Muslim Demographics

[kthx]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamofascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland...ns_controversy

http://bnp.org.uk/2008/07/2793/

http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/20...g-walkers.html

------

Like I said the problem with the people of this faith that immigrate in mass to a country is that they don't learn to live with that countries traditions and origins and refuse to respond to that countries beliefs. Instead they choose to protest things that that the country they are living in consider alright and ok, they protest that countries religions and try to act like their mosque is its own foreign country, not held to the same laws, rules, and social constructs of the nation that the mosque is built in. Also notice that many of these articles mention the fact that many times violence is used, the fact is that a lot of countries are terrified of upsetting the Islamic faith that live in their countries in fear of extreme retribution and retaliation due to their extremist beliefs. Nobody can argue this, there are thousands of articles similar to the ones I just posted that point to a clear and obvious fear from governments when it comes to dealing with these people.

I notice nobody wants to try to argue this.

[PH]

do you not like to laugh or something because these forums are p funny

agreed, unless you take threads like this one seriously

which is a really really bad idea

[Galaxy Turbo]

I notice nobody wants to try to argue this.

That's because there's nothing really inaccurate about what you've said. It's true that some muslims (including only few of their Imams) have an issue with adapting to some elements of western culture, including its laws and ideals.
Though honestly it can equally be argued that most muslims in the west can abide by the foreign laws that country developed and currently follows.

Not sure how I can expand on this any more.

[D1st0rt]

So when he goes "condoms are wrong, you sinful creature!" and actually claiming that condoms make the spreading of HIV and AIDS worse.
""It cannot be overcome by the distribution of condoms. On the contrary, they increase the problem"

Thumbs up for popey! So just because he is fucked up or says fucked up things, catholicism is bad or in denial?

You misinterpret his meaning. Obviously yes on a low level, case by case basis a condom will reduce the likeliness of transmission of HIV. What he was trying to get at is that condoms contribute to a societal deviation from being exclusively monogamous, which does in fact make AIDS worse than if everyone only ever had one partner.

I don't think getting rid of condoms is going to reverse that mindset at all, but I can understand where he is coming from.

[Noah]

What his meaning and intentions was doesn't help shit, he should be smart enough to understand the consequences of what he's saying.

Nuke the pope.

[Cops]

do you not like to laugh or something because these forums are p funny

It might be satisfying to bask in kthx's ignorance, but after awhile it stops being funny and it's just really stupid. Needless to say, the novelty wears off pretty quickly.

agreed, unless you take threads like this one seriously

which is a really really bad idea

The sad part is that some people are being serious, and the things that they are saying are things they believe to be true.

[Vykromond]

It might be satisfying to bask in kthx's ignorance, but after awhile it stops being funny and it's just really stupid. Needless to say, the novelty wears off pretty quickly.

i'm sorry you feel that way

[TagMor]

I think this is a problem too, if muslims are to be moving over to western society, they should abide by its laws and regulations, without interfering so much with a system that isn't theirs. There are many muslims out there doing this, living by the laws, to the point that they would pledge allegiance to the western country they are living in.

I agree many muslims appear to have adapted to western society and respect the laws and way of life. As I said however; it is difficult to discern which one's are genuinely willing to accept the western ideals, and others who are just playing lip service to avoid direct confrontation.
The Islamic texts advocate muslims to lie and act in a covert manner. The word "Taqiyya" literally means to conceal or disguise one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.

Because a particular Imam or leader speaks saying "these women were at fault for dressing this way", doesn't mean that the particular community or culture is condoning it. It is an opinion being imposed at a larger scale as the Imam has the ability to do this. I'm not saying it's right to do that, but that is what's going on and it saddens to see it. Islam still isn't at fault for it, as the Qu'ran doesn't condone rape/murder etc.

Yet the community indorsed these statements by continuing to support the Imams who said it.
With complacency to such radical comments, is it not reasonable to question whether there are significant elements within the muslim community who wish to install Islamic law? And whom are merely practising "Taqiyya" when they claim to respect western ideals?

In Pakistan Islamic groups have successfully installed Shariah law in the Malakand region, they are invading neighbouring regions, and are now rallying to have it imposed in the entire country.
Since taking control, Islamic armed militants are patrolling the areas and enforcing their laws upon the Malakand people.
The spokesman for the movement was quoted saying "[shariah] is not only for Malakand division, it is for all humanity"
This is in direct conflict with the peace treaty between the group and the Pakistani government, and a good example of practising Taqiyya.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/wo...a/17pstan.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...istan.taliban/

A quick search online and there are leaders who are removed and arrested for making such claims. "Rabih Haddad" was a leader arrested in his own home, with his organisation's assets frozen for supported terrorism.

Well there are legal issues in regard to leading an organisation that is connected to terrorist groups. The arrests had nothing to do with the muslim communities opinions or support.

[Ronn]

Ronn you are clueless, don't post anything about my country when you obviously don't know shit about it.

There's a small part of our immigrants that are illegal and have a serious criminal record, and they are the ones that are responsible for a huge number of our crimes. The legal immigrants here in Norway is the ones that are taking the jobs we are too lazy to take, and they are doing this better than we've ever did. I appreciate having them here. The main problem is that by Norwegian law we aren't allowed to expel anyone who comes from areas where they are very likely to get killed, even if they are illegal. We even harboured Mullah Krekar, a known terrorist, for years even though this was a serious security threat to out country because he would be killed if got sent back.

Shut the fuck up.

Rape stats for Oslo

72.8% of rapists in 2007 had foreign background, 63.2% in 2004, 53% in 2001.
Considering that 23.8% of population in Oslo area (where most rapes happen) have foreign background, a foreigner is 8.55 times more likely to commit a rape crime.

Men of African background have increased their "share" the most, from 10% in 2001, 19.1% in 2004 and now 30.5% in 2007. This is partly because there are more Africans in gang rapes.

73% of victims in 2007 had Norwegian background.

Are you willing to have all those rapists in your country just so you can have the non rapists do jobs your too lazy to do?

Noah I have a better understanding of your country then you do because im not the one being bombarded by your media with fairy tales of how great multicultural Noway is. The reason you never hear about the muslim rape epidemic is because your country cares more about not upsetting relations with its muslim population than about protecting its own citizens. The safety of young Norwegian women is sacraficed in order to keep the glossy image of a multicultural society intact.

[Galaxy Turbo]

The Islamic texts advocate muslims to lie and act in a covert manner. The word "Taqiyya" literally means to conceal or disguise one's beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies.

People of all religions lie, and can hide their beliefs and convictions anyway. The Qu'ran explains that Taqiyya can be used (It's optional) when muslims are under threat or persecution of sorts, again in a defensive manner. I'm open to the possibility of Taqiyya being abused by some muslims, but it still stands that it doesn't give permission for muslims to lie in every scenario. What you also have to take into consideration is those who are under attack/persecution, and those who think they are, as this is subjective also. Some will truly believe they are being attacked while others may abuse it. My main point is, it still doesn't mean the full muslim population are deceitful liars.

Yet the community indorsed these statements by continuing to support the Imams who said it.
With complacency to such radical comments, is it not reasonable to question whether there are significant elements within the muslim community who wish to install Islamic law? And whom are merely practising "Taqiyya" when they claim to respect western ideals?

Now this is the thing, I think some of these people are vulnerable to the possible misinterpretations/extremist motives of the Imams, as the Imam is actually a highly respected and trusted member of the community. I also think some of these people will no doubt disagree with the Imams as they do not condone violence, but can't do as much about it as they want to.

I think there ARE elements who wish to install Islamic law, mostly by peace and a minority by extremist means. Saying this, I don't think there is a significant enough population to warrant your generalisation that Islam itself is a violent religion.

In Pakistan Islamic groups have successfully installed Shariah law in the Malakand region, they are invading neighbouring regions, and are now rallying to have it imposed in the entire country.
Since taking control, Islamic armed militants are patrolling the areas and enforcing their laws upon the Malakand people.
The spokesman for the movement was quoted saying "[shariah] is not only for Malakand division, it is for all humanity"
This is in direct conflict with the peace treaty between the group and the Pakistani government, and a good example of practising Taqiyya.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/wo...a/17pstan.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapc...istan.taliban/

You're giving me an extremist scenario, to which I can only reply that this is extremist. We both know this to be extremist so I'm actually unsure what you're trying to prove with it other than Taqiyya could have been practiced in this situation, and even that I'm not even sure of.

Well there are legal issues in regard to leading an organisation that is connected to terrorist groups. The arrests had nothing to do with the muslim communities opinions or support.

Of course there are legal issues, but I said that Rabih Haddad AND his organisation supported terrorism. How are you so sure that muslim communities have nothing to do with the removal of such leaders? Imams keep close communication with their respective communities, and if he was inciting terrorism, it will have been the community that was aware of it first.

[Squeezer]

The New Testament has no passages calling to incite violence?

lol wat?

Did Tag forget to read Matthew 10:34

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household. He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

and of course there's this gem from Luke 14:26

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

And these are just from the Gospels (aka the shit Christ supposedly said), not even considering the later books of the New Testament that are even more explicit about what Christians should do for the non-believers. All religions have the "join us or else" exclusivity aspect to them, otherwise there'd be no reason to join and make sure their faith stays relevant.

[gran guerrero]

squeez I posted that already and he responded to it

also, do ppl realize that these religious texts were written for the times that they lived in? For the rule of law that they lived under, and the shit they had to go through.

When Mohammad told the accounts of Islam to Ali who wrote it then was hiding in a cave from persecution. So all those defensive shit and hide defense against persecution and kill the infidel is pretty much directed to the ppl that wanted to kill him.

I don't recall jesus writing anything down either, he just talked to ppl about not fearing god (which the leading religious rule of law was speaking about) and having love for one another rather than fighting (during roman times) but of course some jerkoffs takes his socratic idealism and spin it with their own views to create a dominating control of the people (the old testament first being pretty much hateful, god is jealous, kill the motherfuckers who dont believe yatta yatta yatta) later on ppl get worried about the violence this book brings so they water it down for new testament to establish more control.

It was all meant for its time, and now its being used like an old dick rag that cant be washed. I hope to god that at least the majority of my generation and the next can finally overcome these dickholes ruining our society for their own idiotic, out-dated beliefs.

[TagMor]

People of all religions lie, and can hide their beliefs and convictions anyway.

Yes but for most faiths it is not a promoted attribute.

Now this is the thing, I think some of these people are vulnerable to the possible misinterpretations/extremist motives of the Imams, as the Imam is actually a highly respected and trusted member of the community.

So you are saying the muslim community have no ability to decipher the quran and just blindly follow their leaders, however extremist their views may be?.. Oh that makes me feel alot better...

I also think some of these people will no doubt disagree with the Imams as they do not condone violence, but can't do as much about it as they want to.

The only reason that they couldnt do as much as they would like to is if the general consensus of the muslim community agreed with the Imam's statements.

I think there ARE elements who wish to install Islamic law, mostly by peace

That is a contradiction considering Islamic law which allows honour killings, rape, etc, is extremist in itself.

Saying this, I don't think there is a significant enough population to warrant your generalisation that Islam itself is a violent religion.

I think it is hard to determine. People do very strange things under the right circumstances. especially when religion is involved.
People who you consider the most understanding and peaceful of muslims could easily become fanatical extremists. This goes for anybody, not just muslims. However, due to the possible violent interpretation of the quran, along with the current political situations, muslims could be more susceptible to such extremism.

You're giving me an extremist scenario, to which I can only reply that this is extremist. We both know this to be extremist so I'm actually unsure what you're trying to prove

Pakistan is an islamic nation. 96% of it's population are muslim. What's more Pakistan has the 7th largest military force in the world.
If the "extremists" were not supported by the majority of the Pakistani population, along with the government, they could be easily removed.
Instead the government is conceding regions to this group and paving the way for them to take control of the entire country.
I guess like the muslim communities who fail to act on extremist speeches by certain Imams, the muslims in Pakistan are failing to act on them taking over their country...
Complacency or acceptance?

[gran guerrero]

Pakistan is an islamic nation. 96% of it's population are muslim. What's more Pakistan has the 7th largest military force in the world.
If the "extremists" were not supported by the majority of the Pakistani population, along with the government, they could be easily removed.
Instead the government is conceding regions to this group and paving the way for them to take control of the entire country.
I guess like the muslim communities who fail to act on extremist speeches by certain Imams, the muslims in Pakistan are failing to act on them taking over their country...
Complacency or acceptance?

Pakistan military kills 700 Taliban Militants in offensive

well...

[TagMor]

Well that is a step in the right direction, and a step away from conceding regions to these muslim extremists.
It is most likely due to heavy international outrage over the treaty. Nobody, apart from extremists, wants to see a nuclear armed nation in the hands of these people.
It still doesnt explain why the Pakistan government were so quick to hand over Malakand however.