Creeping Sharia: The Islamisation of the West

Post Reply New Topic

You are putting words in my mouth, anybody that reads my posts would know that. I do not support US foreign policy, I've wrote on this site about everything you spoke of there extensively.

Meanwhile in Iraq, ISIS has executed 250 women for refusing to submit to slavery:

http://www.ibtimes.com/isis-executes-le ... ul-2357113

I'm just saying it happens, history has not in fact ended, humans are still humans. People like me have been warning for years about what mass immigration will do to a country. Mass immigration leads to segregation, segregation leads to resentment and eventually secession. Bosnia was kept in check by a relatively strong West, what happens do you think if the genocide starts in the West? In France or Germany or America? Who's going to keep the peace? No one will. Putin is itching to depopulate his muslim trouble spots, The Chinese are rather hostile to Muslims and engage in demographic replacement colonisation themselves - they aren't going to say a word. If this all kicks off, and Bosnia realises no one is watching anymore - it won't stay multi-religious for very long.

This is new think, there are many, many contradictions. For one Jesus behaved like a pacifist. "turn the other cheek" for example.

When Mohamed had a camel intestine placed on his back whilst praying, although he didn't react he asked god for the most vile retribution. Jesus taught to love and forgive the enemy. Aslo even with the god of the Old Testament, these sort of prayers are considered sinful, as they amount of to asking for Judgment which is forbidden under Judaeo-Christian teaching. It sometimes referred to as a mortal sin. You are not supposed to pray for stuff like that.

Please show me where Jesus either practiced or condoned slavery.

I'm sorry but the Quran tackles Christianity as a revisionist after thought, it is much more Old Testament in ideology. Whilst there are different version of the there New Testament. The Quran conveniently after the fact, completely changes that narrative, and claims it as the ultimate truth. Yet there are glaring geographic and historic inaccuracies.

It is obviously an interpretation of the resurrection that someone hearing of the story in the passing might make. There isn't any 1st century reference to what Muslims believe, so they are essentially say they know better even though they were int a position to.

I never defended the Old Testament. I think much of the Bible and Quran is pure bile. But there is a clear differnce between the Gospels and Quran or Old Testament.

You also didn't answer the question of why it was OK for Mohamed to practice slavery.?

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 24 Apr 2016, 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

We are actually living a much less violent world than in the past.

Aslo that doesn't excuse the terrorists behaviour.

The problems in the middle east stem from 13 centuries of sectarian conflict and difficulty getting along with each other. You are ignoring that and focusing on once century which in reality you can't divide the two things, becuase much of the paranoia and inter-generational neurosis is the same behaviour just transferred to a new enemy, and the the old enemies still exist.

Sectarian tension have to exist to be stirred up. Blaming all the problem is Iraq and Syria on the Palestinian-Isreali conflict would be pretty stupid. They have a lot of difficulty getting along, and they have needed dictators to force a degree of unity, and still to this day they can't work it out or get it together. Having a scapegoat it convenient but won't solve anything.

You only have to ask Boo, these are deeply tribal regions. These tribes foster various degree of paranoia about each other. There are deeply bigoted. There is a great french Syrian writer and illustrator who has just written a book about growing up in that environment.

You need to get you fact straight about the Arab-Israeli war. At the very start the Palestinian territory was the same as Israel. It was like a Battenberg cake with no one side controlling the center. Both has equal access to the med and the east. The Palestinian territory was bigger than Lebanon with less people in it (and less diversity). There was Palestinians living freely in Israel. This is a great situation the Palestinians would love to have again, but they blew it.

Given that they never governed themselves, not under the British, Ottomans, Fatmids, Byzantines, Romans. They totally blew the opportunity of a lifetime over sectarianism.

Then the Arab nations attacked Israel. So before you talk of how Israel attacked Arab nations you need to get the order of things right. In pretty much every case there was was an attack on Israel. From Egypt to Syria to Iraq to Lebanon (I do disagree with the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which they should have not stood by). Where there wasn't a direct attack there was a treat of an attack. Also the amount of direct and intervention Israel has done in Arab nations is pretty limited. It is surprisingly little.

Only after this attack were groups/villages asked to leave Israel. You can argue whether that action was correct or not, but that is the case. I don't agree with the settlement policy, however it is undeniable that things got worse in Gaza after the settlements withdrew. Never does a good deed go unpunished. However they are the ones that are suffering and they are quite a large part to blame. Gaza is a much worse place than the West Bank.

You mention that the Palestinian territory is now smaller, well if you keep doing same thing, getting it wrong every time, and not learning anything, you have only yourself to blame.

This isn't about having enough land though, it is not as if there is not enough land for the displaced. If we are absolutely honest it is about control of the holy cities and which religion is better. That is what is what it is really about.

The Arab nations deliberately keep the refuges in limbo for decades, rather than integrating them, in order to maintain a status. They treat them appealingly for the most part. They don't even have to be there.

They could end it now, if they weren't so sectarian. I include the Isrealis too.

I think that question goes beyond the scope of this thread.

It was okay for Mohammed to own slaves for the same reason it was okay for Jesus to say "wives obey your husbands, and slaves obey your masters".

And it was okay for the same reason it was okay for Christopher Columbus, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson, to "practice slavery".

Obviously.


In the Seventh Century AD every aristocrat in every civilization along the entire length of the Eurasian landmass (Western Europe to China inclusive) owned slaves. And most common people were slaves.

So why would Mohammed be any different than any other aristocrat of his time? Or any different from America's founding fathers a thousand years after his time?

After the collapse of the Eurasian slave based classical civilizations (like Greece and Rome and Han China) some Middle Ages civilizations moved from slavery to other systems(Hindu India to the Caste System, and Feudal Japan, and Feudal Western Europe to serfdom). But both the caste system and serfdom are just slavery-lite.

And then at the end of the Middle Ages Columbus' discovery of America sparked the European run transatlantic slave trade between Africa and the New World that dwarfed the Arab slave trade by several orders of magnitude.

That was Paul who said that, in a letter that he probably didn't actually write.

The point should be obvious.

We should point out that raping nine year old girls (Aisha) is evil. So is murdering tribes that disagree with you (the Jewish Banu Qurayza tribe, nearly a thousand men Muhammad had massacred). So is murdering those that mock you (Asma bint Marwan amongst other poets). As is capturing and raping slave women and girls. As is murdering those that try to leave your 'faith' (the Ridda wars).

The entire Quran and hadith survives or falls on Muhammad. If you think Muhammad was an ideal man, who is worth following, then you will support Islam.

Allah was Muhammad and Muhammad was Allah. The entire thing is basically Muhammad claiming his will is the will of Allah. Muslims are really revering Muhammad instead of Allah - the whole 'religion' is a cult of Muhammad.

Personally, I find Islam to be a deeply unpleasant, supremacist, misogynist and racist religion, particularly in the Deobandi/Salafi/Wahhabi strain that dominates today. The world would be a lot better without Islam. We in the West have largely shaken off much of the negative influence of Christianity in Western society. It's not brilliant, but it's getting there. Non-minorities are becoming more secular and less religious with time. It's the minorities that are becoming more religious.

Reminds me much of radical islamists.

I can feel this is total bs, and I won't watch this video.

So your problem isn't with radical Islam, but Islam itself. Well, thanks for being honest at least.

Regarding the accusations you level against Muhammad, if you do a bit of research you'll quickly find that the charges of murder are greatly exaggerated. The Qurayza people were allies of Muhammad who committed treason and were found guilty in a lawful trial. The execution of Qurayza combatants does not satisfy even the most liberal definition of the word "murder." Asma bint Marwan was a dangerous revolutionary who called for violence against Muhammad.

Some Islamic sources claim that. That's why Jews are called "treaty breakers" and "enemies of Allah", even in the modern day. As far as I can find, there is no evidence that the Banu Qurayza were treasonous.

The severity of Muhammad's actions, regardless, are very extreme.



BS. He had the entire tribe beheaded.

Muhammad also chose the person overseen to carry out the trial and executions.



I've read a bit about this online. It seems many Muslims think that the Ibn Ishaq quote was fabricated or something. I remember reading that Douglas Murray asked a Muslim about this on a radio programme and he totally hit the roof when it was brought up. Asma was no threat to Muhammad - her tribe was not about to attack Muhammad, and her told Muhammad this. The real problem with Asma is that she spoke out against Muhammad - she was no "dangerous revolutionary". She made him look a murdering scumbag, which is what he was. Muhammad wanted to silence his critics, much like jihadists do today (Charlie Hebdo, for example). Free speech (whether it be by words or cartoons) threatens Islam, and the image of Muhammad. They're defending a long-dead man. It would be like me revering a particularly highly-regarded king from hundreds of years ago, and murdering in his name.

As for the Palestinians (I can't be bothered to look up the thread from before): their biggest enemies are not the Israelis, but themselves and other Arabs. I say themselves because both Palestinian factions seem not to know the meaning of the words 'human rights', or deliberately seem to ignore it. We're talking about imprisoning, killing or wounding journalists, arresting people for mocking the leader on Facebook, forcing women to be veiled, making it illegal to sell land to Jews wanting to live in the Jewish heartland (on pain of death), murdering people that call for reform, forcibly preventing social events between Palestinians and Israelis (because they promote 'normalisation', something that the extremist Palestinian factions can't stand), driving away Christians by making it difficult for them to live freely (Bethlehem was once majority Christian; most of the Christians have fled), vandalising non-Muslim religious sites, forcing civilians to put themselves and their children's lives in danger by making them stand in front of military targets (Hamas), the list goes on and on.

As for the other Arabs. The way other Arabs treat Palestinians is appalling - denying them basic human rights, refusing to let them live and work in their countries, not giving them citizenship, using them as just another means to attack Israel. From what I've read of other Arabs, they're pretty sick of the Palestinians. The Jordanian king must be bloody furious with them at the moment, given what they have done in regard to the CCTV camera fiasco at the Temple Mount.

I don't like Islam, that's true. I don't much care for Christianity or Judaism all that much either. I'm an atheist. I respect people's right to practise a religion (as long as that doesn't mean inciting violence or hatred towards other people, so no calling for gay people, Jews or apostates to be killed, like what often occurs at some mosques in England), but I also respect people's right to leave a religion too. Basically, I believe in secular democracy. We have moved away in Britain from religion having privilege, and our country is mostly secular these days. I think living in the American Bible Belt would be a major pain in the ass, but fundamentalist Christians, as obnoxious as they frequently are, are not violent.

A group of people can be indigenous to an area of land, but it's meaningless to say an area of land is indigenous to a group of people. And what you said above is not what you originally said anyway. What you originally said was "I'm British, and I support Israel's right to live as an indigenous people on our own land." The clumsiness of your words matches the clumsiness of your thoughts when it comes to this issue.



I assume by descendants you really mean "ancestors". And again, that's not what you originally said. What you originally said was "I myself may not be indigenous, but I've been in the land for a very long time."

Where would you say your ancestral homeland is, out of interest?

Lol 'racist' huh? Did your Zionist websites tell you that?

No, Tequila. Judaism is the racially supremacist religion. Islam is an ideologically supremacist yet racially universalist version of Judaism. But since your Zionist websites don't explain this to you I suppose it's too much to expect you to figure this out for yourself.

Growing up with younger Muslims almost my entire life, I can safely say that it seems like a lot of the younger generation of Muslims is becoming much more jaded with religion, and many of my Muslim friends have become fairly apathetic to it.

I'm a bisexual, and I have only had around as many homophobic episodes with Muslims as with Christians, non with Jews or any eastern religions though.

Although I would say I'm sceptical of organized religion in general

I shall say, it's you who should do your research, objectively.

Islam is a very violent religion, its prophet killed, beheaded surrendered fighters, captured women like cattle, forced them to marriage...

And he was totally undemocratic, he killed non-harmful poets just because they spoke against his policy or religion.

If you are against ISIS' actions yet you justify Mohammad's actions in his campaigns, then you are in deep denial, Barchan.

Last edited by The_Face_of_Boo on 26 Apr 2016, 4:33 am, edited 2 times in total.