Mainstream Islam Is The Antithesis Of Western Liberal Values (BY THE NUMBERS)

Who's more "Muslim" ? Saudi Arabian Muslims or North American Muslims?

I'm protecting the Muslims I know who love Allah and don't want to hurt anyone

What about Muslims who 'love' Allah and want to hurt people? Are they Muslim?

I'm protecting the Muslims who are unfairly lumped in with people from ultra-conservative, violent, hateful cultures

Cultures like in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan? Aren't they Muslims?

I'm protecting Muslims who are raising their daughters to be doctors and lawyers and engineers.

And what country do those Muslims live in? Are you protecting the same Doctors who perform amputations, FGM and Lawyers who practice Sharia law?

I'm protecting Muslims who have never raped a woman in their entire life, and who wouldn't hesitate to condemn ANY man who raped a woman (and believe me, there are plenty of non-Muslim males who have raped plenty of women).

Were any of those non-Muslim rapists doing it for Islam or because of a lack of cultural condemnation?

What I derived from your post is that Muslims in your world are not equal to Muslims in an actual Muslim nation. Let me ask, is ISIS Islamic? If no then why not? If yes, then are Westernized watered down Muslims Islamic? There's a paradox going on here I don't think many apologists recognize. They seem to think that just because there are friendly Muslims here in N.America and elsewhere, Islam must therefore be "friendly" and anyone else who commits violence in the name of Islam is not a Muslim. Am I wrong? Is this what you believe?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

We could also talk about:

The dark side of being male
The dark side of owning guns
The dark side of America
The dark side of Trump supporters

But I'd be willing to bet in all those examples, the people within them would say "the vast majority of males aren't violent rapists", or " the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people", or "the vast majority of Americans aren't arrogant assholes", or "vast majority of Trump supporters aren't racists/xenophobes/bigots/sexists", and yet, it seems to be wrong to state that the vast majority of Muslims who follow Islam aren't wanting to hurt anyone.

I denounce violence. I denounce prejudice. I denounce inequality. In all its forms.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

We could also talk about:

The dark side of being male
The dark side of owning guns
The dark side of America
The dark side of Trump supporters

But we're not talking about that stuff here. Feel free to make a thread though.

it seems to be wrong to state that the vast majority of Muslims who follow Islam aren't wanting to hurt anyone.

Here the issue is how "liberals" often tend to go nuts if anybody even criticizes the DARK SIDE of Islam. In this very thread you labelled me a bigot for it, even though I framed it around this very concept.

I denounce violence. I denounce prejudice. I denounce inequality. In all its forms.

So then, you denounce Sharia Law / Mainstream Global Islam?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Take one hour out of your life and ask the women you know if they've ever been raped.

You've got to be joking.

Not to mention, any Muslim who rapes someone is doing it in spite of what the Qur'an teaches

False. Quran:

Verse 4:24 Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.

Verses 23:1-6

Successful indeed are the believers, who are humble in their prayers and who keep aloof from what is vain and who are givers of poor-rate and who guard their private parts, except before their mates or those whom their right hands possess, for they surely are not blamable.

For the record, the Qur'an doesn't have stoning to death.

For the record, the Hadiths speak of stoning:

Narrated Ash-Sha'bi: from 'Ali when the latter stoned a lady to death on a Friday. 'Ali said, "I have stoned her according to the tradition of Allah's Apostle."

Narrated Ibn 'Umar: A Jew and a Jewess were brought to Allah's Apostle on a charge of committing an illegal sexual intercourse. The Prophet asked them. "What is the legal punishment (for this sin) in your Book (Torah)?" They replied, "Our priests have innovated the punishment of blackening the faces with charcoal and Tajbiya." 'Abdullah bin Salam said, "O Allah's Apostle, tell them to bring the Torah." The Torah was brought, and then one of the Jews put his hand over the Divine Verse of the Rajam (stoning to death) and started reading what preceded and what followed it. On that, Ibn Salam said to the Jew, "Lift up your hand." Behold! The Divine Verse of the Rajam was under his hand. So Allah's Apostle ordered that the two (sinners) be stoned to death, and so they were stoned. Ibn 'Umar added: So both of them were stoned at the Balat and I saw the Jew sheltering the Jewess. Sahih Bukhari 8:82:809, See also: Sahih Bukhari 6:60:79, and Sahih Bukhari 4:56:829

Speaking of the divine verse of the Rajam...

Quran:

'The fornicators among the married men (ash-shaikh) and married women (ash-shaikhah), stone them as an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty and Wise.'[9]

Lies lies lies

originally posted by: introvert
Sure. Can you provide the statistical data that proves your graphic that 77% of rapes in Sweden are caused by 2% of Muslim men? The source you used cites an anonymous source.

a reply to: introvert

I had to fiddle around a bit to figure out what I was looking for (as I cant read Swedish), but:

Here's another blog with the same repost or whatever, with embeded hyperlinks:
themuslimissue.wordpress.com...

After publishing this article we have had Muslims and the extreme socialist left argue that the numbers are distorted and fabricated. All figures in this report originates from BRÅ, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brottsförebyggande rådet – Brå). BRÅ is an agency under the Ministry of Justice and is a centre for research and development within the judicial system. There are no distortions or fabrications in this data. There are links to the original graphs and data from BRÅ for any reference checks.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So then, you denounce Sharia Law / Mainstream Global Islam?

Exactly. There's that damn paradox again.

a reply to: kaylaluv

The agenda isn't just about the soldiers not ragging on the locals there (as if they need a manual to know that), the wider agenda from the looks of it is not to criticize even radical islam (there or here). More from the article:

New Army Manual Orders Soldiers Not To Criticize Taliban
...
...
Earlier this year the Obama Administration changed the way federal agents are trained to combat terrorism and violent extremism by eliminating all materials that shed a negative light on Muslims. Under White House orders, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) destroyed instructional material that characterizes Muslims as prone to violence or terrorism in a government-wide call to end Islamophobia.

Under Obama practically every major federal agency has been ordered to participate in Muslim outreach initiatives, including the Justice Department with a special program to protect Islamic civil rights, Homeland Security meetings with extremist Muslim organizations and the nation’s space agency (NASA) with an unprecedented mission to focus on Muslim diplomacy.

Additionally, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed a special order to allow the reentry of two radical Islamic academics whose terrorist ties long banned them from the U.S. and the administration sent an America-bashing mosque leader (Feisal Abdul Rauf) who blames U.S. foreign policy for the 9/11 attacks on a Middle Eastern outreach mission. The Obama Administration even ordered a government-funded meal program for home-bound seniors to offer halal cuisine prepared according to Islamic law.

Can you break down for everyone why Obama wont say the phrase "Radical Islam"?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Where are the current statistics?

The Swedish government is no longer collecting sensitive statistics from nationality and crime in the governments deliberate intent of social engineering. Therefore, only figures from 1985-1989 and 1995-2001 are covered for comparison. The current rape statistics are likely much higher today, like in similar proven cases in Norway. These crimes mainly refer to Muslim migrants from Muslim dominated countries who are extremely over-represented in the 77.6% rapes committed by foreigners.

Can you point out the most important aspects of that little tidbit?

Okay, since the word "Islam" is apparently too sensitive for them to hear, can we use this term (to describe the dark side crazies):

Islamofascism
Islamic fascism (first described in 1933), also known (since 1990) as Islamofascism,[1][2] draws analogy between the ideological characteristics of specific Islamist movements and a broad range of European fascist movements of the early 20th century, neofascist movements, or totalitarianism.

The earliest known use of the contiguous term Islamic Fascism dates to 1933 when Akhtar Ḥusayn Rā’ēpūrī, in an attack on Muḥammad Iqbāl, defined attempts to secure the independence of Pakistan as a form of Islamic fascism.[4] In 1978, Maxime Rodinson, a distinguished Marxist scholar of Islam, responded to French avant-garde enthusiasm for Khomeini's revolution in a three part article in Le Monde, by arguing that, in response to successive assaults by Crusaders, Mongols, Turks and Western imperialism, Islamic countries had come to feel embattled, and the impoverished masses had come to think of their elites, linked to foreigners, as devoid of traditional piety. Both nationalism and socialism imported from the West were recast in religious terms, in a process of political Islamicization which would be devoid of the progressive side of nationalism and revert to what he called "a type of archaic fascism" characterized by policing the state to enforce a totalitarian moral and social order.[5]

The earliest example of the term Islamofascism itself, according to William Safire,[6] occurs in an article penned by the Scottish scholar and writer Malise Ruthven writing in 1990. Ruthven used it to refer to the way in which traditional Arab dictatorships used religious appeals in order to stay in power.[7][8] Malise Ruthven, Construing Islam as a Language, The Independent 8 September1990. "Nevertheless there is what might be called a political problem affecting the Muslim world. In contrast to the heirs of some other non-Western traditions, including Hinduism, Shintoism and Buddhism, Islamic societies seem to have found it particularly hard to institutionalise divergences politically: authoritarian government, not to say Islamo-fascism, is the rule rather than the exception from Morocco to Pakistan."[9] Ruthven doubts that he himself coined the term, stating that the attribution to him is probably due to the fact that internet search engines don't go back beyond 1990.[10]

originally posted by: introvert
The Swedish government is no longer collecting sensitive statistics from nationality and crime in the governments deliberate intent of social engineering. Therefore, only figures from 1985-1989 and 1995-2001 are covered for comparison. The current rape statistics are likely much higher today, like in similar proven cases in Norway. These crimes mainly refer to Muslim migrants from Muslim dominated countries who are extremely over-represented in the 77.6% rapes committed by foreigners.

Can you point out the most important aspects of that little tidbit?

Yes: SOCIAL ENGINEERING. (i.e. liberal 'dont do that it'll hurt their feelings' agenda)

I don't understand why anyone thinks you can't criticize anything. I think what you really mean is that you can't criticize all things without people disagreeing with you. Ironic.

What is Islam? Islam is the word for the whole of the religion of Muslims. Just like Christianity is the word for the whole of the religion of Christians. These are the umbrella words. There's many sects of both. Most believe in secular law and democracy for governance, some believe in secular law for the public but live their lives according to religious law and some believe in theocracy. This is true of several faiths.

Also true of every faith is that each has it's monsters who defile and pervert it. It seems silly to define groups of people by monsters. I don't see why we should define Islam by jihadists when we don't define Christianity by The Army of God.

Similarly we have quite a few sects of Christianity right here in the good old USA, that advocate for Christian law to become our legal system should we label all of Christianity as theocratic because of them? Of course not, it's absolutely absurd and unjustified to do so.

a reply to: Swills

You guys know that if Muslims around the world really wanted to install Sharia Law and kill you because you're an infidel they would have already done it since there are almost 2 billion Muslims on this planet.

This is a logical fallacy and I can prove it with one contradictory thought.

If Muslim radicals were really such a small number and doesn't represent Islam, 2 billion Muslims on the planet could wipe it out in a single day.

So how can we both be right? It's possible that Muslims who represent the percentage of passive Islam simply 'do nothing' whilst the radical percentage usurps governments and laws via violence and stealth.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

I am making the point that it is not constructive to associate maleness with violent rape, as if being male was a negative issue that needed to be addressed. When you look at it that way, you end up with extreme feminists who hate all things male.

What you are doing is associating Islam with hate and violence and terrorism. What you will end up with is extreme Islamaphobes who hate all things Islam. Is that constructive at all?

I denounce violence and hatred and inequality in all forms. I do not label it male or Christian or Muslim/Islam.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: introvert
The Swedish government is no longer collecting sensitive statistics from nationality and crime in the governments deliberate intent of social engineering. Therefore, only figures from 1985-1989 and 1995-2001 are covered for comparison. The current rape statistics are likely much higher today, like in similar proven cases in Norway. These crimes mainly refer to Muslim migrants from Muslim dominated countries who are extremely over-represented in the 77.6% rapes committed by foreigners.

Can you point out the most important aspects of that little tidbit?

Yes: SOCIAL ENGINEERING. (i.e. liberal 'dont do that it'll hurt their feelings' agenda)

That's one aspect. That tells us that we may have a Right Wing nut on our hands.

This is important:

Therefore, only figures from 1985-1989 and 1995-2001 are covered for comparison.

And:

in the 77.6% rapes committed by foreigners

Rape committed by foreigners. That is different than the sources claim that it's 77.6% of all rapes. Context is key. That link of yours is at the very least dishonest.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Actually, I'm calling out the most oppressive & bigoted mass doctrine in the world: Mainstream Global Islam. Not the majority have to themselves beat and rape and kill people, but the majority does support THE JIST OF IT (things like honor killings, killing people that try to leave the religion, anti-free speech, and much much more).

originally posted by: TheFlyOnTheWall

This is a logical fallacy and I can prove it with one contradictory thought.

If Muslim radicals were really such a small number and doesn't represent Islam, 2 billion Muslims on the planet could wipe it out in a single day.

So how can we both be right? It's possible that Muslims who represent the percentage of passive Islam simply 'do nothing' whilst the radical percentage usurps governments and laws via violence and stealth.

Maybe they don't have the weapons or anyone to organize them or maybe they are frightened for their wives and children.

Why don't the millions of law abiding American gun owners simply wipe out the bad guys with guns? Couldn't they do it a single day with all those guns? Must be because they secretly approve of all the gun violence, hmmmm?

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

So you hate all things Islam. Just like I said.

Your right to say it. My right to denounce it.