[Zagadka]

That, also, isn't remotely true.

The statistics for all sexual abuse (not full rape) against women 18-24 is 0.7%.

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5176


EDIT

I believe the 1-in-6 number comes from an unscientific survey with a ridiculously small sample size.

[stephen50right]

You do not understand Shariah, so you should stop talking about it. Shariah law does not supersede state laws, and was never intended to do that.

Shariah law handles divorces, wedding and other things the same way Christian and Jewish laws oversee these things.

5 myths about Sharia law debunked by a law professor
But Sharia isn't even "law" in the sense that we in the West understand it. And most devout Muslims who embrace Sharia conceptually don't think of it as a substitute for civil law. Sharia is not a book of statutes or judicial precedent imposed by a government, and it's not a set of regulations adjudicated in court.

Rather, it is a body of Quran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life. It doesn't come from the state, and it doesn't even come in one book or a single collection of rules. Sharia is divine and philosophical. The human interpretation of Sharia is called "Fiqh," or Islamic rules of right action, created by individual scholars based on the Quran and hadith (stories of the prophet Muhammad's life). Fiqh literally means "understanding" -- and its many different schools of thought illustrate that scholars knew they didn't speak for God.
Fiqh distinguishes between the spiritual value of an action (how God sees it) and the worldly value of that action (how it affects others). Fiqh rules might obligate a devout Muslim to pray, but it's not the job of a Muslim ruler to enforce that obligation. Fiqh is not designed to help governments police morality in the way, say, Saudi Arabia does today.
According to classical Fiqh scholarship, a Muslim ruler's task was to put forth another type of law, called Siyasa, based on what best serves the public good. The most vivid example of this was the recognition of incestuous (mother-son, brother-sister) marriages practiced by some non-Muslim minorities living under Muslim rule, dating back at least to the 14th century, despite the abhorrence, generally, of such marriages to Islam. In other words, Sharia doesn't hold that everything objectionable to Islam should be outlawed.

Rather, it is a body of Quran-based guidance that points Muslims toward living an Islamic life. It doesn't come from the state, and it doesn't even come in one book or a single collection of rules.
https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/comm ... hariah-law

[anasawad]

And for the ignorent retards who cant do a research before they talk. Islam indeed tells Muslims to establish an Islamic system in Muslim lands, however tells them to abide by the laws of the nation if they're outside of Muslim lands and in other nations.

And if anyone bothered to continue to read into the details, they'd see the fact the Islamic teachings goes as far as telling Muslims to not apply or even abandon some of the rulings in their direct life if it can cause harm to them individually or to the Islamic society collectively when they're in non-Muslim societies.
And empahsis greatly in multiple parts of the Quran and Sunnah not to enforce Islamic system or teachings on non-Muslims if they're not in Islamic lands as it would lead to hostility with the Muslim Ummah and do harm.
As it says clearly in other parts that god would prefer the Kabaa be torn apart stone by stone than the blood of a believer be shed. And such hostility can lead to that and thus should be avoided.

[Godstud]

So because one idiot practices hate speech, you think this is how the religion actually works?

Shall I quote some Westboro Baptist shit to you?

Naww you can read about it. Christianity is what we should be worrying about... I mean, if what a few people say represents the whole, that is.
https://acluva.org/7388/on-hate-speech- ... -virginia/

[Pants-of-dog]

If we want to stop terrorism, we have to understand what causes terrorism.

I think most people do not want to understand what causes terrorism, or incorrectly believe they already do.

[stephen50right]

And for the ignorent retards who cant do a research before they talk. Islam indeed tells Muslims to establish an Islamic system in Muslim lands, however tells them to abide by the laws of the nation if they're outside of Muslim lands and in other nations.

And if anyone bothered to continue to read into the details, they'd see the fact the Islamic teachings goes as far as telling Muslims to not apply or even abandon some of the rulings in their direct life if it can cause harm to them individually or to the Islamic society collectively when they're in non-Muslim societies.
And empahsis greatly in multiple parts of the Quran and Sunnah not to enforce Islamic system or teachings on non-Muslims if they're not in Islamic lands as it would lead to hostility with the Muslim Ummah and do harm.
As it says clearly in other parts that god would prefer the Kabaa be torn apart stone by stone than the blood of a believer be shed. And such hostility can lead to that and thus should be avoided.

[noir]

About the Islamic Taqiyya

Arafat's Bodyguard: He Used to Lie When Denouncing Bombings in Israel

BBC Arabic on April 3, 2014.

Muhammad Al-Daya, longtime bodyguard of Yasser Arafat, said in a recent TV interview that Arafat used to lie when he denounced bombings in Israel. Arafat "would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying: 'I am against the killing of civilians.' But that wasn’t true," said Al-Daya, in a BBC Arabic interview which aired on April 3, 2014.

Following are excerpts

Interviewer: Ariel Sharon used to say that Arafat was a pathological liar. Many politicians who had dealings with Arafat said he was an excellent liar.

Muhammad Al-Daya: Islam allows you to lie in three cases: In order to reconcile two people...

Interviewer: For the sake of reconciliation.

Muhammad Al-Daya: If your wife is ugly, you are allowed to tell her she is the most beautiful woman alive. The third case is politics. You are allowed to lie in politics.

Interviewer: So you acknowledge this...

Muhammad Al-Daya: Yes.

Interviewer: So he used to lie in your presence?

Muhammad Al-Daya: Abu Ammar? Yes. When there was a bombing in Tel Aviv, for example, he would say... This would happen due to pressure, especially by President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak would call Arafat and say to him: “Denounce it, or they will screw you.” Arafat would say to Mubarak: “Mr. President, we have martyrs. The [Israelis] have destroyed us. They have massacred us.” But Mubarak would say to him: “Denounce it, or they will screw you.”

Then Arafat would condemn the bombing in his own special way, saying: “I am against the killing of civilians.” But that wasn’t true.

[...]

[anasawad]

@stephen50right
Taqiyya is allowed in in situations of life and death, and that is stated clearly and by the letter in both the Quran and Sunnah.
Basically, a Muslim is allowed to lie about his beliefs if he or she though their life are in danger if they stated the truth. This again follows the rule of preservation of life.
Don't worry, you're not a threat to my life nor will you ever be.

That can be easily checked if you bothered to look at the ruling in the Quran and Sunnah instead of putting some propaganda image.
But don't worry, i understand that some people specially in the right wing tend to have mental deficiencies.

Taqiya (Arabic: تقیة‎‎ taqiyyah/taqīyah, literally "prudence, fear, caution") is an Islamic term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution.
Another term for this concept, kitmān (lit. "action of covering, dissimulation"), has a more specific meaning of dissimulation by silence or omission
This practice is emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion. However, it is also permitted in Sunni Islam under certain circumstances.

The technical meaning of the term taqiyya is derived from the Quranic reference to religious dissimulation in Sura 3:28:
"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for protectors rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully (illā an tattaqū minhum tuqāt)."
The two words tattaqū ("you fear") and tuqāt "in fear" are derived from the same root as taqiya, and use of the abstract noun taqiya in reference to the general principle described in this passage is first recorded in a Qur'anic gloss by Al-Bukhari (9th century).
Regarding 3:28, Ibn Kathir writes, "meaning, except those believers who in some areas or times fear for their safety from the disbelievers. In this case, such believers are allowed to show friendship to the disbelievers outwardly, but never inwardly." He quotes Muhammad's companion, Abu Ad-Darda', who said "we smile in the face of some people although our hearts curse them," and Al-Hasan who said "the Tuqyah is acceptable till the Day of Resurrection."
A similar instance of the Qur'an permitting dissimulation under compulsion is found in Sura 16:106. Sunni and Shia commentators alike observe that verse 16:106 refers to the case of 'Ammar b. Yasir, who was forced to renounce his beliefs under physical duress and torture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya#Quranic_basis

[Zagadka]

If we want to stop terrorism, we have to understand what causes terrorism.

I think most people do not want to understand what causes terrorism, or incorrectly believe they already do.

I agree 100% . One could go one all day about how Islam is repressive and backwards, but unless they also present an actual approach to the problem, they are pretty useless. And they usual comeback "ban Islam" is also useless. It isn't realistic, comprehensive, fair, or even a complete thought (the answer to any problem can be "erase it" - that doesn't mean that is an actual policy, especially if you don't want government stooges following every aspect of life and forcibly telling people what they can or can't think)

[noir]

Minor attack in Germany


Borussia Dortmund blasts: suspect 'from Islamist spectrum' detained
Explosives used were pipe bombs with a 100-metre range, a spokeswoman for German federal prosecutors say

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... -to-attack

[anasawad]

Extreme poverty, persecution, injustice, etc will always lead to violence and the rise of radical groups.
This can be observed anywhere these conditions apply, including in Europe like with NAZI Germany, and even in the US in poor areas and regions with gun violence and gangs.
The current situation in the middle east is no different, simply on larger scale and more extreme conditions than those shown in ghettos and poor areas of the west. However still not as extreme as that of what was seen in Germany in the 30s.


Anyone who have trouble understanding the very simple and established fact based on 10s if not 100s of instances all over the world across history, the person has some serious difficulties.
I expect a good number of people don't understand it.

[noir]

The 9/11 terrorists were well to do. Many are indeed weak and poor but they are lured and brainwashed by mainstream Islamic preachers who are no poor. It's cynical exploitation.

[anasawad]

9\11 was done by Al-qaeda, which is coming mainly from Afghanistan and Pakistan. Places characterized by extreme poverty and oppression with people living there having practically no hope to reach any height under the current order.

Such groups are expected to rise up in such conditions.
Ideology, culture, religion, etc does not matter. When primitive instincts of survival becomes a factor, all else becomes irrelevant.

[stephen50right]

The 9/11 terrorists were well to do. Many are indeed weak and poor but they are lured and brainwashed by mainstream Islamic preachers who are no poor. It's cynical exploitation.

I think that at one time Bin Laden was worth 50 million dollars.

I sure wish that I was subjected to such "extreme poverty" such as that. LOL

[anasawad]

'm sure bin laden was the one doing the terrorist attack hemself.

[Zagadka]

Stephen has the inside track knowing that rich people can't just be assholes! Everyone is dictated to thought based on their situation, so rich people can't support poor people!

The statement is that in Islamic extremism, 1) the larger part of the community is poor, and this is one of the points the leaders (who do tend to be wealthy) exploit, 2) ignores addressing the problems that actually exist

[anasawad]

Some do indeed exploit people's condition to get more power. However these are individuals that can killed off.
Bin laden is now dead, yet Al-qaeda is still alive and well. Why ? Because while the person who moved things died, the conditions that created the group are still there.
The root problem is the living conditions which once reaching low enough state, people will have more acceptance to do crime or violence or terror attacks if it ment themselves or their families being able to get out of such conditions.
That also means that organized militant groups do tend to rise up like what we're seeing right now in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan, etc that leads their own communities in attempt to rise up and live better, thats why people join such groups.

These conditions mainly rose up in the middle east due to wars or military tyrants taking over by force.
Saddam Hussein drove the majority of his people to poverty and oppressed them. Followed by US sanctions which lead 100s of thousands to literally die from starvation and then the 2003 invasion came to destroy the last of the country and before you know it, militant groups started rising up all over it.
Syria again, part of the army tried to coup the government in 2011, a war started and that faction recieving support and weapons extended the war.
More areas become severly damaged and more lives and communities destroy. And before you know it, 20 or so different militant groups rising up each coming from a specific community and leading a specific community all fighting for their own to take over.
The people who line up behind them don't do it because all of the sudden they forgot about the long years living in a stable and secure nation. But because their lives are destroyed and their main daily life fight isn't how to become rich but how to find food for yourself and family or how to stay alive in the war. And these groups formed and it became their only hope.

The reason for these conditions to come to be isn't the same in all cases. But once these conditions are applied, the result will always be the same regardless of what religion, ideology, culture, race, gender, nationality, etc the people are.
History shows exactly this.

[noir]

Islamophiles love to talk about poverty but it's all incitement. These preachers know hot to get the poor.

"Europe Will Become a Single Islamic State"

[stephen50right]

The assumption that "extreme poverty" causes terrorism is simply absurd. It is ignorance that causes terrorism.

For example, Muslims should realize that Jewish scientists, have invented medicines which have saved countless hundreds of millions of Muslim lives. If it wasn't for Jews, in a quick guess I would say today's Muslim population would be less than half what it is now.

Christians from Europe and elsewhere, have contributed countless billions of dollars to the Muslim economies in exchange for oil, creating numerous buildings and luxuries which Muslims enjoy. If Muslims were smart with an open mind, they would embrace Christians and Jews for helping them live a better life.

I would agree that the ignorant are exploited in various ways to believe otherwise, that Christians and Jews are out to harm them. The facts clearly prove otherwise.

[anasawad]

Extreme poverty causes violence. Once it spreads it causes militancy. Militant groups use Asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric warfare includes terrorist attacks.
History testifies that poverty is one of the main causes if not the main cause of violence and war. Anyone denying this is simply ignorant of reality.

I would simply ignore the rest of your post because its generally filled with bullshit that ignores all the facts and history and pretty much reality in whole.

For Christians and jews, i wouldn't say its them but more like Americans and their puppets are out to kill. But i guess 'm just ignorant, i mean when Americans or Israelis carpet bomb an area or destroy a country, they're doing it for love and compassion.