Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

This article answers a couple of your recent posts including the fact that democracy and Islam are not, nor will ever be compatible!

https://www.quora.com/Is-democracy-incompatible-with-Islam

I'd argue that Islam doesn't need a reformation because there's no priestly class to rebel against. Since no Muslim is in a position to tell another Muslim what to believe the Qur'an is open to interpretation. The universal Islamic sharia was introduced by the Ottomans to better rule that empire. It's not an inherent part of Islam. Islam, just like every other religion, has traditions because of random stuff in history.

I think the person who wrote that Quora article doesn't know what they're talking about.

Islam and sharia are inseparable. I believe it's you who knows Jack Schitt about the subject, or you're simply ignoring the unpalatable.

Sure. But you're not really saying anything. You might as well be saying that the Bible and interpretations of the Bible are inseperable. Ok, fine. So what? In Islam the Quran is "God's immutable law". But it's written in verse and uses plenty of vague language. Because of this there came a tradition of interpretting the Quran, the Sharia. Or many traditions... since there's a shit tonne of Sharias aka ways to interpret the Quran.

Add to that, the tradition of jurisprudence. Where earlier judgements by prevalent muftis is used as precedents, on topics not covered by the Quran at all.

That's why, in Iran adulterers are stoned to death, even though that's the exact opposite of what the Quran says. In the Quran only unrepentent adulters should be stoned to death. Repentent adulterers should be left the fuck alone. That's a huge fucking difference.

And there's nothing in Islam to stop any Muslim from coming up with their own Sharia. Well... I say nothing. There's nothing in Islamic theology to stop them. But you might get stopped by Muslims, who for unislamic reasons have opinions of lots of stuff the Quran tells them not to. But that's because they are cunts. Not because they are Muslim. The Quran goes on and on about that only God can judge. Muslims shouldn't be passing judgment on eachother. That's what the "God is Great" is all about.

Near modern Islam is pretty much a result of the pragmatic needs of the Ottoman empire. Rather than the Quran itself. Just like Christianity is mostly the result of the pragmatic needs of the Roman empire. Modern Islam is to a large extent the result of attempts by the ruled colonists to gain indipendence. I suggest reading up on Sayyid Qutb. He's had a huge influence on modern Islam. But he's fairly modern, and that is all modern ideas.

Which is another way of saying that Islam, just like all other religions, change over time.

 

[DrZoidberg]

8% of Muslims in the US find suicide bombings acceptable. That's a quarter million Muslims.

Suicide bombings violate one of the ten commandments. The Muslims who do it and support the general practice has to belong to an awfully perverted and twisted version of Islam. Not saying they aren't real Muslims/Scotsmen. Each to their own. But the idea that 8% of American Muslims support it is dumb. 8% of American Muslims obviously aren't "fundamentalist" extremists. That would be absurd.

There's many ways that question can be phrased to bump up the number. Self sacrifice for a greater cause is big in Islam. They have a huge focus on martyrdom. So if the suicide bombing question is phrased in a way that you give your life to protect other people a lot of them would say yes, in spite of it violating a commandment. It's all in the phrasing.

Or it might be phrased as "can suicide bombings ever be justified". Obviously yes. We can (Muslims and non-Muslims) all think of a corner case where it can be justified.

The reason the Palestinians are so happy about it in Israel is because it's very very cheap. And it effectively kills the investigation into the terror cell, because the perpetrator is dead. It's got very little to do with Islam, and more to do with pragmatic issues of warfare. ISIS do it because they're evil cunts, rather than Muslims. Almost all Muslims hate them.

Recip Erdogan, the would be ruler of an islamic caliphate has stated that : " Islam is one, there's no moderated or extreme islam, Islam is one!" Are you contradicting the leader of an almost already theocracy?

Yes, because it's not up to him to decide. Also... bollocks. Erdogan is a pure populist. He'll say anything if it'll give him more power. Urban Turkey is a highly secularized country. A couple of weeks ago I spent a week with a Turkish girl in Istanbul. Her family has been proudly atheist for generations. Apart from some popular islamic psalms to sing along to, she knew absolutely nothing about Islam. Her friends were all the same. Around her friends we might as well have been in Sweden.

The highly religious in Turkey are the uneducated factory workers or peasants in the country. They're ignorant morons who know nothing about anything. That's Erdogan's support base. They have no idea what they are supporting.

Erdogan is only using religion to get a stronger grip on power. The fact that he's a member of the ruling elite means that he's part of a wholly secular part of Turkish society. These people despise Islam. That's always been a source of tension in post-Ottoman Turkish society. It's a class society. Anybody rich is secular and an atheist. Anybody poor is religious. If you want to rise in Turkish society and make something of yourself, you need to drop your religous trappings. Or you won't be accepted into the finer rooms.

That's why Erdogan's religious rhetoric is so worrying. He's trying to outmaneuver the old elite, and make himself the undisputed dictator. Islam has nothing to do with why he's saying these things. He's showing the old elite that he's now in sole control.

Two weeks ago (after the election) he started dolling out the lucratice minister posts to his close friends and allies. Turkey is now a kleptocracy going down the toilet. His powergrab has nothing to do with religion.

You are letting yourself be fooled by his rhetoric. It's dangerous, and won't make the world a better place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

8% of Muslims in the US find suicide bombings acceptable. That's a quarter million Muslims.

Suicide bombings violate one of the ten commandments. The Muslims who do it and support the general practice has to belong to an awfully perverted and twisted version of Islam. Not saying they aren't real Muslims/Scotsmen. Each to their own. But the idea that 8% of American Muslims support it is dumb. 8% of American Muslims obviously aren't "fundamentalist" extremists. That would be absurd.

Calling it absurd doesn't make it go away.

There's many ways that question can be phrased to bump up the number. Self sacrifice for a greater cause is big in Islam. They have a huge focus on martyrdom. So if the suicide bombing question is phrased in a way that you give your life to protect other people a lot of them would say yes, in spite of it violating a commandment. It's all in the phrasing.

Is there some reason to think it's distorted??

Or it might be phrased as "can suicide bombings ever be justified". Obviously yes. We can (Muslims and non-Muslims) all think of a corner case where it can be justified.

That can possibly explain 7% (But even then I have my doubts, "rarely" is a lot wider than corner cases in my book.) The remaining 1% (Still over 30,000 Muslims) that think it can often be justified.

The reason the Palestinians are so happy about it in Israel is because it's very very cheap. And it effectively kills the investigation into the terror cell, because the perpetrator is dead. It's got very little to do with Islam, and more to do with pragmatic issues of warfare. ISIS do it because they're evil cunts, rather than Muslims. Almost all Muslims hate them.

The pragmatic issues are the same for both groups. Why should we conclude one does it because they're evil cunts but the other doesn't?

 

[bilby]

Recip Erdogan, the would be ruler of an islamic caliphate has stated that : " Islam is one, there's no moderated or extreme islam, Islam is one!" Are you contradicting the leader of an almost already theocracy?

Yes, because it's not up to him to decide. Also... bollocks. Erdogan is a pure populist. He'll say anything if it'll give him more power. Urban Turkey is a highly secularized country. A couple of weeks ago I spent a week with a Turkish girl in Istanbul. Her family has been proudly atheist for generations. Apart from some popular islamic psalms to sing along to, she knew absolutely nothing about Islam. Her friends were all the same. Around her friends we might as well have been in Sweden.

The highly religious in Turkey are the uneducated factory workers or peasants in the country. They're ignorant morons who know nothing about anything. That's Erdogan's support base. They have no idea what they are supporting.

Erdogan is only using religion to get a stronger grip on power. The fact that he's a member of the ruling elite means that he's part of a wholly secular part of Turkish society. These people despise Islam. That's always been a source of tension in post-Ottoman Turkish society. It's a class society. Anybody rich is secular and an atheist. Anybody poor is religious. If you want to rise in Turkish society and make something of yourself, you need to drop your religous trappings. Or you won't be accepted into the finer rooms.

That's why Erdogan's religious rhetoric is so worrying. He's trying to outmaneuver the old elite, and make himself the undisputed dictator. Islam has nothing to do with why he's saying these things. He's showing the old elite that he's now in sole control.

Two weeks ago (after the election) he started dolling out the lucratice minister posts to his close friends and allies. Turkey is now a kleptocracy going down the toilet. His powergrab has nothing to do with religion.

You are letting yourself be fooled by his rhetoric. It's dangerous, and won't make the world a better place.

^This.

And it's universal. It has nothing to do with any particular religion, or any particular region; As nations develop, they separate into educated secularists and ignorant theists. If they get the chance to develop far enough, then even the ignorant drop most of their religion, as we see in Scandinavia.

Try this:

The highly religious in the USA are the uneducated factory workers, or peasants in the country. They're ignorant morons who know nothing about anything. That's Trump's support base. They have no idea what they are supporting.

Trump is only using religion to get a stronger grip on power. The fact that he's a member of the ruling elite means that he's part of a largely secular part of American society. These people despise rednecks. That's always been a source of tension in post-Revolutionary American society. It's a class society.

America is now a kleptocracy going down the toilet. His powergrab has nothing to do with religion.

You are letting yourself be fooled by his rhetoric. It's dangerous, and won't make the world a better place.

It's not a perfect parallel; But it's certainly close enough to make it crazy to consider Islamic countries as somehow fundamentally different from Christian ones.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's not a perfect parallel; But it's certainly close enough to make it crazy to consider Islamic countries as somehow fundamentally different from Christian ones.

I know Iran is similar. The educated elites are highly secular. Which causes a lot of friction, since the political (and religious) elite are completely dependent on these secularists to run the country. It's a source of a lot of tension.

 

[angelo]

Islam and sharia are inseparable. I believe it's you who knows Jack Schitt about the subject, or you're simply ignoring the unpalatable.

Sure. But you're not really saying anything. You might as well be saying that the Bible and interpretations of the Bible are inseperable. Ok, fine. So what? In Islam the Quran is "God's immutable law". But it's written in verse and uses plenty of vague language. Because of this there came a tradition of interpretting the Quran, the Sharia. Or many traditions... since there's a shit tonne of Sharias aka ways to interpret the Quran.

Add to that, the tradition of jurisprudence. Where earlier judgements by prevalent muftis is used as precedents, on topics not covered by the Quran at all.

That's why, in Iran adulterers are stoned to death, even though that's the exact opposite of what the Quran says. In the Quran only unrepentent adulters should be stoned to death. Repentent adulterers should be left the fuck alone. That's a huge fucking difference.

And there's nothing in Islam to stop any Muslim from coming up with their own Sharia. Well... I say nothing. There's nothing in Islamic theology to stop them. But you might get stopped by Muslims, who for unislamic reasons have opinions of lots of stuff the Quran tells them not to. But that's because they are cunts. Not because they are Muslim. The Quran goes on and on about that only God can judge. Muslims shouldn't be passing judgment on eachother. That's what the "God is Great" is all about.

Near modern Islam is pretty much a result of the pragmatic needs of the Ottoman empire. Rather than the Quran itself. Just like Christianity is mostly the result of the pragmatic needs of the Roman empire. Modern Islam is to a large extent the result of attempts by the ruled colonists to gain indipendence. I suggest reading up on Sayyid Qutb. He's had a huge influence on modern Islam. But he's fairly modern, and that is all modern ideas.

Which is another way of saying that Islam, just like all other religions, change over time.

So if an adulterer for whatever reason doesn't repent, as far as you're concerned it's fine to stone them to death? Especially if female?

 

[angelo]

Some good news for a change. The sensible free speech loving people have spoken.

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/...what-they-tried-to-do-was-mentally-destroy-me

 

[angelo]

Recip Erdogan, the would be ruler of an islamic caliphate has stated that : " Islam is one, there's no moderated or extreme islam, Islam is one!" Are you contradicting the leader of an almost already theocracy?

Yes, because it's not up to him to decide. Also... bollocks. Erdogan is a pure populist. He'll say anything if it'll give him more power. Urban Turkey is a highly secularized country. A couple of weeks ago I spent a week with a Turkish girl in Istanbul. Her family has been proudly atheist for generations. Apart from some popular islamic psalms to sing along to, she knew absolutely nothing about Islam. Her friends were all the same. Around her friends we might as well have been in Sweden.

The highly religious in Turkey are the uneducated factory workers or peasants in the country. They're ignorant morons who know nothing about anything. That's Erdogan's support base. They have no idea what they are supporting.

Erdogan is only using religion to get a stronger grip on power. The fact that he's a member of the ruling elite means that he's part of a wholly secular part of Turkish society. These people despise Islam. That's always been a source of tension in post-Ottoman Turkish society. It's a class society. Anybody rich is secular and an atheist. Anybody poor is religious. If you want to rise in Turkish society and make something of yourself, you need to drop your religous trappings. Or you won't be accepted into the finer rooms.

That's why Erdogan's religious rhetoric is so worrying. He's trying to outmaneuver the old elite, and make himself the undisputed dictator. Islam has nothing to do with why he's saying these things. He's showing the old elite that he's now in sole control.

Two weeks ago (after the election) he started dolling out the lucratice minister posts to his close friends and allies. Turkey is now a kleptocracy going down the toilet. His powergrab has nothing to do with religion.

You are letting yourself be fooled by his rhetoric. It's dangerous, and won't make the world a better place.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...gradually-taking-over/?utm_term=.5d5d8e9ee450

 

[angelo]

And then there's this! A little harder to sweep under the table
[video]https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/video-uk-mep-janice-atkinson-on-the-migrant-crime-statistics-the-eu-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about[/video]

 

[DrZoidberg]

Islam and sharia are inseparable. I believe it's you who knows Jack Schitt about the subject, or you're simply ignoring the unpalatable.

Sure. But you're not really saying anything. You might as well be saying that the Bible and interpretations of the Bible are inseperable. Ok, fine. So what? In Islam the Quran is "God's immutable law". But it's written in verse and uses plenty of vague language. Because of this there came a tradition of interpretting the Quran, the Sharia. Or many traditions... since there's a shit tonne of Sharias aka ways to interpret the Quran.

Add to that, the tradition of jurisprudence. Where earlier judgements by prevalent muftis is used as precedents, on topics not covered by the Quran at all.

That's why, in Iran adulterers are stoned to death, even though that's the exact opposite of what the Quran says. In the Quran only unrepentent adulters should be stoned to death. Repentent adulterers should be left the fuck alone. That's a huge fucking difference.

And there's nothing in Islam to stop any Muslim from coming up with their own Sharia. Well... I say nothing. There's nothing in Islamic theology to stop them. But you might get stopped by Muslims, who for unislamic reasons have opinions of lots of stuff the Quran tells them not to. But that's because they are cunts. Not because they are Muslim. The Quran goes on and on about that only God can judge. Muslims shouldn't be passing judgment on eachother. That's what the "God is Great" is all about.

Near modern Islam is pretty much a result of the pragmatic needs of the Ottoman empire. Rather than the Quran itself. Just like Christianity is mostly the result of the pragmatic needs of the Roman empire. Modern Islam is to a large extent the result of attempts by the ruled colonists to gain indipendence. I suggest reading up on Sayyid Qutb. He's had a huge influence on modern Islam. But he's fairly modern, and that is all modern ideas.

Which is another way of saying that Islam, just like all other religions, change over time.

So if an adulterer for whatever reason doesn't repent, as far as you're concerned it's fine to stone them to death? Especially if female?

I'm curious as to why you think that was what I said?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And then there's this! A little harder to sweep under the table
[video]https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/video-uk-mep-janice-atkinson-on-the-migrant-crime-statistics-the-eu-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about[/video]

Not too credible:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...right-european-parliament-group-10323414.html

 

[Trausti]

So apparently this is what happens when the German Chancellor pushes to repopulate the whole of Europe with anti-Semites.

‘They Spit When I Walked in the Street’: The ‘New Anti-Semitism’ in France

 

[Derec]

Both UN and EU and worse than useless - they are actively harmful.
Italian boat returning migrants to Libya may have broken law, UN agency says
It shouldn't be illegal to return these boat people to where they came from. UN and EU can then help then return home so that they are not stuck in Libya, but there should be no obligation to give them an all expense paid perpetual vacation in Europe, which is what existing policy of taking all these 100,000s of boat migrants to Europe, giving them benefots, and never deporting any significant numbers of them, is amounting to.

 

[Trausti]

Both UN and EU and worse than useless - they are actively harmful.
Italian boat returning migrants to Libya may have broken law, UN agency says
It shouldn't be illegal to return these boat people to where they came from. UN and EU can then help then return home so that they are not stuck in Libya, but there should be no obligation to give them an all expense paid perpetual vacation in Europe, which is what existing policy of taking all these 100,000s of boat migrants to Europe, giving them benefots, and never deporting any significant numbers of them, is amounting to.

The good news is that Italy finally has a leader who puts Italy's interest above that of the shitty UN and EU.

 

[Jayjay]

Both UN and EU and worse than useless - they are actively harmful.
Italian boat returning migrants to Libya may have broken law, UN agency says
It shouldn't be illegal to return these boat people to where they came from. UN and EU can then help then return home so that they are not stuck in Libya, but there should be no obligation to give them an all expense paid perpetual vacation in Europe, which is what existing policy of taking all these 100,000s of boat migrants to Europe, giving them benefots, and never deporting any significant numbers of them, is amounting to.

These "boat people" were not returned where they came from originally, they were returned to Libya. And since they never left Libyan waters they technically never even departed the country. The rescua ships created the problem by allowing themselves to be used by smugglers, and the best they can do is try to coordinate with Libyan coast guard to mitigate the issue by establishing that people rescued from Libyan waters are always returned to Libya.

If a boat gets out of Libyan to Italian waters, I suppose then they would have to be picked up as well, but even then they could be returned to Tunisia or some other North-African port.

 

[angelo]

And then there's this! A little harder to sweep under the table
[video]https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/video-uk-mep-janice-atkinson-on-the-migrant-crime-statistics-the-eu-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about[/video]

Not too credible:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...right-european-parliament-group-10323414.html

It's all a matter of opinion. Besides there's nothing wrong with free speech and democracy. Millions have died defending it.

 

[Jokodo]

And then there's this! A little harder to sweep under the table
[video]https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/08/video-uk-mep-janice-atkinson-on-the-migrant-crime-statistics-the-eu-doesnt-want-you-to-know-about[/video]

Not too credible:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...right-european-parliament-group-10323414.html

It's all a matter of opinion. Besides there's nothing wrong with free speech and democracy. Millions have died defending it.

Free speech does not and never did mean "you can't call out my bullshit for what it is".

 

[Derec]

These "boat people" were not returned where they came from originally, they were returned to Libya.

Ok, let me paraphrase. Return them from where they set off for their boat journey. IOM can help them get home from Libya.
What EU definitely should not be doing is aiding and abetting smugglers by bringing mass boat migrants to European shores.

And since they never left Libyan waters they technically never even departed the country.

So why should they be given a free trip to Europe then?

The rescua ships created the problem by allowing themselves to be used by smugglers, and the best they can do is try to coordinate with Libyan coast guard to mitigate the issue by establishing that people rescued from Libyan waters are always returned to Libya.

Exactly

If a boat gets out of Libyan to Italian waters, I suppose then they would have to be picked up as well, but even then they could be returned to Tunisia or some other North-African port.

Those rickety boats could never make to Italian waters. They are only designed to go out a few miles to be picked up by one of the NGO smuggling (aka "rescue") boats.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If a boat gets out of Libyan to Italian waters, I suppose then they would have to be picked up as well, but even then they could be returned to Tunisia or some other North-African port.

Those rickety boats could never make to Italian waters. They are only designed to go out a few miles to be picked up by one of the NGO smuggling (aka "rescue") boats.

I play my "that's a dumb conspiracy theory" card.

Most boats that get into trouble sink, killing everybody. Since the smuggling is illicit, there's no reliable numbers. We can only count the number of corpses washing up on shores. It's quite a lot. The odds of surviving one of these sinking boats isn't great.

https://qz.com/1331069/the-death-rate-for-migrants-crossing-the-mediterranean-is-skyrocketing/

If the plan all along is to be picked up by NGO's it's the worst plan ever. There's not nearly enough NGO boats to police the whole coast. They rely on volonteers stationed all along the coast with regular binoculars, to report to the ships. The NGO's are badly coordinated, and the stations are mostly manned by green noobs. If the weather isn't perfect, it's tough titties, for the drowning migrants. I know a friend who volonteered doing this. So I know how it works.

The NGO's don't cooperate with the people smugglers. I have another friend who owns one of those boats. He's a Swedish billionaire with more money than sense. He's a libertarian against national borders. He's doing this idealogical reasons. He's just against keeping them out. And he's got a huge yacht that he only uses part of the year. So he just reasons that it's good use of the boat when he's not using it. That's the kind of boats involved in this. They're rarely rescue vessels.

But he also doesn't want to go to jail. Cooperating with the smugglers (who he has no love for) would be wildly illegal. He'd be breaking a shit tonne of laws. He has a lawyer to tell him what he's allowed to do. So they don't.

The reason so many of these boats sink is just because of greed. The boat owners aren't any more educated than the migrants they're smuggling. They take loans from maffia to buy these boats and they're very well motivated to pay the loans off. The boat sinking would be a disaster for them. Even if they get rescued, it's still a disaster for them. It's nothing they want, and obviously nothing they plan for.

 

[TSwizzle]

Boris has possibly committed a thought crime, investigation ensues;

Boris Johnson will be investigated by the Tory Party over his controversial comments comparing women in burqas to letterboxes, it was today revealed. The ex Foreign Secretary sparked a storm of controversy and was condemned by many party colleagues after making the comments, but has refused to apologise. The row has raged for four days with many Tory Remainers using it to stick the knife into Mr Johnson - a leading Brexiteer - and say he is not fit for office. Tory sources said the investigation was triggered automatically after they received a string of complaints about his words, which critics say risk fuelling hate crime.

DailyMail

Of course a lot of this will be fueled by politics and his enemies within the Tory party but the hand wringing from certain circles is heartfelt.