• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

England headed for A Caliphate

What we call Islamicists are Muslims who believe their loyalty is to a future caliphate, not the country they live in, There is a p[rt of Islam that is fundamentally incompatible with western liberal democracy and separation of church and state.
What we call Catholics are Christians who believe their loyalty is to the Vatican and the Pope, not the country they live in, There is a p[rt of Christianity that is fundamentally incompatible with western liberal democracy and separation of church and state.

^ Yeah, it's obviously fear-induced abject nonsense, with perhaps a teeny grain of truth buried in it somewhere, just to make it more terrifying. Changing the names does nothing to change the reality, but it does make more obvious that it is utter drivel.
 
I think in the past France tried to accommodate Muslims. Funded Muslim clerics and schools. And thy endd up regretting it. There was little assimilation and Muslims ended up in what amounts to ghettos. Nothing recent there have been riots.







What we call Islamicists are Muslims who believe their loyalty is to a future caliphate, not the country they live in, There is a p[rt of Islam that is fundamentally incompatible with western liberal democracy and separation of church and state.

Back in the 90s I think a Muslim continuity in Chicago wanted to govern themselves by sharia laws.

I take that to be a small minority of American Muslims. I once heard a Muse say Muslims. in the USA are freer to practice Islam than in Muslim countries.
Why are you copy pasting AI slop?
 
As to whether Muslims in England are "doing any of that", yes, they are. The rape gangs all over Britain are violence against whole communities; and a UK Muslim assassinated the opposition even though he was a Muslim*, a UK Muslim assassinated a politician*, and a UK Muslim tried to assassinate another politician* and severely wounded him. Were Jews in Palestine doing any of that by the time their numbers had grown to 6%?
You are missing my main point.

Are the rape gangs being condoned and supported by the government? No. That is the major difference between England and Israel.
 
steve_bank said:
What we call Islamicists are Muslims who believe their loyalty is to a future caliphate, not the country they live in, There is a p[rt of Islam that is fundamentally incompatible with western liberal democracy and separation of church and state.
What we call Catholics are Christians who believe their loyalty is to the Vatican and the Pope, not the country they live in, There is a p[rt of Christianity that is fundamentally incompatible with western liberal democracy and separation of church and state.

^ Yeah, it's obviously fear-induced abject nonsense, with perhaps a teeny grain of truth buried in it somewhere, just to make it more terrifying. Changing the names does nothing to change the reality, but it does make more obvious that it is utter drivel.
:picardfacepalm:
"Catholics" are a sect of Christianity. "Islamicists" are not a sect of Islam. For your attempted analogy to fit what Steve wrote, he would have to have written:

*"What we call Sunnis are Muslims who believe their loyalty is to a future caliphate, not the country they live in"​

or perhaps

*"What we call Shiites are Muslims who believe their loyalty is to a future caliphate, not the country they live in"​

But he didn't write that. Your guilt-by-association argument is idiotic.
 
You are missing my main point.

Are the rape gangs being condoned and supported by the government? No. That is the major difference between England and Israel.
In the first place, yes, the UK government condoned the rape gangs with all the energy of a church hierarchy condoning child-molesting priests. And in the second place, telling us about a major difference between England and Israel cannot possibly have been your main point when you started this subthread:

Muslims are not in the West to assimilate ... They are in the west to take over. They are literally broadcasting it.
Like the Jews in Palestine.
 
Muslims are not in the West to assimilate
They are in the west to take over. They are literally broadcasting it.
Like the Jews in Palestine.
"Palestine" is the Graeco-Roman colonial name for the land of Israel.
It is not Jews that are the settler-colonialists who "came to take over", but the Arabs. Why else would they adopt a foreign colonial name for themselves instead of having a native one? Especially one that has a sound ("p") that does not even exist in their language.

While there was a lot of Jewish immigration back into Israel from late 19th century into the 20th century and the British Mandate, there also was a lot of Arab migration there in the same time period. That's why even UNRWA only requires a two year residency to consider Arabs living there and all their descendants "Palestinian refugees" in perpetuity.
 
Last edited:
"Palestine" is the Graeco-Roman colonial name for the land of Israel.
It is not Jews that are the settler-colonialists who "came to take over", but the Arabs. Why else would they adopt a foreign colonial name for themselves instead of having a native one? Especially one that has a sound ("p") that does not even exist in their language.
The word "Palestine" comes from the word "Philistine". The Graeco-Roman rulers named the region after what the people they found there were called by the Egyptians. (What they called themselves is unrecorded, but the Egyptian name may perfectly well have been taken from their own name.) Of course the Philistines pretty much lived in what's now the Gaza strip; the name Palestine originally referred to that area and gradually came to be used for more and more territory, much the way "Africa" originally meant Tunisia and "Asia" originally meant Turkey.

This probably doesn't make a difference to your argument, though, because the Philistines themselves were an earlier wave of European colonialists -- a tribe of the infamous "Sea People" -- and were not significant genetic ancestors of the modern Palestinian population.

(ETA: There's a popular etymological hypothesis to the effect that "Palestine" is a literal translation into Greek of the Hebrew word "Israel", which originally meant "wrestle". But this is generally dismissed by experts as chance resemblance.)
 
Last edited:
Why are you copy pasting AI slop?
It summarizes what I believe to be true.

We had a singular problem here in the USA. Saudi state Wahabi funded Muslim schools over here taught an anti America anti west ideology. As it was taught in Saudi Arabia. Muslim Arab monarchies were and are particularly duplicitous.

AI Overview
Saudi Arabia's official state Islam—historically an austere form of Salafism (often called Wahhabism)—is not inherently anti-American, but it has a complex history with elements of anti-Western sentiment. The Saudi government has maintained a decades-long strategic, military, and economic alliance with the United States, while radical fringe groups and conservative clerics have at times promoted anti-American ideologies.

As I said in Islam there is an element that is fundamentally incompatible with western liberal democracy. That has been my view for a long time.

There was a Muslim liberal reform movent in the 17th or 18th century but it got squashed. There are Muslims today who want to reform Islam, get rid of he outdated extems of sharia law,

A Muslim fatwa is in parta religious potion paper. Any imam, can write one and it not enforceable. I read one from Canada and one from the USA. The USA fatwa declared allegiance to a global caliphate. The Canadiann fatwa said the opposite, one can be a citizen of the county you live in.

The Brits defeated the Ottoman Emigre ending the Ca,liphate. It left a regional power vacuum. It led to partitioning and the Arab Jewish civil war in Palestine.When Ilslamicists say caliphate it refers to a restoration. Allegiance to a Muslim Caliphate is literal.


A caliphate is a political and religious state ruled by a leader called a caliph, which means "successor" in Arabic. The caliph is viewed as the political and spiritual successor to the Prophet Muhammad, leading the entire Muslim community.



Not hard to see. Diaspora Jews for 2000 years dreamed of restoring the old Jewish state of Israel, and they are doing it.

There is a centuries old context to Muslim issues in the west today. Part of it is past colonialism.

AI Overview
Britain played a major role in defeating and dismantling the Ottoman Empire during World War I through military campaigns in the Middle East and partitioning agreements. However, the final legal end came when Turkish nationalists under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk defeated Allied occupation and abolished the Ottoman Sultanate in 1922.
AI Overview
The Ottoman Caliphate was the political and religious claim of the Ottoman dynasty to lead the Islamic world, starting officially after Sultan Selim I conquered Egypt in 1517 and ending on March 3, 1924, when it was abolished by Turkey's Grand National Assembly. It bridged three continents at its peak, served as a major Sunni Islamic institution, and concluded with Abdülmecid II as the final caliph.

The Iran Saudi conflict is in large part over claims of who are the true Muslim successors gong back to Mohamed

Iran clerics view themselves as the true inheritors and reject the Arab monarchies as true Muslims.

I am not an expert, I have an overview. A lot of mving parts leading to Muslim issue today in the west.
 
"Catholics" are a sect of Christianity. "Islamicists" are not a sect of Islam.
Are you sure of that?
:consternation2: Aren't you? Which part are you not sure of?

If you're referring to the widespread contention among fundamentalist Protestants that Catholics aren't really Christian, I put as much weight on that as on their contention that the world is 6000 years old.
 
:consternation2: Aren't you? Which part are you not sure of?

If you're referring to the widespread contention among fundamentalist Protestants that Catholics aren't really Christian, I put as much weight on that as on their contention that the world is 6000 years old.
Is that the sole criterion for what constitutes a sect? I didn’t even know that Catholics aren’t Christian according to some non-Catholic avowed Christians.
Afaics it’s all of a piece. Lots of ritual throughout, lots of dubious interpretations of dubious versions of “scripture”, lots of exclusionary stuff around all of the sects/cults.
In any event, the amount of “weight” you assign to beliefs of the Christian-ness of various sects claiming to be Christians, is probably not one of the factors often considered by avowed Christians while deciding who is or is not a member of the club to which they belong.

Or … is it? I’m here to learn. :)
I kinda dumped the whole institutional god thing at an early age, and maybe that led to the ignorance for which I am paying today.
 
Over two hundred pages? Yeah, sure. :rolleyes:
"Were Britain functioning effectively, these girls would have received
considerable state protection. However, every one of our institutions failed them
catastrophically. Police forces ignored repeated reports, criminalised victims
instead of perpetrators, destroyed evidence, and allowed known rapists to walk
free on bail. Social care services undermined protective parents, placed children
in trafficking hubs inside children’s homes, closed cases despite clear indicators
of exploitation, and retaliated against whistleblowers. The NHS recorded genital
injuries, multiple sexually transmitted infections in children as young as 13,
pregnancies caused by rape, and suicide attempts, yet discharged victims back to
their abusers without safeguarding referrals or trauma care. Schools observed
older men collecting girls at the gates, heard disclosures of rape on school
premises, and responded by excluding victims rather than protecting them. Taxi
licensing authorities renewed permits for drivers who formed the logistical
backbone of the networks and collapsed in the face of organised protests when
basic safety measures were proposed.

Political failure lies at the heart of the scandal. Successive governments lacked
the will to confront the ethnic and religious patterns. The Labour Party bears
particular responsibility. It initially refused a public inquiry and only relented
under pressure by ordering a process viewed with widespread scepticism.
Labour-dominated councils and MPs were briefed on the gangs long ago yet
later denied knowledge. The party prioritised electoral reliance on Muslim
voting blocs and then blocked or watered down inquiries, suppressed ethnicity
data, and framed legitimate concerns as ‘far-right’ agitation. When finally forced
to act, the Labour government produced a national inquiry whose tightly drawn
terms of reference deliberately excluded systematic examination of the
demographic, cultural, and religious drivers. The Conservative Party, while in
government, continued with Labour’s approach and failed to impose mandatory
ethnicity recording or launch a full statutory inquiry despite clear evidence from
Rotherham and elsewhere. Scottish political parties have refused a dedicated
inquiry and failed to record offender ethnicity. Political correctness, fear of
accusations of racism, and fear of losing electoral support from certain
demographics have taken precedence over the protection of British children.
Whistleblowers, parents, and survivors who came forward showed extraordinary
courage, despite having been met in the past with disbelief and intimidation.

The perpetrators operated with impunity because the state enabled them. "

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...781615537601/The+Rape+Gang+Inquiry+Report.pdf
 
But it’s called the Rape Gang Inquiry Report. It’s all there!!!
You appear to be picking a fight with me.

Jimmy Higgins said:
For 5% of the population, they sure do a lot of raping ...

Three man jailed for raping woman on Brighton beach
Umm... not seeing the math here. But happy for you, that you could take an isolated brutal crime and try to score points for your agenda.

They are bad at math. That’s why they think vaccines are more dangerous than diseases. They apply the same logic and attention to exaggerated risk to any color they don’t like.

They’re eating the pets. They’re all rapists and murderers. Apparently the progressive secular Muslims are all faking it. Or their being progressive and secular is just as bad as being a right wing Islamist.
That's a series of strawmen. You are deliberately misrepresenting your opponents in general and Derec in particular, most likely because you know perfectly well if you try to refute what he and they actually say you have no case.
 
"Catholics" are a sect of Christianity. "Islamicists" are not a sect of Islam.
Are you sure of that?
:consternation2: Aren't you? Which part are you not sure of?
The second part.
If you're referring to the widespread contention among fundamentalist Protestants that Catholics aren't really Christian, I put as much weight on that as on their contention that the world is 6000 years old.
I am not referring to that. I agree with you that it is a rather stupid contention on the part of those Protestants.

Islamicism is a set of beliefs that form a subset of Islam, just as Catholicism is a set of beliefs that form a subset of Christianity. To claim that Islamicism is not a sect of Islam seems to me to require an unjustifiably narrow definition of the word 'sect', or a pedantic objection to the use of the singular.

To be pedantic, Islamicism is an umbrella term for a number of sects of Islam that share a particular point of doctrine, even though they may disagree considerably about others; As such, Islamicism is more analogous with Protestantism, than with Catholicism, but my choice of Catholicism as an example was made for rhetorical reasons.

My purpose (which your nitpick overlooked) was to hold a mirror up to the bigotry inherent in @steve_bank's post, rather than to conform to a pedantic level of detail over what is meant by "sect". His implication that Muslims are to be feared (because they are probably Islamicists, and hence beholden to non-US ideals) is wrong, just as an earlier generation's belief that Catholics were to be feared was wrong, and for the same reasons.

Some US Catholics might put the Pope and the Vatican ahead of the US Government and America; And Some US Muslims might put Islam and Iran (or Saudi Arabia, or some other foreign nation) ahead of the US Government and America.

But to suggest that doing so is mandatory and/or universal (or is even a majority position) for either Catholics or Muslims in the USA is absurd bigotry - And I believe that Steve understands this in regards to Catholics. So I mirrored his claim about Muslims to highlight that point.

I was not making an absurd guilt-by-association argument; Rather, I was being deliberately absurd, as a way of pointing out by analogy that Steve's guilt-by-association argument was also absurd.
 
Last edited:
Umm... not seeing the math here. But happy for you, that you could take an isolated brutal crime and try to score points for your agenda.
I expect "two hundred pages" doesn't seem like as substantive an objection to you as it does to some others, but just in case, here's math...

"The scale of the crimes committed is staggering. It has been previously
established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected
to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic
conversion, and lifelong trauma. The true number is probably higher. The
perpetrators bear primary responsibility, yet the institutional failures that
enabled them for decades must also be confronted. In court records and official
inquiries, around 87% of those convicted in these group-based child sexual
exploitation (‘CSE’) cases bore distinctively Muslim names. The vast majority of
men involved in these gangs were not convicted. Dr. Taj Hargey, an imam with
the Oxford Islamic Congregation, believes the true proportion of gang members
who are Muslims to be around 95%.
...
Girls as young as 11 were initially befriended by a young Muslim man who then treated
the young child like an adult and would then start providing them with alcohol,
drugs, and cigarettes. After a few months the girls would then be collected from
school gates, care homes, and streets in taxis. They were taken to houses, flats,
restaurants, and hotels where they were raped repeatedly by groups of men,
tortured, filmed for blackmail, and told they were “white trash” or “kuffar” who
merited punishment. Many became pregnant while still children. Some
miscarried under trauma, others endured coerced abortions, and some gave
birth to children who were later removed by the state. We found that the same
unspeakable crimes occurred in at least 149 local authority districts – close to
40% of all such districts across the United Kingdom (see page 14 for our full
map). Survivors described daily rapes, “red rooms” of extreme torture,
trafficking between cities, and institutional disbelief that compounded their
suffering. Some girls were even trafficked to the Middle East where they would
endure Islamic marriage.
...
The 250,000 figure originates directly from a statement in the House of Lords by
Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 14 May, 2019
...
This extrapolation now has greater support due to further data that has been
collected, derived from scaling the patterns documented in major inquiries:
● Rotherham (Jay Report, 2014): At least 1,400 girls abused between 1997
and 2013, with some updated estimates exceeding this. Perpetrators were
overwhelmingly Pakistani Muslim men.
● Telford Inquiry (2022): More than 1,000 children (predominantly girls)
over decades, again with the same perpetrator profile.
...
Every major review has emphasised that recorded statistics severely understate
reality: ..."
 
Back
Top Bottom