the above Ted talk. We hear it so often from those who plan to do good works and those who plan to do really nasty stuff.

So what does "insha'Allah" mean. Simply "God willing" or has it a deeper meaning?

I visited wikipedia for some enlightenment, and found this:-

Insha'Allah is said when speaking about plans and events expected to occur in the future. The phrase also acknowledges submission to God, with the speaker putting him or herself into God's hands.

Muslims believe that everything is maktub [lit.: written] and so whatever it is one wishes to do, will only occur if it is within God's plan.

One's use of insha'Allah indicates not one's desire to succeed in an endeavor, but rather that the endeavor one embarks on will be within God's will, which might be interpreted as that which is best for humanity, the Earth, and all of Allah's creation. It indicates one's desire for being in tune with God's plan for the cosmos. For example, if one's submission to God's will might be accomplished with great difficulty, one invokes God's blessing, and even more the fact it is in tune with God's will as the primary focus before one attempts to achieve it, otherwise one wishes one's endeavor to fail.

In the Qur'an, Muslims are told that they should never say they will do a particular thing in the future without adding insha'Allah to the statement.[2] This usage of insha'Allāh is from Islamic scripture, Surat Al Kahf (18):23-24: "And never say of anything, 'I shall do such and such thing tomorrow. Except (with the saying): 'If God wills!' And remember your Lord when you forget...'" Muslim scholar Ibn Abbas stated that it is in fact obligatory for a Muslim to say insha'Allah when referring to something he or she intends to do in the future.

Is it really true that "Muslims believe that everything is maktub [lit.: written] and so whatever it is one wishes to do, will only occur if it is within God's plan."

If it is, then do fundamentalist atrocities fall within Allah's plan? Such as the killing of the female university student mentioned in the Ted talk?

 

[Carbonox]

Pat Condell on Sweden, the local thought police, and of course the Muslims.

 

[HKS racer]

Is it really true that "Muslims believe that everything is maktub [lit.: written] and so whatever it is one wishes to do, will only occur if it is within God's plan."

If it is, then do fundamentalist atrocities fall within Allah's plan? Such as the killing of the female university student mentioned in the Ted talk?

I talk with muslims everyday and they always talk about God wish, always. In their mind they like to believe whatever they do and whatever happen in this world is because of God wish. This way they can always justify themselves whatever they do. The idea of common sense normal people have is totally incomprehensible for them.


Of course not every muslim is crazy but on a large scale this attitude = war, lies, hate, social control, political control, terrorism, abuse, murders.

 

[Scaff]

So what does "insha'Allah" mean. Simply "God willing" or has it a deeper meaning?

Is it really true that "Muslims believe that everything is maktub [lit.: written] and so whatever it is one wishes to do, will only occur if it is within God's plan."

If it is, then do fundamentalist atrocities fall within Allah's plan? Such as the killing of the female university student mentioned in the Ted talk?

Its use very much depends on context and the person using it. For some it is the deep rooted belief that @HKS racer talks of, for others its a reflex comment that has little more real meaning that when someone says 'bless you' or the like.

Its almost impossible to assign a set meaning to it given the sheer range of context and degrees of faith attached to it.

Pat Condell on Sweden, the local thought police, and of course the Muslims.

What fun can be had with statistics. Lets look at the claim that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe (and leave aside the inference that its all because of the Muslims). Now its quite true that Sweden does have more reported rapes that any other country in Europe.

However it also records this data in a very different way to any other country in Europe, it treats every single incident as a separate count:

"In Sweden there has been this ambition explicitly to record every case of sexual violence separately, to make it visible in the statistics," she says.

"So, for instance, when a woman comes to the police and she says my husband or my fiance raped me almost every day during the last year, the police have to record each of these events, which might be more than 300 events. In many other countries it would just be one record - one victim, one type of crime, one record."

Source - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372

Now even with that taken into account the actual number of reported offences is also increasing, but pretty much in line with more Western countries, a factor that most put down to wider definitions of the offence and greater encouragement to report the crime.

Odd that none of these complexities is included in that, just a large amount of incitement to fear (with large echos of a certain rivers of blood speech).

Oh and do you actually believe that the Swedish police never arrest any Muslims (not even for smacking children)?

 

[Carbonox]

What fun can be had with statistics. Lets look at the claim that Sweden is the rape capital of Europe (and leave aside the inference that its all because of the Muslims). Now its quite true that Sweden does have more reported rapes that any other country in Europe.

However it also records this data in a very different way to any other country in Europe, it treats every single incident as a separate count:


Source - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19592372

Now even with that taken into account the actual number of reported offences is also increasing, but pretty much in line with more Western countries, a factor that most put down to wider definitions of the offence and greater encouragement to report the crime.

Odd that none of these complexities is included in that, just a large amount of incitement to fear (with large echos of a certain rivers of blood speech).

Oh and do you actually believe that the Swedish police never arrest any Muslims (not even for smacking children)?

So how did the sexual crime rates look like before the mass 3rd world immigration started?

Also, I have no reason to believe Swedish police never arrest them. They wouldn't otherwise be grossly overrepresented in local prisons.

 

[Scaff]

So how did the sexual crime rates look like before the mass 3rd world immigration started?

You will find that I have already addressed that, as does the source I have provided. Did you not read it?

Also since when has 3.5% of a population been mass? After all you've never even met one.

Also, I have no reason to believe Swedish police never arrest them. They wouldn't otherwise be grossly overrepresented in local prisons.

Then why does the video accuse the police of not arresting Muslims?

 

[Carbonox]

You will find that I have already addressed that, as does the source I have provided. Did you not read it?

Also since when has 3.5% of a population been mass? After all you've never even met one.


Then why does the video accuse the police of not arresting Muslims?

I asked this because I wanted to point out that in a peaceful monoculture like the pre-multiculti Sweden, rape cases are understandably not common. Finding the reason for an increase in crime isn't difficult when 3rd world people with broken values are accepted in without bothering to integrate them at all.

A change from 0% to 3.5% in such a short timespan counts as mass in my book. The immigration is so uncontrolled, I don't even know why Sweden still acknowledges such a thing as borders.

The police don't arrest all of them because they're too scared of them when they retaliate in large numbers... I wouldn't blame the police for this if they weren't so busy rounding up thought criminals who express their displeasure towards the people the police are scared of.

 

[Scaff]

I asked this because I wanted to point out that in a peaceful monoculture like the pre-multiculti Sweden, rape cases are understandably not common. Finding the reason for an increase in crime isn't difficult when 3rd world people with broken values are accepted in without bothering to integrate them at all.

Apart from the slight problem that the increase is also down to changes in how the crimes are reported, recorded and an active (and successful) campaign to get victims to come forward.

All of these were either mentioned by myself or in the source, given that I will have to assume that you answer to the question is No, you didn't read it.

A change from 0% to 3.5% in such a short timespan counts as mass in my book. The immigration is so uncontrolled, I don't even know why Sweden still acknowledges such a thing as borders.

How short a time span?

And do you know why that has been the case with Swedish immigration policy since the end of WW2?

The police don't arrest all of them because they're too scared of them when they retaliate in large numbers... I wouldn't blame the police for this if they weren't so busy rounding up thought criminals who express their displeasure towards the people the police are scared of.

So now they are not arresting enough of them, yet they over represented in prison?

Now if you are referring to the riots, did you actually expect them to arrest everyone that took part? Can you cite a single riot in Europe in which everyone (or even a simple majority) were arrested?

And if the police are scared of Muslims why are they over-represented in prison?

Do you not see the logical failure in the claims your making? You can't be sacred to arrest a part of the population yet arrest enough to over-represent it in prison.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Would you like to do something about said 20% though? Or is it OK to have them going around, acting as if they're good civilians while hiding a dark truth within themselves?

Of course it is... unless you advocate state thought-control?

Society should listen to all the views of people in it and should be policed in such a way that anti-social actions (not necessarily thought or speech, but actions) are curtailed.

Has your girlfriend ever asked you about another girl; "Do you think she's cute?". You said no despite thinking this girl was hehehehe. You're lying and hiding a dark truth but the thing you should do socially over-rides your instinct.

It's possible that Ayesha, 23, who's worked in a bank since she left school thinks that there IS a Western agenda against Isla'am and that something should be done about it. Not fatwah or jihad or taking up arms; just "something", the same thing that most average people think should be done about most things.

Socially she can't agree aloud with that because of the social perception that anyone speaking up for normal everyday Isla'am is an ISIS apologist. Like most Muslims, Christians, Jews, Pastafarians and so on she's just going to live a dull, suburban life with the occasional cool holiday.

Do you genuinely describe Muslims as "3rd world people with broken values"?

 

[Carbonox]

Of course it is... unless you advocate state thought-control?

Society should listen to all the views of people in it and should be policed in such a way that anti-social actions (not necessarily thought or speech, but actions) are curtailed.

Since when have violence-advocating ideologies been worth protecting by freedom of speech? Islamish, Jihadism, Wahhabism, Salafism, maybe even more exist out there who are nothing more than a ticking timebomb and a completely unnecessary risk when brought to Europe.

Has your girlfriend ever asked you about another girl; "Do you think she's cute?". You said no despite thinking this girl was hehehehe. You're lying and hiding a dark truth but the thing you should do socially over-rides your instinct.

My what? Teehee.

Are you trying to say that (some of) the 20% lied about supporting terrorists? If they did, that's pretty sick 🤬, playing with serious national threats.

It's possible that Ayesha, 23, who's worked in a bank since she left school thinks that there IS a Western agenda against Isla'am and that something should be done about it. Not fatwah or jihad or taking up arms; just "something", the same thing that most average people think should be done about most things.

Socially she can't agree aloud with that because of the social perception that anyone speaking up for normal everyday Isla'am is an ISIS apologist. Like most Muslims, Christians, Jews, Pastafarians and so on she's just going to live a dull, suburban life with the occasional cool holiday.

Western agenda against Islam? I don't buy into that, but if your example person's got a problem with it, there are plenty of peaceful means for making her life better. Voting "yes" in a terrorism sympathizing survey helps no one's cause.

Do you genuinely describe Muslims as "3rd world people with broken values"?

A lot of them come from the 3rd world, where the values are seriously broken, for example when it comes to the question of who is to blame when a child gets raped. There's a good reason why the 3rd world, even with all the rich natural resources, has failed to establish decent human rights or stable democracies.

It's the cultures, and community attitudes.

Apart from the slight problem that the increase is also down to changes in how the crimes are reported, recorded and an active (and successful) campaign to get victims to come forward.

All of these were either mentioned by myself or in the source, given that I will have to assume that you answer to the question is No, you didn't read it.

I beg to differ. However, like with the other explanations I've seen regarding Sweden's increasing rape cases, I've noticed that the person interviewed is always putting blame on anything but 3rd world immigrants. Then again, ideology is always more important than facts...

How short a time span?

And do you know why that has been the case with Swedish immigration policy since the end of WW2?

A much shorter timespan than with natural immigration.

I've read about it. Forgotten the details right now, but right now I see that Swedish politicans are trying to act as saviors of the whole world... Someone should tell them that dragging a 5-digit number of "refugees" into the country yearly doesn't even solve problems effectively, when aforementioned broken 3rd world cultures are brought in too.

So now they are not arresting enough of them, yet they over represented in prison?

Now if you are referring to the riots, did you actually expect them to arrest everyone that took part? Can you cite a single riot in Europe in which everyone (or even a simple majority) were arrested?

And if the police are scared of Muslims why are they over-represented in prison?

Do you not see the logical failure in the claims your making? You can't be sacred to arrest a part of the population yet arrest enough to over-represent it in prison.

I meant that when Muslims attack cops in large numbers, they choose to flee. I don't think they have much of a problem arresting solitary criminals.

As for the riots, those are just another example of how much those minorities like to victimize themselves. One extremely hostile lunatic tries to attack cops, gets rightfully put down as there are no other options available that would ensure the cops' well-being, and later the whole neighborhood goes up in flames thanks to people who are completely incapable of seeing fault in themselves, but instead assign blame to the "racist, Islamophobic" society around them. The racist, Islamophobic society that gives them welfare money like no one else...

 

[TenEightyOne]

Since when have violence-advocating ideologies been worth protecting by freedom of speech? Islamish, Jihadism, Wahhabism, Salafism, maybe even more exist out there who are nothing more than a ticking timebomb and a completely unnecessary risk when brought to Europe.

In everything you say above and on... I can read "Christianity", a religion which actually-and-practically works perfectly well in 99% of its settings. It's the fundamentalists you've got to watch out for... same as any club you can name.

When you say that the 20% "support terrorism", what was the actual question?

 

[Carbonox]

In everything you say above and on... I can read "Christianity", a religion which actually-and-practically works perfectly well in 99% of its settings. It's the fundamentalists you've got to watch out for... same as any club you can name.

When you say that the 20% "support terrorism", what was the actual question?

Christianity works well in 99% of its settings? I think sub-Saharan Africa amounts to a lot more than 1%.

The exact wording was "sympathizing with terrorists". Technically it may not sound as bad, but I see it as the 20% having a very broken moral code if they think people blowing up a bomb in a large town are worth sympathizing with.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Christianity works well in 99% of its settings? I think sub-Saharan Africa amounts to a lot more than 1%.

The exact wording was "sympathizing with terrorists". Technically it may not sound as bad, but I see it as the 20% having a very broken moral code if they think people blowing up a bomb in a large town are worth sympathizing with.

Looking at the way you think about figures I'd say you need to drill a little more into the facts. So no Christianity works in sub-Saharan Africa, I read. So I'm right that it's actually being-a-religion that's the problem rather than the flavour?

 

[Carbonox]

Looking at the way you think about figures I'd say you need to drill a little more into the facts. So no Christianity works in sub-Saharan Africa, I read. So I'm right that it's actually being-a-religion that's the problem rather than the flavour?

Christianity clearly hasn't helped in establishing civilization in Africa. Rather, when these devoutly religious people are in power, some crazy laws have been put in place, Uganda's anti-LBGT stance being a prime example.

Then there's the religious Christian-Muslim civil war in Central Africa, where the Christian side has proven to "love thy neighbor" so much that they even practice cannibalism.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Then there's the religious Christian-Muslim civil war in Central Africa, where the Christian side has proven to "love thy neighbor" so much that they even practice cannibalism.

Are you absolutely sure that your knowledge of the world is from proper-actual-books and not a pile of old Eagle comics?