ADVERTISEMENT

It's weird to me....

Source: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat by Dr. Peter Hammond

As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:

United States — Muslim 0.6%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%

Canada — Muslim 1.9%

China — Muslim 1.8%

Italy — Muslim 1.5%

Norway — Muslim 1.8%

At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:

Denmark — Muslim 2%

Germany — Muslim 3.7%

United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%

Spain — Muslim 4%

Thailand — Muslim 4.6%

From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:

France — Muslim 8%

Philippines — 5%

Sweden — Muslim 5%

Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%

The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%

Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%

At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.

When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris, we are already seeing car burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:

Guyana — Muslim 10%

India — Muslim 13.4%

Israel — Muslim 16%

Kenya — Muslim 10%

Russia — Muslim 15%

After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:

Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%

At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:

Bosnia — Muslim 40%

Chad — Muslim 53.1%

Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%

From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:

Albania — Muslim 70%

Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%

Qatar — Muslim 77.5%

Sudan — Muslim 70%

After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some state-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:

Bangladesh — Muslim 83%

Egypt — Muslim 90%

Gaza — Muslim 98.7%

Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%

Iran — Muslim 98%

Iraq — Muslim 97%

Jordan — Muslim 92%

Morocco — Muslim 98.7%

Pakistan — Muslim 97%

Palestine — Muslim 99%

Syria — Muslim 90%

Tajikistan — Muslim 90%

Turkey — Muslim 99.8%

United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%

100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:

Afghanistan — Muslim 100%

Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%

Somalia — Muslim 100%

Yemen — Muslim 100%

Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
 
Our only hope right now is disengagement from combat in Muslim countries and do all we can to minimize the religious warrior types from doing a bunch of damage. Maybe I'm being naive, but I'm a firm believer they've stepped up their attacks because of our own attacks against their countries.

So, would you be in favor of leaving Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan to sort out their own issues? Completely withdrawing all military presence from those 3 countries?

Thoughts on what happens to ISIS if we opt for that strategy?

Al Qaeda? The Taliban?

What do we do about Iran?
 
@Medic007

Agree with all you posted.

Now we circle back to this...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...will-surpass-christians-this-century-pew-says

And we end up with...the whole issue is FUBAR, and there are no easy answers. There is no reason to believe that they will be discovered during our lifetime either.
I will also add that it's time to withdraw our support of the Wahabbist Sunni states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and UAE and show favoritism to secular regimes, even if they have shitty dictators. We can't keep rewarding the Wahabbists that directly support jihad against us all in the name of keeping the Iranians in check. The Iranians aren't the ones blowing up children in Manchester.
 
What do we do about Iran?
Yes to all of the other stuff. ISIS poses a threat to us because of us. Let the Arab states deal with them as they see fit. Let's spend all of that money building up our defensive capabilities, including hardening of our infrastructure, and let the ones who support or don't support the terrorists to work it out. I don't really give a shit if they are bombing Baghdad. That's not our problem. The continued issue with our engagement is that they will gladly let us spend our money and people defending them while they can throw their hands up and point the finger at us.

I'm not sure this board is ready for Medic's take on Iran. It is nothing anyone will consider mainstream or likely even logical.
 
Let's hear it. I am finding out that you and I agree on much more than I realized.
 
If I could take liberty to use a football analogy @Been Jammin ...

What we're literally doing is the same thing it would be if after scoring a few touchdowns, Gundy asks Kansas to stop trying to score. Then after asking Kansas to stop trying to score, Gundy piles on more touchdowns while continuing his demand that Kansas not try to scores. As the score approaches 100-0, it's only logical that Kansas is going to say F you and do everything in their power to put points on the board, even if it's only 3. We have to stop scoring touchdowns before we can expect anyone to take us seriously when we ask them to stop scoring touchdowns.

That's my get out of Muslim countries thoughts in a nutshell, or just a very dumb analogy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Been Jammin
giphy.gif
This is pretty close to how I picture you...
 
Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses promoting violence?

The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.

Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out the many that call for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable stress on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"(Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.]

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').
Lot of words ITT....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
You may be correct. It doesn't help that we've been directly engaged in combat with one Muslim country or another for literally 26 years if we don't include using them in our proxy wars with Russia. If we include those we're literally at about 35 years provided we also don't include our support of Israel, which many view as our own form of jihad against them. That puts us at a long time in conflict with Muslim countries. It's crazy that people in our country don't see how we directly encourage jihad against us as we casually bomb and kill Muslims for "our cause." They really don't give a shit what we say because our history of killing them to advance our interests says all they need to hear to feel justified in killing us in defense of their holy book and their religion.

Our only hope right now is disengagement from combat in Muslim countries and do all we can to minimize the religious warrior types from doing a bunch of damage. Maybe I'm being naive, but I'm a firm believer they've stepped up their attacks because of our own attacks against their countries.
Damn bro... Good stuff!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
We should differentiate between radicalized terrorists and non such muslims for sure, but I think it may be time to differentiate between muslims who have no desire to assimilate culturally with the west from those who do.

A recent survey of British Muslims has some famously disturbing results. You can find tons of sources for it by googling muslim poll. I'll take the liberty of highlighting the more horrifying statistics in red. More and more, it seems like the religion is just pretty terrible when compared to any other mainstream ideology. Institutionalized misogyny and homophobia, sympathies to jihadists.... not good stuff.

The survey’s findings include:

34% would inform the police if they thought somebody they knew was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria

Q: If you thought that someone who is close to you was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria, would you report it to the police?


4% sympathise with people who take part in suicide bombings

Q: Please tell me tell me whether you sympathise or condemn people who take part in suicide bombing to fight injustice

Net sympathise: 4% (completely sympathise: 1%, sympathise to some extent: 3%)



4% sympathise with people who commit terrorist actions as a form of political protest.

Q: To what extent do you sympathise or condemn with people who commit terrorist acts as a form of political protest?

Net sympathise: 4% (completely sympathise: 0.5: sympathise to some extent: 3.5%)



52% do not believe that homosexuality should be legal in Britain

Q: To what extent you agree or disagree with each one: homosexuality should be legal in Britain?

Net agree 18% (strongly agree 8%, tend to agree 10%)

Net disagree: 52% (strongly disagree: 38%, tend to disagree: 14%)



47% do not believe that it is acceptable for a school teacher to be homosexual

Q: To what extent do you agree or disagree that it is acceptable for a homosexual person to be a teacher in a school?

Net disagree: 47% (strongly disagree: 35%, tend to disagree: 12%)



23% support the introduction of Sharia Law.

Q: To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose there being areas of Britain in which Sharia law is introduced instead of British law?

Net support: 23% (strongly support: 7%, tend to support: 17%)



32% refuse to condemn those who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet

Q: Please tell me whether you sympathise or condemn people who take part in violence against those who mock the Prophet

Net sympathise: 18% (completely sympathise: 9%, sympathise to some extent: 9%, neither symathise or condemn: 14%)



39% agree that “wives should always obey their husbands”.

Q: To what extent you agree or disagree that wives should always obey their husbands?

Net agree: 39% (strongly agree: 15%, tend to agree: 24%)



66% completely condemn those people who take part in stoning those who commit adultery.

Q: Please tell me whether you sympathise or condemn people who take part in stoning those who commit adultery.

Net condemn: 79%. (completely condemn: 66%, condemn to some extent: 13%)

Net sympathise: 5% (completely sympathise: 2%, tend to sympathise: 3%)



31% think it's acceptable for a man to have more than one wife

Q: To what extent you agree or disagree [that] it is acceptable for a British Muslim to keep more than one wife?

Net agree: 31% (strongly agree: 14%, tend to agree: 16%)



More positive findings include:

• A large majority of British Muslims feel a strong sense of belonging to their local area (91%). This is higher than the national average (76%)

• A large majority of British Muslims feel a strong sense of belonging to Britain (86%). This is higher than the national average (83%)

• A large majority of British Muslims feel that they are able to practice their religion freely in Britain (94%)

British Muslims are more likely than the rest of the population to feel that they can influence decisions affecting Britain (33% vs 21%)

• British Muslims are more likely than the rest of the population to feel that their local MP reflects their views (44% vs 41%)

• 88% of British Muslims think that Britain is a good place for Muslims to live

• 78% of British Muslims would like to integrate into British life on most things apart from Islamic schooling and some laws
In summary... Religion really ****s up humans.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
Seems simple to me. The first family is showing respect to religions of peace and love and not to religions of women hating and murdering.

The decision to cover or not cover her head isn't what is weird to me. It's the fact that there was so much commentary from both sides regarding a hijab, and not a peep from anyone the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
The decision to cover or not cover her head isn't what is weird to me. It's the fact that there was so much commentary from both sides regarding a hijab, and not a peep from anyone the other way around.
Probably not too many outraged muslims on this board. Besides @Medic007.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Medic007
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT