[Quintus Curtius]

@Berzerk:

I intend to come to Mikado's defense here.

The fact that this Pakistani gang were scum should not cause us to re-hash the same tired old stereotypes on Islam, however tempting that may be.

I disagree mightily with the overall impression left by your last post, which purports to describe the relation between slavery and Islam, and then to compare it with slavery in the West.

The historians tell us (and here I am relying on C. Hurgronje's study Mohammedanism (1916)) that in medieval Islam, slaves were at the bottom of the economic structure. It is true that they were probably more numerous in Islam in proportion to the population than in Christendom, where serfdom was replacing slavery. In practice, however, there was little functional difference between the medieval serf in the West and the Islamic slave.

The Koran sanctioned the capture of non-Muslims in war, and the birth of children to slave parents, as the only legitimate sources of slavery. In theory, no Moslem was supposed to be enslaved, just as in the Christian West, no Christian was supposed to be enslaved. But this did not stop slave traders from doing a profitable trade in slaves: blacks from Africa, Turks or Chinese from Turkestan, whites from Russia, Italy, and Spain. All this is true. Money voids religious dogma.

A Moslem had the power of life and death over his slaves, but he normally handled them with liberality and humanity. In fact, according to Hurgronje, the lot of the slave in the Islamic East was better than with the medieval serf in Europe or the industrial proletariat in 19th century Europe.

Slaves were allowed to marry; if their children were talented, they could even receive an education. Compare this with the bloodthirsty brutality of the slavery practiced in the Spanish colonies, or in the American south in the 18th and 19th centuries. The great Persian poet Sa'adi was for a time a slave.

Furthermore--and this is of critical importance--it is astonishing how many slaves in Islam rose to high levels of prominence in government and the military (for example, Mahmud and the early Mamluks). This "upward mobility" of slavery in Islam is something that historians have frequently commented on. This never happened in the West, where slavery took on the character of permanent racial bondage. Blacks and Indians were trapped in slavery forever.

Nevertheless, there were slave revolts periodically in Islam. Such revolts usually took on a religious character, since the state and church were one in Islam. Some groups, like the Khurramiyya and the Muhayyida, adopted the socialistic views of the Persian rebel Mazdak. There was a huge slave revolt in 772 under Hashim al-Muqanna. Revolts were repeated in 838 under Babik al-Khurrani, and were suppressed with violence.

We even note that in 871, a black African general named Mohallabi seized the Iraqi city of Basra. There were many black slaves near Basra, who were employed in digging saltpeter. Revolt flared brightly for a time, over ten years, and armies were eventually sent to suppress the rebellious slaves.

All in all, slavery in Islam was less bloody, and less murderous, than slavery as practiced for many hundreds of years by Portugal, Spain, and England. If we consider the millions of Indians who died in the New World from having been worked to death by the Spanish and Portuguese, and the many more millions who died in the Middle Passage of slaves from Africa to the New World, it is easy to see that Europe can claim no moral high ground here.

.

[Rigsby]

(09-02-2014 04:12 PM)007 Wrote:  

I don't know where some of the posters are getting the idea that there are very little Pakistanis in London. The Midlands and London are full of Pakistanis, it's only a matter of time before more 'Rotheram' type stories come out.

Even though Bangladesh used to technically be 'East Pakistan', they are ethnically and culturally quite different from proper Pakistanis. Although they suffer from some of the same ills, inbreeding, child grooming and general degeneracy are now way near as prevalent.

The Indian muslims by and large behave themselves (especially Gujarati muslims), although some of the 'newer' immigrant muslim groups have bought with them their degenerate quirks.

You are quite right. I would agree with you. The Indians (be they muslim or hindu or sikh or buddhist) are impeccably behaved. These other cunts hide under their cloaks to confuse the issue. This is convenient for the politicians wishing to divide communities.


I appreciate your education on the matter.

[Rigsby]

(09-02-2014 09:15 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

@Berzerk:

I intend to come to Mikado's defense here.

The fact that this Pakistani gang were scum should not cause us to re-hash the same tired old stereotypes on Islam, however tempting that may be.

I disagree mightily with the overall impression left by your last post, which purports to describe the relation between slavery and Islam, and then to compare it with slavery in the West.

The historians tell us (and here I am relying on C. Hurgronje's study Mohammedanism (1916)) that in medieval Islam, slaves were at the bottom of the economic structure. It is true that they were probably more numerous in Islam in proportion to the population than in Christendom, where serfdom was replacing slavery. In practice, however, there was little functional difference between the medieval serf in the West and the Islamic slave.

The Koran sanctioned the capture of non-Muslims in war, and the birth of children to slave parents, as the only legitimate sources of slavery. In theory, no Moslem was supposed to be enslaved, just as in the Christian West, no Christian was supposed to be enslaved. But this did not stop slave traders from doing a profitable trade in slaves: blacks from Africa, Turks or Chinese from Turkestan, whites from Russia, Italy, and Spain. All this is true. Money voids religious dogma.

A Moslem had the power of life and death over his slaves, but he normally handled them with liberality and humanity. In fact, according to Hurgronje, the lot of the slave in the Islamic East was better than with the medieval serf in Europe or the industrial proletariat in 19th century Europe.

Slaves were allowed to marry; if their children were talented, they could even receive an education. Compare this with the bloodthirsty brutality of the slavery practiced in the Spanish colonies, or in the American south in the 18th and 19th centuries. The great Persian poet Sa'adi was for a time a slave.

Furthermore--and this is of critical importance--it is astonishing how many slaves in Islam rose to high levels of prominence in government and the military (for example, Mahmud and the early Mamluks). This "upward mobility" of slavery in Islam is something that historians have frequently commented on. This never happened in the West, where slavery took on the character of permanent racial bondage. Blacks and Indians were trapped in slavery forever.

Nevertheless, there were slave revolts periodically in Islam. Such revolts usually took on a religious character, since the state and church were one in Islam. Some groups, like the Khurramiyya and the Muhayyida, adopted the socialistic views of the Persian rebel Mazdak. There was a huge slave revolt in 772 under Hashim al-Muqanna. Revolts were repeated in 838 under Babik al-Khurrani, and were suppressed with violence.

We even note that in 871, a black African general named Mohallabi seized the Iraqi city of Basra. There were many black slaves near Basra, who were employed in digging saltpeter. Revolt flared brightly for a time, over ten years, and armies were eventually sent to suppress the rebellious slaves.

All in all, slavery in Islam was less bloody, and less murderous, than slavery as practiced for many hundreds of years by Portugal, Spain, and England. If we consider the millions of Indians who died in the New World from having been worked to death by the Spanish and Portuguese, and the many more millions who died in the Middle Passage of slaves from Africa to the New World, it is easy to see that Europe can claim no moral high ground here.

.

Quintus, I appreciate your education of us heathens too, on the matter. But can you give us a quick rundown on what you
think it means for us? I mean, Westerners generally. Just what this game is about? It is obvious you are quite knowledgeable and learned in the matter.

Not a test. And it is a big question I ask, I know. But maybe, if you have it on the tip of your tongue, do tell! If not, perhaps a future article?

It's so nice to be able to throw around the big words here, and even if others don't understand it, we can take something back to learn for later.

[Vronsky]

(09-02-2014 07:12 PM)mikado Wrote:  

Arabs used to practice slavery long time before the Prophet came.

This is one of the cultural issues Teedub explained earlier, 4-5 posts earlier.

They took advantadge from religion to JUSTIFY slavery.

This is far from a proof that the religion is the one encouraging and promoting slavery.

The day we see Muslims from outside the Middle East and Non Arabs practice slavery on a consequent basis, then we can say that Islam promotes slavery.

Concerning the ad hominem attacks: IDGAF , Berserk. Calling other people ignorant for the sake of doing it IS the true ignorance.
Now go learn some lesson on how to politely disagree with others. Then come back after that.

@007:
You sure seem to love my interventions much?
Always a pleasure to call out white christian nationalists and religion haters, bro.

Quote:

Between 1530 and 1780 there were almost certainly 1 million and quite possibly as many as 1.25 million white, European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary Coast.

Let's not forget all the murders, thefts and crimes commited towards Muslims and African people during recent centuries, and even in our modern history (Middle East, Africa...) who ALSO participated in slavery... Sure, WHITE EUROPEAN CHRISTIANS are free of any guilt.
Give me a break.

You're not going to hear much deinialism about Christianity's role in the the trans-Atlantic slave trade nor its role in the colonization of Africa, Latin America and other places. Shelves upon shelves upon shelves of books have been written about Christianity's role in these, and other, atrocities.

But Islam doesn't have that capacity for self-reflection, as clearly demonstrated by you. The Prophet Mohammed had such authority that he was able to practically ban overnight the consumption of alcohol and the burial of girl babies but he wasn't able to do anything about the slave trade? Do you believe that? Not only did he not ban, but he took advantage of it. Whenever a tribe was raided, one fifth of the booty was given to him and that included the captured women who were essentially sex slaves. You do know the story of Saffiyah, I'm sure? The prophet killed her husband and took her for himself. Didn't waste any time in sleeping with her (raping her cause it is very likely as a prisoner of war she had no say in whether she wanted to fuck him or not).

This was the norm set by a man considered the "best of men" and "most perfect human being" to walk the earth, whose every act "sets an example to the rest of the world". Well, groups like ISIS are setting about replicating that behaviour.

If you're going to argue that it was a different time and a different age, then use another argument because the dominant ideology of Islam does not believe in changing rules/laws/ways of living that were prevalent during the 7th century. If it was good enough for the prophet then it is good enough for common Muslims. And if you're gonna say that this applies only to the Muslims in the Middle East then you are deliberately denying the outsize influence Arabs have on the religion, as people from whom the prophet comes from, and as people who speak the language of the Koran, Arabic. You must realize that Islam has a hierarchy, with Arabs on top and the "converted" on the 2nd tier. This inferiority complex among the "converted" is why a country like Pakistan would pick itself up, move away from Hindu India and sidle to be as as close as possible to Saudi Arabia, if it was physically able to.

The dominant form of Wahabi style Islam has spread across populations that never had that desert-imposed severity and harshness on them and I sense Senegal is a hold out in that its still retained its relaxed, neighborly, Sufi influenced form of Islam.

Still, even relaxed Senegalese Muslims can't seem to be able to hear or utter any sort of criticism or reflection on the Koran or the religion.

[Quintus Curtius]

[/quote]

Quintus, I appreciate your education of us heathens too, on the matter. But can you give us a quick rundown on what you
think it means for us? I mean, Westerners generally. Just what this game is about? It is obvious you are quite knowledgeable and learned in the matter.

Not a test. And it is a big question I ask, I know. But maybe, if you have it on the tip of your tongue, do tell! If not, perhaps a future article?

It's so nice to be able to throw around the big words here, and even if others don't understand it, we can take something back to learn for later.
[/quote]


Rigsby:

Thanks much.

I was only trying to refute these ideas:

1. That slavery was a vice unique to the Islamic world.
2. That the Christian West was any more moral or virtuous than the Islamic world.

My point is only to show that neither faith--Islamic or Christian--can claim the moral high ground in these matters.

In fact, if we want to talk about body counts, killings, imperialisms, the slave trade, and all that, the Europeans were by far more culpable.

But that's neither here nor there.

None of this of course has anything to do with these Pakistani child molesters. These people are the dregs and should be punished severely.

None of this has anything to do with multiculturalism or assimilation. As a matter of fact, I don't believe in multiculturalism. I believe people should assimilate to whatever nation they reside in. I believe, for example, that France is absolutely correct to forbid the wearing of clothing that openly announces an unwillingness to become part of the Western tradition.

I just don't like seeing the constant conflation of Islam with the crimes of some Moslems. No faith is more virtuous than the other. No faith can claim to hold the ultimate truth. Faiths are practiced by people, who are fallible, corruptible, and mortal.

[Agastya]

(09-02-2014 09:15 PM)Quintus Curtius Wrote:  

@Berzerk:

I intend to come to Mikado's defense here.

The fact that this Pakistani gang were scum should not cause us to re-hash the same tired old stereotypes on Islam, however tempting that may be.

I disagree mightily with the overall impression left by your last post, which purports to describe the relation between slavery and Islam, and then to compare it with slavery in the West.

The historians tell us (and here I am relying on C. Hurgronje's study Mohammedanism (1916)) that in medieval Islam, slaves were at the bottom of the economic structure. It is true that they were probably more numerous in Islam in proportion to the population than in Christendom, where serfdom was replacing slavery. In practice, however, there was little functional difference between the medieval serf in the West and the Islamic slave.

The Koran sanctioned the capture of non-Muslims in war, and the birth of children to slave parents, as the only legitimate sources of slavery. In theory, no Moslem was supposed to be enslaved, just as in the Christian West, no Christian was supposed to be enslaved. But this did not stop slave traders from doing a profitable trade in slaves: blacks from Africa, Turks or Chinese from Turkestan, whites from Russia, Italy, and Spain. All this is true. Money voids religious dogma.

A Moslem had the power of life and death over his slaves, but he normally handled them with liberality and humanity. In fact, according to Hurgronje, the lot of the slave in the Islamic East was better than with the medieval serf in Europe or the industrial proletariat in 19th century Europe.

Slaves were allowed to marry; if their children were talented, they could even receive an education. Compare this with the bloodthirsty brutality of the slavery practiced in the Spanish colonies, or in the American south in the 18th and 19th centuries. The great Persian poet Sa'adi was for a time a slave.

Furthermore--and this is of critical importance--it is astonishing how many slaves in Islam rose to high levels of prominence in government and the military (for example, Mahmud and the early Mamluks). This "upward mobility" of slavery in Islam is something that historians have frequently commented on. This never happened in the West, where slavery took on the character of permanent racial bondage. Blacks and Indians were trapped in slavery forever.

Nevertheless, there were slave revolts periodically in Islam. Such revolts usually took on a religious character, since the state and church were one in Islam. Some groups, like the Khurramiyya and the Muhayyida, adopted the socialistic views of the Persian rebel Mazdak. There was a huge slave revolt in 772 under Hashim al-Muqanna. Revolts were repeated in 838 under Babik al-Khurrani, and were suppressed with violence.

We even note that in 871, a black African general named Mohallabi seized the Iraqi city of Basra. There were many black slaves near Basra, who were employed in digging saltpeter. Revolt flared brightly for a time, over ten years, and armies were eventually sent to suppress the rebellious slaves.

All in all, slavery in Islam was less bloody, and less murderous, than slavery as practiced for many hundreds of years by Portugal, Spain, and England. If we consider the millions of Indians who died in the New World from having been worked to death by the Spanish and Portuguese, and the many more millions who died in the Middle Passage of slaves from Africa to the New World, it is easy to see that Europe can claim no moral high ground here.

.

[Feisbook Control]

QC: I believe in some sense you are overlooking two important points about Islam vs Christianity. The first is that -- and I'm not even Christian -- as a white (male), I will never be allowed to forget what other white (males) did over the past five centuries. Islam gets a massive pass worldwide, despite the fact that it was as bad as, or even worse than, European civilisation. Many people believe that a large part of the Dark Ages in Europe was exacerbated by Muslim raids along coastal regions as far north as Iceland. Populations retreated inland, and without the benefit of sea-borne trade in the Mediterranean, all of the most backward effects of the Dark Ages were magnified or prolonged.

The second point regards the fundamental nature of Islam and other religions. Yes, Christianity has a lot of blood on its hands, but that's not baked into the religion. Christianity became that way once it became entwined with states. We could say the same about Buddhism, that because of the samurai, WW2-era nationalism, etc., it is responsible for atrocities. Yet this is more than slightly disingenuous. If we look at the lives of Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, we can see a very, very fundamental difference between them that has served as the basis for the religions ever since. If we were to ask "what would Jesus do?" we'd get "sacrifice himself for others". The same question posed about Buddha would yield a result of "renounce attachment to worldly things and the suffering they cause". On the other hand, what would Mohammed do? Put huge regions to the sword, take slaves, and rape a nine year old girl. So, in this sense, the conquistadors and samurai were actually bad Christians and Buddhists, respectively. On the other hand, these Pakistani rape gangs are, in a very real sense, following in the footsteps of their prophet. That is the underlying problem here. Where Christianity and Buddhism have gone wrong it is because they haven't adhere to the lives and teachings of their prophets. Where Islam has gone wrong is precisely because it has. Big difference there.

Mikado: You asked how people here would respond to the situation. I would break it down into four sections: the Pakistani perpetrators, authorities complicit in the cover up, the broader Pakistani community, and the broader British society. Of course, what follows is about as likely to happen as pigs flying.

Pakistani perpetrators

I'd bring back corporal punishment. There'd be public floggings and time in the stocks, during which residents of Rotherham could publicly shame them, though I'd limit what they could do to the throwing of rotten fruit and vegetables. At least for now, I'd probably hold off on direct attacks on their religion (e.g. people being able to throw pork at them, etc.), though I might not rule it out completely.

Then, I'd either bring back capital punishment for them or just simply deport them. If they had no other country to go to, I'd give them the choice between buying a one way ticket for a holiday (and then refusing them re-entry into the U.K.) or I'd just execute them. I'd bury them in unmarked graves without religious ceremonies, or I'd dump them at sea.

Authorities complicit in the cover up

I'd launch a massive enquiry into the entire affair. Anyone in the police, social services or any other government department, as well as politicians, responsible for covering this up I would try as accomplices (in rape and hate crimes) and give very harsh sentences to. If, at some point, they were ever free again, I would make sure that they could never get a job working for the government in any capacity, not even as the local garbage collector on the Orkney Islands.

Some journalists might also be complicit in this and I would try them similarly.

Furthermore, not only would I deal with the direct offenders in this situation, but I would sack all of their colleagues, too. I would clear out entire departments unless they could actively prove that they either didn't know about it (something I find hard to believe) or fought against it. It's draconian, but I believe there is a deep cultural problem within much of the public sector that needs to be cut out root and branch.

Pakistani community

Firstly, I'd call an immediate and total moratorium on immigration from Pakistan. That would include any visas currently being processed.

Secondly, I'd cut off welfare and other government benefits.

Any mosque or religious school found to be preaching hatred towards Britons or encouraging these kinds of crimes I would immediately close and bulldoze. I would sell the land off to private parties or redevelop it into something like a park, swimming pool or other public facility.

Then, I would tell the Pakistani communities that they had, say, three years to get their acts together and start becoming upstanding members of British society. If, up to, or at, that point, any more rape scandals surfaced, they would be deemed to have failed. Even beyond that, I would say that after those three years if they were found to have statistically significantly higher rates of crime in general, then I would also say that they had failed. The penalty for failure would be mass deportation. Watch how quickly "ordinary" folk would clean up their own communities if they thought they would suffer with them.

The Romans had it right with decimation.

Broader British society

I'd immediately root out all cultural Marxists from academia, the civil service, the education system, etc. I'd hound them out of the media as well. They are a large part of the problem. I'd also be extremely mindful of (re-)entryism via cultural Marxists.

I'd implement a policy of integration and assimilation, and end multiculturalism. It wouldn't be racial. I'd say that anyone who was already there could be British, regardless of the origin of his ancestors, but that he must be committed to actually being British, not something else, and not half of each. British 100%.

I'd heavily promote a patriotic sense within the populace that, whilst it would acknowledge the problems in Britain's past, would essentially celebrate Britain's history and its cultural legacy and achievements not just in Britain, but for the entire world. I'd promote that heavily in the education system, of course, but also in a renewed sense of public occasions and civic participation.

Basically, I'd turn the clock back at least seventy years culturally, but extend the franchise of Britishness to non-Anglo-Celtic people.

A lot of the implementation of this would have to be extremely authoritarian, but it's that far gone now. Chemotherapy is rough on the normal cells, as well as the cancerous ones. The alternative is that this all festers along for another decade or two and then there is a sharp rise in neo-Nazi style street gangs, bombings of mosques and open race/religion/culture wars in the streets and a complete collapse into either chaos or totalitarianism.

[Deluge]

(09-02-2014 09:12 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

If gives startling statistics. If you can believe it. I do. They would have had to go to a lot of trouble to fake it. But I'd still be interested to hear what you think.

Feminists exaggerate statistics on sexual trafficking to further their own agenda, just like they do with rape.

[Deluge]

(09-03-2014 12:17 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

A lot of the implementation of this would have to be extremely authoritarian, but it's that far gone now. Chemotherapy is rough on the normal cells, as well as the cancerous ones. The alternative is that this all festers along for another decade or two and then there is a sharp rise in neo-Nazi style street gangs, bombings of mosques and open race/religion/culture wars in the streets and a complete collapse into either chaos or totalitarianism.

In many way's it was this kind of behaviour (traditional-authoritarianism in the form of Nazism) that triggered broad acceptance of multiculturalism in the first place as a reaction to it. The combination of white-guilt and capitalism has led to the importation of labour that benefits the elites. Meanwhile industrialized capitalist countries like Japan and South Korea are in terminal decline yet refuse to take in immigrants, because they have no racial guilt. This is despite the atrocities Japan committed during WW2, perhaps because the victims were mostly other Asians.

Fascism whether it be Nazi Germany or even ISIS, is born out failed revolutions. If Europe's economy collapses all bet's are off, history may well repeat itself.

[puckerman]

I grew up in a town of about 10,000, and it's one the whitest towns you'll find. People there are still pretty simple. I pump my gas there and then pay for it.

One of the most respected and richest men town is a Pakastani immigrant. He is an eye doctor who opened up a lovely facility in town, and he's still practicing in his 70's. His first name was Muhammad, although he gave his kids very American names. I doubt anyone made any issue of his race or nationality. To most of us, he was just the eye doctor. His son was also one of the kindest persons I've ever known.

Now, why doesn't Britain attract these kind of Pakastani immigrants? Why does America? Any town would be proud to have an immigrant like this man and his wife.

[Deluge]

(09-03-2014 01:46 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

Now, why doesn't Britain attract these kind of Pakastani immigrants? Why does America? Any town would be proud to have an immigrant like this man and his wife.

Most of your immigrants are unskilled migrants from Latin America... If anything the U.K attracts a much higher % of skilled immigrants then America does.

Quote:

Migration from Mirpur and its adjacent areas started soon after second world war as the majority of the male population of this area and Pothohar region worked in British armed forces. But the mass migration phenomenon took place after the Mangla Dam project, which was built in the 1960s and eventually flooded the surrounding farmland.

The reasons for the large proportion of Mirpuris in the United Kingdom is historical. Mirpur was considered to be a conservative district in 1960s, and life in its rural villages, was dominated by rigid hierarchies. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Government of Pakistan planned the Mangla Dam, which was to be built in the Mirpur area. They asked several thousand locals to leave the land. At that time, the British needed man-power mainly for their textile factories.

The only Western countries I can think of with effective immigration systems are Canada, Australia and New Zealand, which all have a points system designed to attract the best and brightest needed to fill specific skills shortages. All 3 of these countries have a much higher % of immigrants then America and Western Europe yet much fewer issues with immigrants and assimilation combined with broad support for immigration among the native populace. That said I don't think a points system is all that's at play here. Does a densely populated, non-immigrant founded place like England really need a lot of them in the first place?

[Crackshot]

Two other big reasons for mass immigration

1. Welfare state

When I was a kid people would say you were a mug if you had a job. With a bit of creativity you could get 100-300 pw plus car and rent paid for. Why work twelve hours a day for six pounds an hour when you can work in a cash in hand job and claim benefits plus get a flat. I know alot of fellas that made a job out of claiming benefits through every means imaginable.

Jobs in retail, agriculture, service industry, factories, Etc hard to fill as well as the most physical and least skilled construction jobs.

Capitalists wanted a less well paid and harder working workforce.

2. Birth rate

With a below replacement Birth rate if we did not import foreigners we would have to see big cuts to pensions NHS and welfare

People would riot if this happened so immigrants were imported to offset this. Yanks might not get it but in UK people would Start killing each other if they couldn't eat or see a doctor as they are not used to it.

[mikado]

So People like Quintius Curtius and Feisbook Control came and raised the level of the debate.

Good, good. I have to, as well.

To Vronsky
I will not comment on the assumptions you mad towards the Prophet. Not only would it be pointless if I denied it and gave quotes, because you would basically do the same with other quotes , but also it is not the root of the problem.

Further, contrary to what you believe, Islam allows innovations. The only condition for that is that it must provide greater a greater good to people than the customs/behaviours they replace.
Now let's talk about that "hierarchy" you talked about

God sent the Prophet Muhammad to the Arabs first for a reason: they were the most corruptible and perverted people in the world at that time. This does not mean they are the creme de la creme of Muslims. It only means that the most important monuments and cities ( Kabba, Mecca....) were theirs. And that they would have to expand the religion to other sides of the world.
However the Quran said explicitly ( no time to find the quote sorry) that all Muslims are brothers, whatever skin color or region they are from. There is no difference between them in front of God, only by their level of faith do they differ.
The problem is that that people, the Arabs, went quickly in replicating some behaviours from pre-islam period. Including raping, killing, enslaving...In Islam people are never supposed to be submitted to slavery by force, except as a result of battling effectively against Muslims. Look at what they did to Africa...

The most obvious expression of that breach which developped between them and the rest of muslim world is their racism.
Today it is still widely refused to give your Arab daughter to a black, even if muslim.
Just last week in Morocco, another Senegalese was killed and other Subsaharian Africans too, by moroccan people solely because of racism. No reaction from local Maghreb people. No call to police. Nothing. They were probably relieved to see these "Azziyya" die.

When you see these kind of behaviours, and you believe in the true core of the message of the Prophet Muhammad, in the Unicity of God, then you only have one option.
Dissociate yourself from the cultural aspects included by the Arabs in the religion, and find the essence of the message.

This is why I am not following any folklore from Arabs, or even Senegalese. Because I am afraid these innovations might end up being my loss. I stick to the minimum. And I also take pride in my Africanity. This is why I am so attached to separating the culture from the religion. Because I can't believe in a religion that discriminates towards its adherents. And I cannot back up people whom I supposedly share the same religion, but treat my African brothers like shit.

This is no different from what some guys on this board do. They are Christian, but only try to stick to the core of the religion. Yet, they are not shamed.
I am really disappointed to see sometimes posts of pure hate. It has become fashionable to bash Islam. But at least, when you try to do it, do it to Christianity too. And possibly Judaism. Because the three are not that different.

My final word is (already repeated on this board, but let's do it again)

If a religion is practised in a kind, solid, fraternal and open-minded way in a certain region(s) contrary to how it's done in other parts of the globe ( Middle East) then you cannot just throw the religion under the same bus. You must extract what's cultural,then only after that make your conclusions. The single fact that there are wars between Muslims is enough for some investigation, instead of bashing for the sake of bashing.

[Arado]

(09-03-2014 03:23 AM)mikado Wrote:  

If a religion is practised in a kind, solid, fraternal and open-minded way in a certain region(s) contrary to how it's done in other parts of the globe ( Middle East) then you cannot just throw the religion under the same bus. You must extract what's cultural,then only after that make your conclusions. The single fact that there are wars between Muslims is enough for some investigation, instead of bashing for the sake of bashing.

This is not bashing for the sake of bashing. Tolerance towards Islam and the need for the PC media to whitewash Islam is what has been causing multicultural tensions in the first place.

Perhaps the Middle East is the worst representative of Islam, but is that not where its founder originated? Is that not where Muslims worldwide go for Hajj (Saudi Arabia)? Is that not the version of Islam (Wahabism) which is being propagated through madrases throughout the world?

You still haven't addressed the fundamental point, that the founders of Islam vs. Christianity vs. Buddhism have vastly different records w/ regard to tolerance of other religions. And even if you were right, either way, it doesn't solve the problem. We have to confront the religion head on. Islam is causing problems with all neighboring religions throughout the world.

Nigeria
France
UK
Nigeria
Phillipines
Pakistan-India
Bangladesh-Burma Rohingya
ISIS
Western China
Darfur Genocide

the list goes on and on....there is clearly something fundamentally wrong with this religion.

[bojangles]

Mikado, pure hate? lol you never went to the IRT thread I see. Did I give a fuck? No. You shouldn't either, you're always on the defensive here, it's sad that I've never actually seen any contributions on this board from you that are not defending Islam.

[mikado]

I am not defensive. It's just that almost no one else ever defends it, or even treat it on the same ground as Christianity or Judaism. This is why except JDresden (banned) and me, there is almost no post favourable to the Islamic religion.

For my contributions, I don't remember everything I posted but how is it bad if the majority of it concerns my religion? This is not solely a game forum, or lifestyle forum, or weightlifting forum. I am contributing here not to convert people, but make the most of you become objective about it, and avoid having this forum derailed into a white nationalist one. I also made some posts on black issues, which concern me too since I am also black. So it is wrong if I speak more about the issues that concern me the most (skin color and religion) ?

The beauty of this forum is that men can talk about almost any issue. And if you recognize me as the "muslim guy" then fine. I do not care about having an etiquette, or a post it on me. However if I see something I view as wrong then I'll step in. Because I previously too often would be reduced to being silent, and never take action in life. I will do it now IRL, and on this forum, because this forum is an extension of my life, not afraid to say it.

[Arado]

You are more than welcome to defend your religion. Bear in mind though that the powers at be tell us that Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam and Christianity are equally violent. These same powers/media also criticize mens rights activists and our "red pill" approach to life and current events. So don't be surprised if we tell it like it is without a PC filter. Anyone with basic common sense will notice a disproportionate amount of violence and intolerance among a specific group of people. Can't deny reality.

[Wutang]

(09-03-2014 12:17 AM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  

Christianity became that way once it became entwined with states. We could say the same about Buddhism, that because of the samurai, WW2-era nationalism, etc., it is responsible for atrocities. Yet this is more than slightly disingenuous. If we look at the lives of Christ, Buddha or Mohammed, we can see a very, very fundamental difference between them that has served as the basis for the religions ever since.

Muhammad reminds me a lot more of Old Testament patriarchs in that he is not only a religious and spiritual leader but also a warlord, a politician, and a chieftain. He was very much involved in the affairs of the world unlike men such as Christ and Buddha who were much more concerned with spiritual matters and actually shunned being overly attached to worldly deeds. I think a big issue with Islam is that from the very beginning Islam has been always been associated with politics and power while Christianity prior to Constantine was not while Buddhism has mostly been separated not being associated with politics and power to the extent that Christianity and Islam has been, with exceptions such as in Tibet where it served as the most pure example of a theocracy.

[solo]

I was shocked when I read about this Rotherham case. Two days after it was reported, a journalist from the same fucking paper who wrote about it had a piece where he questioned what was so bad about Political Correctness.

He didn't even bother to read the same fucking newspaper he works at!

Some (most) people are just blue pill for life.

We can argue over the exact extent of this and whether or not it was exaggerated. But the fact is (and I think we all agree on this) that there is a real problem with multicultulturalism in Europe and that the establishments and masses are completely oblivious to it due to the PC brainwashing. They are still just awake enough to refuse to live in the areas where multiculturalism is most visible though, despite their one-sided praise of it. Fucking hypocrites.

As for Islam. Genocides have been done both in the name of Islam and Christianity and surely other religions too. I'm not that knowledgeable about Islam but it's clear to me that there is a problem with either Islam and/or the culture in some muslim countries. I say this even though I agree with parts of Islam's view of women (actually not really, more like the traditional Christian view of them). Also got Muslim/Middle Eastern friends so I don't generalize (well maybe just a little).

I got nothing against law-abiding immigrants and welcome anyone who seeks help and shelter from poverty or wars etc and who cannot be helped in their home country. But I got plenty against all these fucking gang criminals, welfare tourists and ISIS terrorists taking the places of people around the world who are truly in need. Not to mention the clown politicians who rule our countries with their sanctimonious and self-righteous discourse. The right want mass immigration in order to press down wages and tear won the labour laws (and will use unemployment among immigrants as an argument to this end). The left wants mass immigration to ensure a welfare dependent electorate who will vote for them. We won't see an improvement in the integration because immigrants are already benefiting from different positive discrimination practices, but are still overrepresented in unemploment statistics. That tells you everything about how hard it is to integrate them.

I recently had a "meltdown" (actually more like a troll job) where I defended a European anti mass immigration party on facebook under my real name and everything. That might surprise some here given my stance in earlier discussions, but when thinking about immigration the key question for me is to who the country belonged to originally. Of course common sense then needs to be applied. Anyway, I defended this party on issues not even relating to its anti mass immigration profile, but I was of course still predictably and absurdly called a racist. Their hamster is spinning very hard right now as they desperately try to fight the creeping realization of the hollowness in their "arguments" and try to understand how they could lose to someone they call a racist. It's simple really, both left liberals and right libertarians are living in a blue pill bubble.

A part of thinks this feminist and PC nightmare will just go on, and another part thinks it has to end some day. As we all know it won't be through logical arguments, but either through a collapse or guys like us bringing back Patriarchy by force.

[Soberane]

(08-26-2014 07:21 PM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(08-26-2014 06:50 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

Well, I guess we need a new definition for rape culture. How about this:

Rape culture: when political correctness prevents the police from arresting hundreds of Pakistani and Muslim rapists/child pimps for fear of appearing racist.

Thanks progressives!

As usual the real rape cultures are completely ignored while white college boys in Cambridge are thrown to the wolves of the press and public humiliation on some bogus claims by "regret-raped" or "rejected-raped" princess wannabe.

Meanwhile hordes of immigrants rape their way through thousands of children and hardly a peep in the media or the authorities. When they say 1400, then we might even go higher in fact.

(08-27-2014 04:45 AM)Mage Wrote:  

This is de facto Pakistan invading England.

How else can you call it when an individual or a group of individuals form one nation can go and molest children from another nation on their ground without getting punishment?

Why do these "progressive" countries even have armed forces if they just let foreigners in and allow them to molest their children? All these millions of $$$ and ships and missles are just useless props a facade.

This is absurd. The western civilization is impotent. What a disgrace.

By Sargon of Akkad

[TigerMandingo]

All the stories have been told
Of kings and days of old,
But there's no England now.
All the wars that were won and lost
Somehow don't seem to matter very much anymore.
All the lies we were told,
All the lies of the people running round,
They're castles have burned.
Now I see change,
But inside we're the same as we ever were.

Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Living this way, each day is a dream.
What am I, what are we supposed to do?
Living on a thin line,
Tell me now, what are we supposed to do?

[Echoes]

Haven't read all this thread but people in here would be wise to check out the Westminster Paedophile rings in which our own powerful (white, British) elite went around fucking kids and got away with it, everything being covered up under the lie of 'national security'. Might also want to check out the Kincora scandal in Ireland during the troubles in which British secret services discovered child sex abuse in a boys home and allowed it to continue for many years, seeing it as a method of obtaining potential blackmail material on paramilitary organisations. Again, covered up.

I'm sure a large percentages of worldwide paedo-rings could have been smashed had British intelligence not been so focused on covering up their own dirty dealings in this regard.

Sexual abuse of minors and vulnerables is repugnant under any circumstances, not merely when it involves ethnic minorities.

[Saweeep]

(12-30-2014 06:20 AM)Echoes Wrote:  

Haven't read all this thread but people in here would be wise to check out the Westminster Paedophile rings in which our own powerful (white, British) elite went around fucking kids and got away with it, everything being covered up under the lie of 'national security'. Might also want to check out the Kincora scandal in Ireland during the troubles in which British secret services discovered child sex abuse in a boys home and allowed it to continue for many years, seeing it as a method of obtaining potential blackmail material on paramilitary organisations. Again, covered up.

I'm sure a large percentages of worldwide paedo-rings could have been smashed had British intelligence not been so focused on covering up their own dirty dealings in this regard.

Sexual abuse of minors and vulnerables is repugnant under any circumstances, not merely when it involves ethnic minorities.

To be honest nothing compares to the scale of this Muslim-child-sex problem in the history of the UK.

What about this-ism is unhelpful when discussing specific problems.

[Echoes]

I'm not in the business of point scoring or using child abuse as a political tool but it's plain hypocrisy to see it as only a Muslim issue.

Also, in the history of the UK I'm sure Muslim abuse is only a relatively minor and recent issue, the vast child abuse networks and scandals of the 70's, 80's and 90's would dwarf it quite considerably (IMO).

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/

EDIT: to clarify, I hope all people engaged in sick acts like these are caught and brought to justice, regardless of colour or ethnic origin.

[bojangles]

You say that but 4000 children in one small town is a hell of a lot. Nevermind the girls in Bradford, Rochdale, Derby, Oxford, Leicester, Oldham, Huddersfield and other cities.