The islamization of Europe

[AnneDVille]

Ma'am, please! Go sit on a bag of ice until you have regained control of your baser instincts!

We are trying to get whipped up into a murderous frenzy here; we can't have you distracting everyone by running out onto the battlefield and throwing your legs open.

But..... but.... but... throwing my legs open is my job....

 

[AnneDVille]

I doubt the victims in Cologne find them sexy. Do you also find gary ridgway sexy?
I knew I cannot write here until I cool off a bit. Am too emotional. This topic needs to be handled in pragmatic fashion.
I understabd this topic a bit too well and with that comes the weird energy. Omg I can't even.
For fun look at Iran pics before and after. As in before and after the revolution. this is what freedom taken away looks like.

Gary Ridgway is an American white serial killer. Should I be scared by all white americans by that logic?

I was just trying to make a little joke in a very bleak topic. Hugs to you, you shouldn't get so emotional, it's not healthy. x

 

[ACFFAN69]

Those pictures are NOT the truth. Those pictures are a tiny piece of the truth.

they're the truth if we ignore human rights abuses of the Savak, and the imprisonment, torture and execution of thousands of the Shah's political enemies (some say tens or hundreds of thousands). Or if we ignore Savak's complete censorship over the media.

If we need more examples of freedom being taken away, one needs to just look at what happened after the Shah committed his coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister,to become a dictator. I also notice those pictures are missing the brutal torture techniques or pictures of massacres of protects like Black Friday when nearly a hundred protester's were killed, or many other protests against him that ended with soldiers opening fire on the crowd.

To pretend that life under the Shah was an example of freedom would be just as disingenuous as saying that Iran is free under Khamenei.

 

[ACFFAN69]

they're the truth if we ignore human rights abuses of the Savak, and the imprisonment, torture and execution of thousands of the Shah's political enemies (some say tens or hundreds of thousands). Or if we ignore Savak's complete censorship over the media.

If we need more examples of freedom being taken away, one needs to just look at what happened after the Shah committed his coup against the democratically elected Prime Minister,to become a dictator. I also notice those pictures are missing the brutal torture techniques or pictures of massacres of protects like Black Friday when nearly a hundred protester's were killed, or many other protests against him that ended with soldiers opening fire on the crowd.

To pretend that life under the Shah was an example of freedom would be just as disingenuous as saying that Iran is free under Khamenei.

Too late to edit, but here's a 1976 report by amnesty international calling Iran one of the worst human rights offenders in the World at the time:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde13/001/1976/en/

Some quotes from the report:
"Because of the fear created by SAVAK's activities, precise information about political prisoners in Iran is difficult to obtain, although sufficient material has come out of Iran over the past two decades to convey a picture of extreme political repression."

"October 1976, the Shah himself, when asked about the total number of political prisoners in his country, stated that there were perhaps three thousand. The deputy director of SAVAK, Parviz Sabeti, stated in an interview in September 1976 that there were 3,200 political prisoners. 5 Estimates made by foreign journalists and Iranian exile groups range from 25,000 to 100,000."

"A recent, detailed account of his own torture and that of other prisoners has been given by Reza Baraheni, a released prisoner now resident in the United States of America. Most of the horrible instruments were located on the second floor. I was not taken there, but the office of my interrogator, Dr Rezvan, was next to this chamber, and one day when he was called to another office for some sort of consultation, I walked into the room, glanced round it and then went back. It resembles an ancient Egyptian tomb and is reserved for those suspected of being terrorists or accused of having made attempts on the life of the Shah or a member of the Royal Family. Not every prisoner goes through the same process, but generally, this is what happens to a prisoner of the first importance. First he is beaten by several torturers at once, with sticks and clubs. If he doesn't confess, he is hanged upside down and beaten; if this doesn't work, he is raped; and if he still shows signs of resistance, he is given electric shock which turns him into a howling dog; and if he is still obstinate, his nails and sometimes all his teeth are pulled out, and in certain exceptional cases, a hot iron rod is put into one side of the face to force its way to the other side, burning the entire mouth and the tongue. A young man was killed in this way."

10. Violations of Human Rights
In addition to the violations already referred to there is little respect demonstrated for human rights in many other areas of Iranian life. Freedom of speech and association are non-existent. The press is strictly censored and has been dramatically curtailed in recent years since the Shah decreed that every newspaper with a circulation of less than 3,000 and periodicals with a circulation of less than 5,000 should be shut down. Trade unions are illegal and workers' protests are dealt with severely, sometimes resulting in imprisonment and deaths. Political activity is restricted to participation in the Rastakhiz Party. Some Iranians have difficulty in obtaining, or are refused, passports. This restriction on freedom of movement applies especially to released political prisoners and members of their families. Academic freedom is also restricted and students and university teachers are kept under surveillance by SAVAK. A recent account concerns a professor of literature who was harassed, beaten, arrested and tortured because his courses had been deemed as not conforming to the "ideology" of the "White Revolution" of the Shah, in that he had failed to refer to it."

 

[Lili_xo]

Gary Ridgway is an American white serial killer. Should I be scared by all white americans by that logic?

I was just trying to make a little joke in a very bleak topic. Hugs to you, you shouldn't get so emotional, it's not healthy. x

Thank u but my emotions are part of my creative nature and also intuition and I think are very healthy and bring me lots of luck.
I find ignorance unhealthy.
No by Gary ridgeway did not mean race as this topic does not interst me at all and never paid attention what race anyone is. I meant psychopathic non caring behavior toward human beings.

 

[JoleneBrody]

To insinuate all Syrians are non caring psychopaths is a little... terrible? Yeah, terrible.

You literally just compared all Syrian men to a single american serial killer. I don't even understand the logic here, what were you trying to actually get at?

 

[Mila_]

To insinuate all Syrians are non caring psychopaths is a little... terrible? Yeah, terrible.

You literally just compared all Syrian men to a single american serial killer. I don't even understand the logic here, what were you trying to actually get at?

Where exactly did she compare all Syrian men to a serial killer? I think we are reading different threads or you are getting carried away with the hyperbole

 

[AnneDVille]

@Lunella Sorry, I wasn't being patronising. I was talking from experience. It took me years to be able to watch / read / talk about the news without crying or experiencing panic attacks and intense emotional reactions. So what I did was stay away from it for a while. It became a running joke among my friends on how clueless I was about world affairs.

I'm gonna stop the topic here because you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you talk about care for humans, on the other you talk about how when it comes to white psychopaths their race is irrelevant, but when it's the Syrians - they all have no care for humanity and fled their war striken country just to come here and rape and kill us.

Also, in terms of serial killer sexiness... I would have gone with Ted Bundy (as an example, I mean).....

 

[Lili_xo]

well is difficult to explain with words what it is like in these countries and what this culture is really like however anyone who would like to find out (and that it is all ok like some claim) then just go visit Afghanistan , Syria or Iraq any of these countries and plenty others where these refugees flood from to Europe where they brought up in culture where things are well...different...then after u arrive take a walk on the street you will understand my comparison better.
This is what is being imported to Europe. You cannot expect ppl who grew up in different culture to understand many things that westerners take for granted. Is a completely different culture and they learn completely different things and it will take many generations before anything might change and then who knows if maybe the Europeans will have to change. Is like Europe is importing ppl who are simply dangerous but for them this danger is something they live with and are used to in their countries but it will be new to europeans. I find that funny btw that swedes come up with bracelets for women to wear to keep migrants away. Bracelets that say "don't grope" or something or other. So there no end to this ignorance.

 

[Lili_xo]

@Lunella
I'm gonna stop the topic here because you are contradicting yourself. On one hand you talk about care for humans, on the other you talk about how when it comes to white psychopaths their race is irrelevant, but when it's the Syrians - they all have no care for humanity and fled their war striken country just to come here and rape and kill us....

No am not contradicting myself and seriously have no idea where this one came from in your post. I never even touched the subject of race.
As far as rape goes they have a different concept of this. For Europeans it is rape. For them is ok thing cause whatever - women don't matter, whores are wearing shorts ,infidels have to be groped etc.

 

[Lili_xo]

And never said all Syrians are like serial killers either. Never said that. But I don't find dangerous men sexy. And I dont feel safe among these ppl.
When I read stuff about mother and daughter being attacked with knife in France for not wearing "proper clothing" or girls being attacked at concert in Sweden , or concerts dropped all over Paris cause there is not enough security, or women attacked in Cologne on New Years I am in no mood for jokes not because of these particular incidents but more because I know more of same will be there.
Hope that explains things.

 

[Gen]

well is difficult to explain with words what it is like in these countries and what this culture is really like however anyone who would like to find out (and that it is all ok like some claim) then just go visit Afghanistan , Syria or Iraq any of these countries and plenty others where these refugees flood from to Europe where they brought up in culture where things are well...different...then after u arrive take a walk on the street you will understand my comparison better.
This is what is being imported to Europe. You cannot expect ppl who grew up in different culture to understand many things that westerners take for granted. Is a completely different culture and they learn completely different things and it will take many generations before anything might change and then who knows if maybe the Europeans will have to change. Is like Europe is importing ppl who are simply dangerous but for them this danger is something they live with and are used to in their countries but it will be new to europeans. I find that funny btw that swedes come up with bracelets for women to wear to keep migrants away. Bracelets that say "don't grope" or something or other. So there no end to this ignorance.

Have you visited Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq? (Genuinely curious, not trying to be snarky.)

 

[Ms_Diane]

So, countries like Turkey or Egypt where a woman can become president or Prime Minister or dress in any way she wants, or someone can say publicly that they do not believe in god without fear of prosecution or death, where a gay man does not live in fear of being hanged because of it, are free IN SPITE of the fact that they have a muslim majority and BECAUSE they are secular. Not the opposite.

Turkey may have a secular state but the government still regularly arrests and imprisons journalists, and gay people are still killed and banned by the authorities to quell violence from the public. Two weeks ago another LGBT activist was found dead in Istanbul. Perhaps they are not hanged by the government, but secular or not, I don't know how free many Turkish people feel to express themselves and it is specifically because of their government that this is so. I know it has been slowly slowly changing over the years, but Turkey is probably not your best example to use for your argument.

Feel free to go back to blaming Islam for so many of the world's problems.

 

[Lili_xo]

Have you visited Afghanistan, Syria, or Iraq? (Genuinely curious, not trying to be snarky.)

Hi, I know u just curious not snarky but sorry this info is for friends only. I don't like to say too much personal stuff about my life on public forums where is there forever fir anyone to read anytime
hugs!

 

[Lili_xo]

Two weeks ago another LGBT activist was found dead in Istanbul. Turkey is probably not your best example to use for your argument.

Feel free to go back to blaming Islam for so many of the world's problems.

Turkey and Egypt are some of the better countries actually and yes the best examples in that particular argument she gave because is as good as it gets there (and as good as it gets is not perfect at all )

On a totally different note wanted to add that I kind of like that Islam exists that there are these cultures out there all different. It makes planet an interesting place. But I also love Europe and western values and these are in danger with Europe being flooded by these ppl. That I think is a huge problem for Europe.
However I also do not blame Islam fir this - I am just losing respect for countries who allow all these ppl in. i believe countries need borders just like ppl need boundaries.
These ppl are streaming in every day. I wonder what the real numbers are.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

I find that funny btw that swedes come up with bracelets for women to wear to keep migrants away. Bracelets that say "don't grope" or something or other. So there no end to this ignorance.

WHAT'S TRUE: Police in Sweden are distributing colored bracelets as a means of engaging young people and raising awareness about unwanted sexual advances.

WHAT'S FALSE: Swedish police did not create or distribute the bracelets in an attempt to dissuade refugees from raping Swedish women.

This according to that notorious bastion of liberalism, Snopes. The bracelets apparently say "Don't touch me", not "Stay back migrants!"

 

[Mila_]

I have been meaning to effortpost here but keep putting it off because sushi, shibuya, and kanji are taking up all my Ki. But let's get down to it.

I keep reading people on this thread saying that we cannot fault the refugees for the recent attacks on Europe's soil since many of the terrorists are EU citizens born and raised in Europe. I just want to point out that this argument only shows how deep the problem is. And I want to explain why:

The problem is not that they are refugees. If France was taking in say... refugees from Portugal, we wouldn't have a terrorism problem. So taking in refugees in itself is not the problem and we aren't blaming them because they are refugees.

The problem is not that they are Arabs. If Germany was taking in catholic Arabs from Lebanon we wouldn't have a terrorism problem. Likewise, Persians from Iran do commit terrorist attacks and Persians are caucasian, so the problem is not their race.

The problem is that they are muslim. What all these terrorists have in common, the ones that come from the Middle East with the "homegrown" terrorists in Belgium, with the Persian terrorists that blew up department stores in the UK in the 70s, to the terrorists that come from countries like Pakistan in South Asia, is that they are all muslim. They are all part of the muslim faith, and they make these attacks in the name of their religion.

So.. the purpose of this post is to explain what islam actually is so that everyone can draw their own conclusions on whether islam is at the core of this or if it is a matter of some lone wolves and lunatics. If you haven't read my other post explaining why it is important to understand islam before defending it, and why questioning islam is not an act of hatred you can read it here:

Every time a terrorist attack is committed in the name of Allah we all are forced to look at the question of whether the attacker was motivated by fanaticism or by islam. If it is a problem of some extremist nut jobs or if it is an actual tenet of their religion they are carrying out.

At a first glance it is tempting to conclude that the problem is just fanaticism, that the guys who do terrorist attacks are just radicals. After all, we find it very difficult to believe that a religion that has so many followers could actually be this violent. It doesn't help the fact that we tend to interpret every other religion from the POV of our own. So, for example, when christians ask me about judaism they are incredibly interested in Moses, like he was some sort of messiah, like he was our Christ. And they also believe that the Torah is the only sacred text of ours, like the Bible for them. In the same way they understand islam through the eyes of christianity. They believe Muhammed is a christ-like figure, and the only important book is the Qu'ran. They are really surprised when they learn that it isn't so. That both judaism and islam share the fact that they are both disorganized religions with a constellation of important sacred texts and that Moses and Muhammad have nothing to do with each other or with Christ.

Similarly, christians (and people raised in countries where christianity is the dominant religion) tend to believe that all religions have similar moral values. For example, they believe that the Ten Commandments are universal, that every religion is in essence the same thing, just a different flavor. They think all religions espouse that killing is bad, stealing is bad, while being humble or peaceful, for example is good. They are very surprised to learn that other religions might have nothing to do with this.

Judaism, for example, is not a pacifist religion. Giving the other cheek is unthinkable for a jew. In a couple of instances in the Torah, God tells the jews that they must wipe amalek from the face of the Earth. Every man, woman, and child of amalek and even their beasts! God tells the jews to flatten the entire city, to not let a rock over another rock stand. This was told to the jews because the nation of Amalek was planning to exterminate the jews, it was a "pre-emptive" war, and also a war of retaliation. So even when starting a war against another nation with no reason, is bad in judaism, you don't simply give your enemy the other cheek. When you are attacked or threatened by another who wants to kill you, you fight until they die or you do. This is a very important difference in morality. For jews to retaliate with all our might to defend our people is not just seen as necessary, it is seen as good, as just, as godly. For christians giving the other cheek is. So it is important to not assume that all religions have the same values when it comes to life, death, and other important issues. Islam could be just as peaceful as christianism is, or it could not be. Maybe it is something entirely different. We have no way to know this until we learn what islam is.

Some people think that studying islam is an act of racism. They feel that by studying that religion without assuming that it is peaceful from the start must be an act of discrimination, against muslims and against their muslim friends. Furthermore they feel that anything that one could say about islam is something we apply to all muslims in the world regardless of who they are.

First things first, twenty percent of the world's population is muslim. That is 1.6 billion people. That's more than all of China's population. That is a lot of people. Obviously not all of them are terrorists. Not all of them are violent, and not all of them support, accept or even know very well what their religion is about. After all there are many christians and many jews who are those things in name only, and the same thing happens with muslims. The vast majority of them are peaceful, lead peaceful lives, and all they want is what we all want: to be safe, to have food on the table, a family that loves us.

Unfortunately, though, even when the majority of muslims are pacific, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the Nice Truck Killer, wasn't the only muslim who thought killing would redeem him. Every day we hear news about new terrorist attacks all performed in the name of islam. Since 9/11 there have been almost 30 thousand terrorist attacks done by muslims in the name of Allah and that number grows by 4 or 5 new attacks every day. With every one of these attacks we are forced to look at the question yet again. Is this the result of muslim doctrine or is it a problem of fanaticism?

The way to do this is studying islam for what it is. Not for what we would like it to be. To study their sacred texts, their traditions, and how muslims practice their faith. Only by doing this can we find an answer to our question.

And this is why this isn't an act of discrimination: we need to learn to make a difference between an ideology and the people who practice it. Islam is obviously not a race, it is a religion, a more apt term for it would be an ideology since it also includes a political and militar dimension, and criticizing ideas is not an act of discrimination. People who feel this way invented the word "islamophobia" as if by criticizing islam you are somehow committing an act of hate speech. But thinking this way is just as silly as thinking that whomever criticizes communism is committing an act of "communistophobia". Makes no sense.

The second thing we need to keep in mind is to make a distinction between what people actually choose to do and what their ideology says. For judaism it is imperative for a parent to circumcise their male babies when they are 8 days old. It is such a central tenet that if you don't do it, supposedly, your baby will not be considered to be jewish. Do all jews agree with circumcisions? No. Do all jews give their babies circumcision? No. Many jews find that practice terrible (me included) and do not circumcise their kids. Does that make judaism a religion that doesn't practice circumcision or that frowns at the practice? No, the religion is very clear, circumcision is a tenet and always will be. Circumcision is just as jewish as braided bread and passover matzo. All that this means is that some jews choose NOT to practice this aspect of their religion.

With that in mind we could start studying islam for what it is. I will post another post later with this information as I am a bit tired of writing and want to go for a walk.

So, if we want to understand islam where do we start? The first thing we find online when we want to understand islam is what they call the "Five Pillars" (or the 5 individual mandates) of islam. These are practices that are required of every muslim.

Shahada: to recite the muslim creed which roughly translates to "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet".
Salat: to do the muslim prayer five times a day.
Zakat: most sources will translate Zakat as charity but in reality it is a tax since it isn't voluntary but an obligation of every muslim
Sawm: fasting during Ramadan between sunrise and sunset
Hajj: to do a pilgrimage (ideally annually but) at least once in their lifetime to the city of Mecca

These five pillars sound peaceful, none of them is about violence. But these duties are practical and they don't teach us a great deal about what muslims actually believe in. So if we want to understand the actual content of islamic beliefs we need to find other things to study beyond the 5 pillars.

So where do we find this information? We need to look at other sources:

1) Islam's sacred texts: luckily for us, islam is somewhat organized and has codified its beliefs in text format. This is a quality they share with the other abrahamic faiths (judaism and christianity) but unlike christianity, islam doesn't have just one sacred text. Islam has a plethora of texts that exist in tandem with the Qu'ran: they are the Sirah which is the life of Muhammad, like a biography, and the Hadiths which are the compilation of different testimonies of Muhammads closest friends, sort of like the gospels. They are all almost equally important when you are trying to understand islam.

2) What their spiritual leaders preach: the sacred texts alone are insufficient to understand the nature of a religion, because texts can be interpreted in many different ways. So in order to understand islam we also need to understand the interpretations that their leaders make of the texts. These interpretations form the islamic law which is a code of conduct that emanates from the Sirah, the Hadiths and the Qu'ran as interpreted by the most important scholars of the faith. It is also known as Sharia. Sharia rules over every aspect of muslims lives from the way in which individuals must conduct their private affairs (including things as allowed/forbidden foods, dress, etc) to the way a muslim family should relate to each other (husband and wife between them and towards their children) to the way in which a muslim collective must act, to the way a muslim State should rule over its citizens to the way a pan-arab order should enforce its laws.

3) What their believers actually do: sometimes the believers don't follow the teachings of their leaders or the words that are written on the sacred texts. So we should also study what muslim observants actually do if we want to draw the right conclusions.

I will explain each one in a future post as this is already taking way too long.

 

[AnneDVille]

with the Persian terrorists that blew up department stores in the UK in the 70s,.

..... you mean the Irish. (I may be wrong tho, I'm jogging this one from memory)

Edit: Nope, I googled. It was Northern Ireland Terrorist groups. Unless I'm missing the Persians from the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#1970s

 

[Mila_]

..... you mean the Irish. (I may be wrong tho, I'm jogging this one from memory)

Edit: Nope, I googled. It was Northern Ireland Terrorist groups. Unless I'm missing the Persians from the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_Great_Britain#1970s

No, I meant the Iranian terrorists who blew up libraries and department stores after the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, his editors, and all libraries carrying the Satanic Verses was issued. It was in the 80s, I just noticed I wrote the 70s by mistake.

Edit: Iranians aren't Arabs, but Persians and therefore caucasian which is why I used that example.

 

[AnneDVille]

No, I meant the Iranian terrorists who blew up libraries and department stores after the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, his editors, and all libraries carrying the Satanic Verses was issued. It was in the 80s, I just noticed I wrote the 70s by mistake.

Edit: Iranians aren't Arabs, but Persians and therefore caucasian which is why I used that example.

Oh! Ok. I really wasn't trying to nitpick, I just got very confused when I read that. It makes sense now.

 

[JoleneBrody]

Where exactly did she compare all Syrian men to a serial killer? I think we are reading different threads or you are getting carried away with the hyperbole

It is verrrrrry possible I misunderstood her but I don't think I did.

 

[Ms_Diane]

It is verrrrrry possible I misunderstood her but I don't think I did.

I think she was comparing the North Afican and Arab perpetrators of an incident in Cologne with the American serial killer. If I am getting the right reference, several women were attacked. But this was in response to @AnneDVille making a comment about Syrian men being sexy. Which comes across as relating all Syrian men as perpetrators of violence. I don't know how else to interpret this?

Can everyone stop talking about all these young sexy Syrian men coming here to devour us or something.... I'm getting a bit too excited here

I doubt the victims in Cologne find them sexy. Do you also find gary ridgway sexy?

 

[Lili_xo]

Of course this thread would be boring if everyone agreed with everyone however I am surprised at a number of females who defend culture - religion whatever which is not even hiding its abusive ways toward women.
It is not - they are open about it. It is so bad that even muslim women do not enjoy this. Please read some books maybe I recommend "Princess" by Sasson or " not without my daughter" or something that would give you enough info so you better understand the dangers of this religion which some call a cult and others a way of life. But maybe some will think is fiction and it can never happen to them - well it can. All you need fir that is a certain amount of these ppl and Europe is flooded with them now.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

The problem is that they are muslim. What all these terrorists have in common, the ones that come from the Middle East with the "homegrown" terrorists in Belgium, with the Persian terrorists that blew up department stores in the UK in the 70s, to the terrorists that come from countries like Pakistan in South Asia, is that they are all muslim. They are all part of the muslim faith, and they make these attacks in the name of their religion.

must...not...poop...@Kitsune...

The problem is that they are radicalized by war, and their faith is critical to their war effort. Unless someone can prove me wrong by posting a simple before/after picture of a woman in a bathing suit alongside a woman in a hijab, I am going to stand by this.

I am no defender of Islam. I am no defender of Christianity. I am no defender of any fantasy-based belief system that seeks to control others, whether for good or for evil. I am certainly no fan of propaganda.

Perhaps that is why, when I read @Kitsune posts, I rarely make it past the second paragraph before the tears begin to stream down my face. Such an intellect! Such writing prowess! Such a natural talent for research!

And yet, she chooses to take her precious gifts, and toss them upon the compost pile as if they have no value. She demotes herself to just another peddler of puckey. Alas! If a mind as astute as her's can be so easily subjugated, there is no hope for any of us. Civilization will not make it out of this century intact, at least not in any recognizable form.


Here is some propaganda to sift through. See if you can find truth in it; make it a fun game for the whole family!
http://www.wrmea.org/2014-october/the-ottoman-empire-and-world-war-i-it-could-all-have-been-very-different….html
http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199540839.001.0001
http://lostislamichistory.com/how-the-british-divided-up-the-arab-world/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Middle_East
https://mic.com/articles/91071/how-...middle-east-in-10-classic-cartoons#.myAXakRTT

Blaming Islam is easy. Gives you a clear target for your fears. Reality is much more complicated.

 

[LuckySmiles]

The problem is that they are radicalized by war, and their faith is critical to their war effort.

I agree with this part, but also have seen no one dismiss this part, this is the only reason I didn't poop you. But it does not change the reality of the situation. That their politics and religion are deeply intertwined and differ from Western culture.

I don't understand the constant American guilt of wars we're involved in(that most do not support), that then we should just somehow accept certain things... what? No. I'm not letting myself or anyone I like or who is like me to get blown up over some beef I didn't participate in to begin with.

If my friend threw a rock through my neighbors window and I don't know if they ever even apologized would I still invite the neighbor and friend to the same bbq and expect everything to be peachy fine without a hitch? Of course not I am not an idiot, and that would just be a rock not blowing up an entire town/country of people.

The world is not all rainbows and sunshine with no inherent cultural differences. All cultural differences do not need to be accepted by everyone. Many muslims do not accept or even tolerate Western culture... so why are Westerners so openly accepting of theirs?

Here's the other part of it. Trigger warning! this comes from a Catholic based teaching that I agree with (but the concept is in many teachings). It's about helping people. First you worry about yourself and your family(or those you consider family) If that's all good, you worry and take care of your friends/neighbors/acquaintances, if they're all good you can worry/care for your town, city, state, country etc.

But you can't expect you can fix the whole world if you can't even take care of your own family. True Catholicism is very against hypocrisy and I'm a big fan of those aspects. (Also.. unrelated..but that turn the other cheek thing came up, it is often taken out of context and is interpreted several different ways relating to tradition and laws at the time)

And this is the other half of the argument against Muslim refugees, even if you ignore the potential dangers of Islam as it applies in America. Why are Americans so willing to let 100's of thousands in and be more like the current state of Europe(as proposed and planned) when there are still homeless people? When there are still dangerous streets in Detroit, Chicago, etc. When there are so many problems at home? The excuse “because you care about people” starts to fall down.

I think you have to fix your own town/city/county before you can really worry about everyone else's problems. I have no problem with people who make the effort to emigrate on their own terms. I'm more leery of people who kind of shuffle in together in droves with no other options. They may not actually want to be in the new place, and they may not support or accept the vastly different new culture they are in, and some may even desire to overpower that culture. That's no unjustifiable fear, that's human nature and the history of the whole world. There are actual things happening in Europe, and there are Americans who do not want the same things here. There's nothing wrong with that.

And as an anecdote the Parish I grew up in only had a couple American priests,and the rest were from other countries. The one Fr. That was the coolest was Pakistani. He, like many of our priests, came to America... because of religious persecution in Pakistan by... wait for it... wait for it... Muslim Pakistanis. There is a disconnect in Western culture where we are all supposed to be free and accepting of all the different cultures. The reality of Islam is it's intolerant of other cultures. The adherence to this aspect of Islam varies person to person and country to country, but you can't deny that it's a big part of it. Why should people be forced to blindly accept people into their community who if the roles were reversed, would not? I understand and acknowledge that all religions are suspect to manipulation for political gain, but the reality is, currently there is no religion that has as much of a stronghold, or worldwide connection and consistent political feelings across the planet(And before anyone suggests it The Pope is not as credible, politically unifying of Christians or as world renowned as in past history). Of course it is not just the religion, it is the political climate but at this point you cannot pretend they are not deeply intertwined in the current state of the world. Islam is the most politicized, and politically unified of the current major religions in 2016.

Or hey maybe I'm wrong... hows the internet in Afghanistan?.. Pakistan? Where..we goin... maybe we can open an inclusive webcam studio for everybody and see how that goes... I'm sure we wouldn't run into any problems...

 

[Lili_xo]

.Or hey maybe I'm wrong... hows the internet in Afghanistan?.. Pakistan? Where..we goin... maybe we can open an inclusive webcam studio for everybody and see how that goes... I'm sure we wouldn't run into any problems...

There are not really there yet. The concept of female freedom did not register there yet.( which is ok I believe humanity it at various stages of development and some are backwards and is also ok I just don't want Europe to go backward to medieval times but it seems it is inevitable going back in that direction if the stream of backward ppl continue)

Afghanistan is bad - maybe the worst of these or one of the worst ( because Saudi Arabia is also gunning for this crown) but in Saudi Arabia at least they have more of the material goods so life is better. Then again how can I judge human suffering - seems that all these are into it.

Women get stoned for adultery in Afghanistan on public squares. Adultery can be rape or anything "someone saw somewhere".

Pakistan is a bit better.
In 2016 is the page it is currently at :
A Pakistani Islamic council :
"husband should be allowed to lightly beat wife if she defies his commands refuses to dress up as per his desires; turns down demand of intercourse"

So you can see is better - please note beating is lightly.( whatever lightly means to some is subject of interpretation too fir husband lol)
Internet am not sure but I heard connection pretty good in India and Pakistan. Some areas of Afghanistan might have a problem with it as there is no electricity but otherwise I think Internet can be done.

 

[Lili_xo]

Please note that ppl who are into all this are streaming into Europe. Please note that you cannot expect ppl to have different believes upon arriving in new destination.
Do you change yours if you go on vacation?
Yet some in Europe firmly believe that all they need to do is post this

This is good but if u have any believes u know how difficult it is to let go or even impossible in some cases
So get ready for a different kind of waking around on European streets and different concepts through all this cultural enrichment and remember : be tolerant otherwise u might be labeled phobic.
( or u can try to stop the flood choice is up to the ppl really I find it difficult to take that many seem to just sit back and allow stuff the numbers that are flowing in are huge- there is no way they will integrate)

 

[Mila_]

This will be the third part of my posts about what islam actually is so that everyone can draw their own conclusions. This is an effort I am doing to explain to the people who might be reading this thread and haven't formed an opinion on the matter yet and in a second instance I am also doing it in case some of the people defending islam on this thread are doing it because they genuinely believe islam is peaceful instead of doing it because it is fashionable. I don't blame anyone who is misinformed as the media is making quite an effort to portray islam as something it is not. And if you are going to defend islam it is better to understand exactly what it is you are defending. If you understand islam and still defend it for what it actually is instead of what you would like it to be, then all the power to you. But it is important to know the difference. If you haven't read the first 2 parts of this post you can read them here:

Part 1

I decided to take a step back from this thread a couple of days ago for personal reasons and also because I am on vacation and my noble work of subverting the youth had to be put on hold. But since @AnneDVille seemed to imply elsewhere that me, @Lunella, and all the europeans who are worried about the muslim refugees bringing a wave of terrorist attacks in our countries are nothing but vile racists, I want to take the time to explain to anyone lurking this thread why that isn't so.

Every time a terrorist attack is committed in the name of Allah we all are forced to look at the question of whether the attacker was motivated by fanaticism or by islam. If it is a problem of some extremist nut jobs or if it is an actual tenet of their religion they are carrying out.

At a first glance it is tempting to conclude that the problem is just fanaticism, that the guys who do terrorist attacks are just radicals. After all, we find it very difficult to believe that a religion that has so many followers could actually be this violent. It doesn't help the fact that we tend to interpret every other religion from the POV of our own. So, for example, when christians ask me about judaism they are incredibly interested in Moses, like he was some sort of messiah, like he was our Christ. And they also believe that the Torah is the only sacred text of ours, like the Bible for them. In the same way they understand islam through the eyes of christianity. They believe Muhammed is a christ-like figure, and the only important book is the Qu'ran. They are really surprised when they learn that it isn't so. That both judaism and islam share the fact that they are both disorganized religions with a constellation of important sacred texts and that Moses and Muhammad have nothing to do with each other or with Christ.

Similarly, christians (and people raised in countries where christianity is the dominant religion) tend to believe that all religions have similar moral values. For example, they believe that the Ten Commandments are universal, that every religion is in essence the same thing, just a different flavor. They think all religions espouse that killing is bad, stealing is bad, while being humble or peaceful, for example is good. They are very surprised to learn that other religions might have nothing to do with this.

Judaism, for example, is not a pacifist religion. Giving the other cheek is unthinkable for a jew. In a couple of instances in the Torah, God tells the jews that they must wipe amalek from the face of the Earth. Every man, woman, and child of amalek and even their beasts! God tells the jews to flatten the entire city, to not let a rock over another rock stand. This was told to the jews because the nation of Amalek was planning to exterminate the jews, it was a "pre-emptive" war, and also a war of retaliation. So even when starting a war against another nation with no reason, is bad in judaism, you don't simply give your enemy the other cheek. When you are attacked or threatened by another who wants to kill you, you fight until they die or you do. This is a very important difference in morality. For jews to retaliate with all our might to defend our people is not just seen as necessary, it is seen as good, as just, as godly. For christians giving the other cheek is. So it is important to not assume that all religions have the same values when it comes to life, death, and other important issues. Islam could be just as peaceful as christianism is, or it could not be. Maybe it is something entirely different. We have no way to know this until we learn what islam is.

Some people think that studying islam is an act of racism. They feel that by studying that religion without assuming that it is peaceful from the start must be an act of discrimination, against muslims and against their muslim friends. Furthermore they feel that anything that one could say about islam is something we apply to all muslims in the world regardless of who they are.

First things first, twenty percent of the world's population is muslim. That is 1.6 billion people. That's more than all of China's population. That is a lot of people. Obviously not all of them are terrorists. Not all of them are violent, and not all of them support, accept or even know very well what their religion is about. After all there are many christians and many jews who are those things in name only, and the same thing happens with muslims. The vast majority of them are peaceful, lead peaceful lives, and all they want is what we all want: to be safe, to have food on the table, a family that loves us.

Unfortunately, though, even when the majority of muslims are pacific, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, the Nice Truck Killer, wasn't the only muslim who thought killing would redeem him. Every day we hear news about new terrorist attacks all performed in the name of islam. Since 9/11 there have been almost 30 thousand terrorist attacks done by muslims in the name of Allah and that number grows by 4 or 5 new attacks every day. With every one of these attacks we are forced to look at the question yet again. Is this the result of muslim doctrine or is it a problem of fanaticism?

The way to do this is studying islam for what it is. Not for what we would like it to be. To study their sacred texts, their traditions, and how muslims practice their faith. Only by doing this can we find an answer to our question.

And this is why this isn't an act of discrimination: we need to learn to make a difference between an ideology and the people who practice it. Islam is obviously not a race, it is a religion, a more apt term for it would be an ideology since it also includes a political and militar dimension, and criticizing ideas is not an act of discrimination. People who feel this way invented the word "islamophobia" as if by criticizing islam you are somehow committing an act of hate speech. But thinking this way is just as silly as thinking that whomever criticizes communism is committing an act of "communistophobia". Makes no sense.

The second thing we need to keep in mind is to make a distinction between what people actually choose to do and what their ideology says. For judaism it is imperative for a parent to circumcise their male babies when they are 8 days old. It is such a central tenet that if you don't do it, supposedly, your baby will not be considered to be jewish. Do all jews agree with circumcisions? No. Do all jews give their babies circumcision? No. Many jews find that practice terrible (me included) and do not circumcise their kids. Does that make judaism a religion that doesn't practice circumcision or that frowns at the practice? No, the religion is very clear, circumcision is a tenet and always will be. Circumcision is just as jewish as braided bread and passover matzo. All that this means is that some jews choose NOT to practice this aspect of their religion.

With that in mind we could start studying islam for what it is. I will post another post later with this information as I am a bit tired of writing and want to go for a walk.

Part 2

I have been meaning to effortpost here but keep putting it off because sushi, shibuya, and kanji are taking up all my Ki. But let's get down to it.

I keep reading people on this thread saying that we cannot fault the refugees for the recent attacks on Europe's soil since many of the terrorists are EU citizens born and raised in Europe. I just want to point out that this argument only shows how deep the problem is. And I want to explain why:

The problem is not that they are refugees. If France was taking in say... refugees from Portugal, we wouldn't have a terrorism problem. So taking in refugees in itself is not the problem and we aren't blaming them because they are refugees.

The problem is not that they are Arabs. If Germany was taking in catholic Arabs from Lebanon we wouldn't have a terrorism problem. Likewise, Persians from Iran do commit terrorist attacks and Persians are caucasian, so the problem is not their race.

The problem is that they are muslim. What all these terrorists have in common, the ones that come from the Middle East with the "homegrown" terrorists in Belgium, with the Persian terrorists that blew up department stores in the UK in the 70s, to the terrorists that come from countries like Pakistan in South Asia, is that they are all muslim. They are all part of the muslim faith, and they make these attacks in the name of their religion.

So.. the purpose of this post is to explain what islam actually is so that everyone can draw their own conclusions on whether islam is at the core of this or if it is a matter of some lone wolves and lunatics. If you haven't read my other post explaining why it is important to understand islam before defending it, and why questioning islam is not an act of hatred you can read it here:

So, if we want to understand islam where do we start? The first thing we find online when we want to understand islam is what they call the "Five Pillars" (or the 5 individual mandates) of islam. These are practices that are required of every muslim.

Shahada: to recite the muslim creed which roughly translates to "There is no god but God, and Muhammad is his prophet".
Salat: to do the muslim prayer five times a day.
Zakat: most sources will translate Zakat as charity but in reality it is a tax since it isn't voluntary but an obligation of every muslim
Sawm: fasting during Ramadan between sunrise and sunset
Hajj: to do a pilgrimage (ideally annually but) at least once in their lifetime to the city of Mecca

These five pillars sound peaceful, none of them is about violence. But these duties are practical and they don't teach us a great deal about what muslims actually believe in. So if we want to understand the actual content of islamic beliefs we need to find other things to study beyond the 5 pillars.

So where do we find this information? We need to look at other sources:

1) Islam's sacred texts: luckily for us, islam is somewhat organized and has codified its beliefs in text format. This is a quality they share with the other abrahamic faiths (judaism and christianity) but unlike christianity, islam doesn't have just one sacred text. Islam has a plethora of texts that exist in tandem with the Qu'ran: they are the Sirah which is the life of Muhammad, like a biography, and the Hadiths which are the compilation of different testimonies of Muhammads closest friends, sort of like the gospels. They are all almost equally important when you are trying to understand islam.

2) What their spiritual leaders preach: the sacred texts alone are insufficient to understand the nature of a religion, because texts can be interpreted in many different ways. So in order to understand islam we also need to understand the interpretations that their leaders make of the texts. These interpretations form the islamic law which is a code of conduct that emanates from the Sirah, the Hadiths and the Qu'ran as interpreted by the most important scholars of the faith. It is also known as Sharia. Sharia rules over every aspect of muslims lives from the way in which individuals must conduct their private affairs (including things as allowed/forbidden foods, dress, etc) to the way a muslim family should relate to each other (husband and wife between them and towards their children) to the way in which a muslim collective must act, to the way a muslim State should rule over its citizens to the way a pan-arab order should enforce its laws.

3) What their believers actually do: sometimes the believers don't follow the teachings of their leaders or the words that are written on the sacred texts. So we should also study what muslim observants actually do if we want to draw the right conclusions.

I will explain each one in a future post as this is already taking way too long.

Let's begin by understanding islam's sacred texts. The first text and the most important is the Qur'an.

THE QUR'AN

It is the most important because unlike the gospels or the Bible, the Qur'an was not written by a man. For islam the Qur'an was written by God himself. It was only transmitted to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel throughout all of his life, who then dictated it to his followers who wrote the revelations down. It is an important difference because it means that the Qur'an cannot be questioned without questioning God in the process.

Since the Qur'an was written by God himself, it's content is sacred, it cannot be questioned, it is immutable and permanent and it must be accepted in it's totality by any muslim man.

When it comes to the shape and content of the Qur'an it's extension is similar to the New Testament. It is divided into 114 Suras (something similar to a chapter) and each Sura contains several Ayahs which are verses.

If you read the Qur'an all the way through you will not understand it because the ahyas are not placed in chronological order. It isn't ordered thematically either. It is compiled by the length of the Suras: the longest Suras go first.

Another thing that makes the Qur'an hard to understand for someone who is reading it for the first time is the fact that many of it's ayahs are about events in the life of Muhammad that are not directly narrated on the Qur'an. In order to understand what those parts are about you need to first know what events they refer to and in order to know that you must be familiar with the life of Muhammad. A muslim who knows the life of Muhammad in detail and a westerner who doesn't will understand two different things when they read the Qur'an.

The islamic theology divides the Suras in 2 categories: the suras that were revealed in Mecca, and the suras that were revealed in Medina. They are divided in such way because Muhammad's life had two parts: at the beginning, Muhammad lived with his followers in Mecca and they were a vulnerable minority under the rule of the polytheists. Then he had to flee Mecca to Medina and while in Medina Muhammad became the leader of an army that conquered the entire area.

While in Mecca Muhammad revealed many pacific ideas, for example, the idea that religion should be free and you cannot force another person to adopt islam.

This pacific fragment was revealed in Meca:

Say “Oh disbelievers,
I do not worship what you worship.
Nor are you worshippers of what I worship.
Nor will I be a worshipper of what you worship.
For you is your religion and for me is my religion.”
(109)

And this other pacific fragment was revealed soon after, when they had just fled Mecca and were settling in Medina:

There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion. The right course has become clear from the wrong. So whoever disbelieves in Taghut and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold with no break in it. And Allah is Hearing and Knowing.
(2:256)

But after settling in Medina, Muhammad became a truly powerful leader. He started to amass a great following, took over the city, and then started to wage a war of conquest against all its neighbors. As Muhammad became more powerful the tone of his revelations changed from peaceful to violent.

In Medina, Muhammad revealed that the infidels must be captured, sieged, and killed unless they converted and did the muslim prayers, and paid the muslim tax. He revealed that incredulity must be erradicated until the only religion left in the world was islam. He revealed Allah has enemies that must be defeated by force and you must massacre the enemies of Allah if you want access to the afterlife.

These are some of the violent fragments that were revealed in Medina:

And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
(9:5)

And fight them until there is no incredulity and until the religion, all of it, is for Allah. And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.
(8:39)

It is proper for a prophet to keep captives of war until he inflicts a massacre upon Allah 's enemies in the land. Some Muslims desire the commodities of this world, but Allah desires for you the Hereafter. And Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.
(8:67)

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - Fight them until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.
(9:29)

In short: the Qur'an orders explicitly to not impose religion by force while at the same time orders to fight against anyone who is not a muslim until they die or convert. The Qur'an teaches to respect the monotheists (those who were given the Scripture), but then it orders to to subjugate them. It teaches to tolerate the pagan and at the same time it teaches that a great massacre must be inflicted upon them.

The muslim believer then seems to be facing a contradiction that it is impossible to resolve: it is impossible to accept all of the Qur'an and apply it when two of it's parts contradict each other. In order to follow one of the parts you must disobey the other.

But if the Qur'an was written by God and it is eternal, how can it admit contradictions? Can God change his mind? If the answer is "yes" then, how do we know which one of his opinions we should follow and which one to discard? How can a muslim accept one part of the qur'an and reject another?

Facing all these contradictions in his revelations and trying to give an answer to his followers' questions, Muhammad revealed the principle of abrogation which is a part of the Qur'an and basically states that if two verses in the Qur'an contradict each other then the most recent one is the one you should follow as it supersedes the older one and "annuls" it:

We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except when We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it. Do you not know that Allah is over all things competent?
(2:106)

What this ayah indicates is that the most recent verses annul the older verses. Meaning that if you find 2 verses that contradict each other you need to find out which one was revealed first and which one was revealed later because the second one annuls the first.

Following the principle of abrogation we realize that the violent passages that were revealed in Medina annul the peaceful ones that were revealed in Mecca. Meaning: between not imposing religion by force or fighting infidels until they convert, you must do the latter.

There are many contradictory ayah within the Qur'an, it isn't only about the fight against infidels. For example, when it comes to alcohol. In Mecca Muhammad revealed that alcohol and gambling were a sin but they also had benefits and the only thing that was forbidden was to drink during prayer (2:219), but later, in Medina, the ayah regarding alcohol became stricter until Muhammad forbid drinking and gambling altogether (5:91). Today, no muslim that follows their faith considers that drinking alcohol is allowed, as the second ayah annulled the first one.

Many things were imposed by Muhammad in Medina, like the penalty of death for apostates of the religion, he increased the severity of the punishments for transgressions, for theft, for fornication, and the permitted aggressions against women. The lax and pacific ayahs were all revealed in Meca and the violent and oppressive ayahs were revealed in Medina and since those were revealed later, they abrogate the first ones.

The vast majority of muslim authorities accept the principle of abrogation as valid but they differ in how it should be applied: which ayahs abrogate others. Most consider that an ayah that is revealed later will annul any similar ayah that was revealed before it. Some think only the ayahs that contradict each other must be annulled. A minority considers that the abrogation principle is valid but ayahs can only be abrogated or sustained depending on the context. What this means is that a muslim should act according to the pacific ayahs when his circumstances are similar to those Muhammad faced in Mecca: when he is living in a society of infidels in which muslims are a minority; and that he must act like Muhammad in Medina and follow the violent ayahs when he is in a country with a muslim majority or when there is an organized islamic army like the one Muhammad had in Medina.

The case is that big chunks of the Qur'an are not about spirituality, but about the war that must be waged against the infidels, the pagans, and the unbelievers with the purpose of expanding the umma which is the "muslim world". The Qur'an establishes the ways in which these objectives must be reached through physical violence as well as other types of subjugation. The Qur'an therefore is not only a religious text, but also the text of a political ideology.

They say that when the Qur'an is recited in arab by an expert it is a beautiful song because the Qur'an is originally written in verse and no translation can properly translate the poetic sense of it. The Qur'an as a written work of literature and as a melody can be an esthetically beautiful work, but ironically this quality only makes the message of intolerance that is written all across the text that more terrible. The problem of intolerance within the Qur'an is more than just a pair of isolated ayahs that were taken out of context, because it is one of the most important themes within the Qur'an. There are over 130 violent orders explicitly written in the Qur'an that must be performed by faithful muslims against anyone who is not a muslim.

In order to understand which ayahs abrogate others it is necessary to know which one was revealed first, but since the Qur'an is not written in chronological order muslims need to use a guide to understand at which point in his life Muhammad revealed each ayah and then reach a conclusion about which one of the two is valid. This guide is the Sunnah, which is the second sacred text in islam.

THE SUNNAH

The Qur'an says that morality flows out of the life of Muhammad and that every muslim must live their life according to the life of Muhammad. This means that the life of Muhammad is not measured against any external morality standards, but it is in itself the moral standard against which the lives of every muslim should be measured. (3:32, 3:164, 33:21) Therefore the way to serve Allah is emulating the actions that Muhammad took in life.

The life of Muhammad is compiled in the Sunnah which is divided into 2 bodies of text. On the one hand we have the hadiths which are the testimonies of his closest followers, something similar to the gospels. On the other hand is the sirah which is Muhammad's biography narrated in chronological order.

When it comes to the hadiths, there were thousands of testimonies, some were very long and took several pages, others were so short they took only a couple of lines. When they tried to put them into order, islam scholars discovered that there was a good chance that the majority of those hadiths were fake. Identifying the fake hadiths and separating them from the authentic ones was quite a task. Some branches of islam accept a few testimonies as valid, other branches accept others, but there are 2 that are universally accepted as authentic and those are the hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim. They contain 7000 and 12000 testimonies each, although some testimonies are in there more than once.

What is written in these hadiths is very difficult to swallow. It is very difficult to believe that a person of such characteristics would become the prophet of more than a billion people. When someone points at how violent Muhammad was, and offers the hadiths as proof, the listener's reaction is of disbelief. The listener feels ashamed and convinces himself that there must be an error somewhere. The natural reaction is to doubt: either the texts that are being quoted are false, or the critic of islam is making it up, or at the very least he is cherry-picking the data among a sea of peaceful, generous and kind actions Muhammad must have taken in his life and which surely explain how so many people follow islam. This is how the first reaction is to convince yourself that these examples are taken out of context.

But everything I am going to quote next are recounts from the islamic tradition itself, taken from the accepted testimonies of the most faithful of Muhammad's followers, and from the writings of the most reputable scholars of islam's faith. When you study these texts carefully you come to realize that the vast majority of Muhammad's actions were violent, and it is the pacific actions that are the exceptions. When you read the Sunnah you realize that it is impossible to affirm that Muhammad was a peaceful man, or that peace is a part of his message. Muhammad's life was filled with cruel episodes.

So, when you read what comes next you do not have to take my word for it or believe me. But do not discard it without searching for evidence on your own. You can look up every single thing I am pasting here, and even read the Sunnah for yourself if you want to satisfy your doubts. You can even look up the biography of Muhammad as written by a reputable islamic scholar such as Al-Tabari, read it, and draw your own conclusions. What follows next is not in any way my opinion, it is a summary of some of the most representative actions that Muhammad took during his life as they appear in muslim texts.

Muhammad was a militar leader that unified the arabic peninsula by forceful conquest. In order to carry out a plan so ambitious he had to assault caravans, siege cities, organize expulsions, destroy temples, massacre and torture entire towns, lapidate hundreds of people, cut out tongues, hands, feet, and heads, burn those who didn't attend prayer alive, order the rape of women, approve of pedophilia, and personally practiced it when he married a 6 year old girl, and imposed an oppressive law on the entire region. By the end of his life he didn't even tolerate the presence of other monotheists as he ordered the expulsion of all jews and christians from the peninsula. Muhammad brought despair and tragedy to every group that rejected his faith and led a life much more violent that what the Qur'an itself stipulates.

Many of the islamic punishments are not written down in the Qur'an but are described in the Sunnah within the hadiths. For example, lapidation of the adulterous does not appear in the Qur'an but does appear several times in the hadiths as it was a practice Muhammad did frequently and as such it comes to be a part of islam morality: lapidating an adulterer is considered to be good and godly within islam.

All of Muhammad actions both the pacific and benevolent ones and the violent, become the moral standard within islam. And these are some of the things that the hadiths describe about Muhammad:

Narrated 'Aisha:
that the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old. Hisham said: I have been informed that 'Aisha remained with the Prophet for nine years (i.e. till his death)." what you know of the Quran (by heart)'
(Bukhari 62:64)

Narrated Anas:
The Prophet cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of 'Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.
(Bukhari 82:795)

Narrated Abdullah bin Umar:
The Jew brought to the Prophet a man and a woman from amongst them who have committed (adultery) illegal sexual intercourse. He ordered both of them to be stoned (to death), near the place of offering the funeral prayers beside the mosque.
(Bukhari 23:413)

Narrated Abu Qilaba:
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle.
(Bukhari 4:234)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud:
When the Messenger of God ordered his death, Uqba asked him, 'Who will look after my children, Muhammad?' And the Prophet said: 'Hell!'... [Uqba was] among the most evil of God's servants, the most stubborn, wicked, envious and disbelieving of men and they had been very active in satirizing Islam and its supporters. God damn them! And He did, indeed!
(Bukhari 4:241)

The cases in which Muhammad showed a violent disposition towards other people are numerous. It isn't just a couple of isolated events. The hadiths are filled with events like these. Muhammad approved the assassination of 800 men and children from the tribe of Qurayza that up until that moment had been his allies. Their men murdered an senile woman after they took her prisoner during the assault to the tribe of Banu Hazara. According to Al-Tabari they killed the old woman by tying each foot with a rope to a camel and riding the camels in opposite directions until she was split in half. Right after they gave the woman's daughter to one of the killers for him to rape her.

One could think that in the 7th Century these types of practices were not out of the ordinary and therefore we are analyzing them out of context. But even though royal punishments and torture were not unheard of, in most kingdoms it wasn't a common sight, much less a practice that was applied massively to entire towns of people. Splitting a senile woman in half using camels was in the 7th century something as brutal and cruel as today is tying the body of an enemy to a motorcycle to drag him through the streets of town. And these things happen currently, but the cruelty does not cease to amaze us.

These cruel practices are what allowed islam to expand at such velocity that in less than 30 years it went from being a small group of people fleeing from Mecca into conquering the entire arabic peninsula and converting (or killing) all of its population. Thirty years is what it took. You do not manage a feat like this without a lot of violence.

Muslim morality looks nothing like western morality. Most of the things Muhammad did and taught are in direct conflict with our way of life. But muslims cannot question Muhammad's life like a catholic can question the life of a character in the Bible, but they must take every one of his actions as perfect, infallible, desirable, and noble, even when the practices might shake them for how horrible they are. Islamic morality is above the judgement of man (2:216).

Even if a muslim finds one of Muhammad's violent practices unpalatable or painful, his duty as a muslim is to act according to it. Islamic morality is inflexible, often violent, and does not resemble the 10 Commandments. It differs completely from what we consider good and bad in the West. When a muslim leader talks about goodness or wellness, his idea of it is not the same we have.

I am going to finish her for now and leave the other 2 points (teachings/tradition and practices) for a future post.

 

[justjoinedtopost]

But it does not change the reality of the situation. That their politics and religion are deeply intertwined and differ from Western culture.

Are our politics and religion deeply intertwined? Does our culture differ from theirs?

I don't understand the constant American guilt of wars we're involved in(that most do not support), that then we should just somehow accept certain things... what? No. I'm not letting myself or anyone I like or who is like me to get blown up over some beef I didn't participate in to begin with.

If you are talking about emotions, guilt has nothing to do with it. It needs to be set aside, along with any false views we may harbor of our perceived moral superiority.

If you have no problem excusing yourself from any liability based upon your non-involvement and the withholding of your support, then surely you can extend the same privelege to the Muslims who aren't blowing things up. That, or openly embrace your hypocrisy...

I don't think it is fair to ask you, or people who are like you, to accept getting blown up.

Or hey maybe I'm wrong... hows the internet in Afghanistan?.. Pakistan? Where..we goin... maybe we can open an inclusive webcam studio for everybody and see how that goes... I'm sure we wouldn't run into any problems...

If this mess spirals too far out of control (if it hasn't already), I think opening an inclusive webcam studio for everybody is going to be the furthest thing from your mind.

This will be the third part of my posts about what islam actually is so that everyone can draw their own conclusions.... <@supermassive snip>

 

[LuckySmiles]

I thought it was obvious why I might not be planning a webcam studio in Afghanistan. (or anywhere really but hi... webcam models/islam don't exactly mix well)

I think todays events alone could demonstrate.. why that might not be a great idea.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ted-american-university-afghanistan/89255840/

Again I have no problem with people who emigrate willingly or choose to be a part of an inclusive culture. I do have concern over people who are encouraged to, that do not necessarily want to for cultural reasons.