This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Is it time Europe bans Islam &amp; muslim immigration?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 260

imaanr

Original post by billydisco

Islamic terrorism makes up 99% of all terrorism as a whole.

Incorrect, only 15% though I believe it's less than that.

Reply 261

llys

Original post by BaconandSauce

Hold on how much Oil does Bristol produce?

Reply 262

imaanr

Original post by BaconandSauce

Hold on how much Oil does Bristol produce?

Why are you asking such irrelevant questions?
'Our' meaning the Muslim countries supplying oil.

Reply 263

imaanr

Original post by Hasan_Ahmed

First modern university. Aztecs and ancient greeks had universities too, although they were different. I'm not sure what flying machine you're talking about? Also, they brought music, yeah, but not 'music' as a whole, and the crank is not an invention by muslims. It was picked up from people in Syria who had cranks before Syria was conquered by the so called 'islamic' armies of the second caliph.

No, the first ever University

Reply 264

BaconandSauce

Original post by imaanr

Why are you asking such irrelevant questions?
'Our' meaning the Muslim countries supplying oil.

But not your though as you are in Bristol

Perhaps is you though of 'us' as 'your' rather than 'them' as 'your' it might make you look like less of a bigot and you might learn not to be racist

You know as you do live in this country but then given you are a racist I'd prefer if you did have some form of homeland you could be shipped back too

Reply 265

imaanr

Original post by BaconandSauce

No you hold that title when you claimed muslims invented algebra and then made a racist remark.

A Muslim man named al-Khwarizmi is where the roots of algebra come from, go search it up

Reply 266

billydisco

Original post by imaanr

Since when have we stayed silent?!
This is probably the most ignorant post I have seen in my entire life!
Have you been on Twitter today? Facebook? Tumblr?
#Muslimsarenotterrorists is trending, so is #Notinmyname!
No matter how unfair it is?
White people have such high double standards.
There should be a law that says you can only blame someone for a horrendous act when it is not an inside job (which this one clearly is as there are reports saying there is proof that the terrorists were refugees because there was a Syrian passport found on the body of one of the terrorists... Because a passport can really withstand a bomb blast, can't they(?))

Also, if I were to say I'm Christian does that mean I'm a Christian? I guess apparently, according to you, it does.
Also, only 15% of terror attacks in the past few years have been down by so called 'Muslims'.
Honestly, if this is what you guys really want, then we should also stop trading too. Lord knows how you guys will survive without our oil...

There are still problems with the religion ignoring terrorism. Compare how they integrate in the UK compared with Sikhs.

How many Sikh cashiers working in supermarkets kick up a fuss when they have to sell alcohol?

The fundamental issue is Islam is not compatible with Western values. Either you wish to live in the West or you wish to follow Islam seriously. I do not think both can exist without friction.

Reply 267

imaanr

Original post by BaconandSauce

First off, my apologies as I had no intention of coming across as racist. Secondly, I was referring to the Muslim countries that supply oil to the many other countries in Europe and the USA. Thirdly, this is my country too as much as it is yours so you're just going to have to suck up and deal with it.

Reply 268

imaanr

Original post by billydisco

Alcohol is haram in Islam. There are many non-Muslims who don't drink alcohol at all. What's wrong with that?
I live in the West AND I follow Islam seriously. I'm living quite peacefully here, I see no problem with being a British Muslim. I mean, come on, you guys have the EDL for gods sake! They parade around the streets here all the time but we deal with it so you guys need to get over not having alcohol sold in every single Muslim owned shop in England.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 269

Hasan_Ahmed

Original post by Foo.mp3

Uhh, sorry for the really, really long reply. I hope this isn't too much to read. :frown:

No, I don't have a connection to sylhet apart from by food and a couple of words. All four of my grandparents are different kinds of mixed race. I visited the place once when I was about 12 and it was a completely alien culture to me, unlike the situation here at home. My family has significant persian, pashtun, sylheti, hejazi and yemeni arab, mesopotamian, welsh, and hui chinese blood. I don't have a significant connection to any of them except my connection to Wales, because I was raised here. I even considered myself atheist when I was 14, though I changed my mind later for irrelevant reasons.

Secondly - some of the assumptions you made towards Islamic doctrine are only true for some interpretations. It is unfair for you to say, 'The punishment for apostasy in Islam is death,' - rather, it is more appropriate to say that 'the punishment for apostasy in most of the popular schools of thought in Islam is death.' From this point on, when I speak about 'islam' I will talk from the historical opinions I have gained from study of the hadiths with the reliability of each narration being a priority - this affects my understanding of the quran and leads me to reject the works of scholars like Ibn Kathir and Ibn Taymiyyah who were called liars by their sunni and shia contemporaries as well as people slightly later in history, like the sunni school founder Imam Malik.

When I refer to an islamic opinion other than mine, I will say where it comes from.

I would be happy to discuss my interpretation of Islam - which is not unique to me but was also held by several classical (pre-safavid) shia scholars such as Ibn Kulayni (who provided the muslims with books such Al Kafi) - but that's not the point here. This is not a historical discussion about Muhammad, and while I feel the urge to refute what you said about Islam during Muhammad's time, that's not what I want to address.

In order to find a solution to our current problems in europe with both extremist islam - which is actually just 'proper' adherence to the rulings of the majority islamic schools in Europe, i.e. those sunni madh'habs who take their religious principles from scholars like the two I mentioned above that actually provide ideological, tacit, enabling support to extremists (at this point, all of them have significant amounts if not a majority who do, due to wahaabi religious propaganda and infiltration) - we need to understand how it came about. I have been researching these issues for maybe 4 years.

Anyone who follows the majority schools of islamic thought subsribed to in Europe to the T -will- be a terrorist. This is undeniable. Most don't, choosing to ignore the parts of their school's interpretation of Islam that conflicts (rightly!) with their consciences or ability.

My conclusions, though after your studies, your own might vary, are that after Muhammad's death there was a coup detat against Ali ibn Abu Talib, the (provably) appointed successor of Muhammad which resulted in the creation of a caliphate with Abu Bakr at its head. It was at this moment that false narrations began to be attributed to Muhammad.

A brief look at the issue of the inheritance of Fatima, Muhammad's daughter being refused to her by Abu Bakr on the grounds of a saying from muhammad narrated by the latter, which claimed that prophets do not give inheritances, despite his presence when Fatima was promised her inheritance (a plot of land called Fadak) by Muhammad gives evidence of this.

It is interesting to note that both the first and second caliphs after muhammad attempted to have all the hadiths written before their reign burned...

Throughout the sunni and shia hadiths are mentions of rulings changed by the first three caliphs. Changes which did not reflect a modification of the sharia to maintain its principles with a changing environment, but a modification of those principles themselves. The caliphs were provided with the 'backup' of a forged scholarly class who would survive to the ummayid and abbasid eras whose job was to attribute false (incoherent when all compared) narrations to Muhammad. Later sunni (and some shia, see the safavids, fatimids and idrisids) historians then denied all or some of these alterations, claiming that it had always been the later way in order to preserve the legitimacy for despotic and discriminatory policies, as they themselves were sponsored by their own warlord sultans, emirs, caliphs, shahs, kings, etc.

These scholars would then re-interpret the quran according to modified meanings for words which had fallen into disuse in the standard arabic of the time and so could be sneakily redefined. An example of this - the redefinition of fitnah as a term meaning 'corruption, division, including disbelief and violation of the sharia'. The verse, containing the words 'for fitnah is worse than killing' then took on a very different meaning than it had when fitnah was defined as 'social unrest, turmoil, division, chaos.' Changing this definition gave despotic rulers a 'quranic' mandate that went well beyond that verse.

A political example would be, 'Fight in the way of God those who fight you - but do not initiate hostilities. Indeed, God does not love the aggressors.' (2:190). This verse, with the context of the verse containing the word fitnah, now allowed the use of violence against people who 'initiated hostilities' simply by professing lack of belief in islam - or perhaps belief in a different interpretation of Islam, or political ideas which can vary while being within the framework of islam.

A second example, this time dealing with institutional discrimination - the redefinition of the word 'jayb' with the plural 'juyuub' from 'part of the chest where the opening of the collar of a garment is located' or 'the actual opening in the garment' (nowadays translated as pocket in modern standard arabic) to 'all of the neck, face, hair, and body of a woman' - and ridiculously, only in the verses where dress code is given!

The quran instructs Muhammad to 'Tell the believing woman to draw their khimar over juyuubihinna (i.e. their cleavage/opening of their upper garment/breasts).'
The khimar is a small cloth that was used to cover the hair in pre-islamic arabia, also worn by jews and christians - nowadays it is erroneously called 'the hijab' by a lot of people, including women, despite being worn in balkan and slavic cultures too. The new translation of the verse should now be obvious. Burqa. The original interpretation, where it is followed, is sometimes also interpreted to allow women to not even cover their hair, since the Quran mentions the khimar only because the women of the time were already wearing them. Not sure where I stand on that, yet.

But when the same exegesis writers wrote of the verses in the quran about Moses being told to put one hand on his 'jayb' and the other at his side, they wrote 'chest'. The inconsistency is evident.

This allowed the Ummayid and Abbasid dynasties as well as their fragmented successor dynasties to oppress their own people and non muslims as the first three caliphs had, as well as the safavid twelver empire to draw upon despotic sunni ideas like death for apostasy, in order to give a religious mandate for arbitrary execution (borrowed from ibn kathir), to force their population to convert to shi'ism. They claimed shi'ite legitimacy for such policies by attributing the same narrations to the 12 imams. This included the massacre of thousands of sunnis in the city of Herat.

The safavid interpretation of twelver shi'ism is being purged in Iran (due to the anti-safavid Ayatullah Khomeini's lingering influence), where seminaries are regularly held to reduce the sunni influences allowed into the school of thought. It's followed in most parts of Iraq as well as rural iran, parts of bahrain, most of the shia in Kuwait, pakistan, and some non secular azeri communities. Non safavid shi'ism is primarily followed in Yemen (zaydi, though they are also infiltrated with varying amounts of sunnism depending on the region), Lebanon, Iran, parts of Iraq, eastern Europe (bektashis), some Turks (alevis and qizilbash), Syria, eastern Saudi Arabia, and by growing communities in african countries like Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa.

The solution to the problems we face, I propose, is an encouragement - perhaps even compulsion - of muslims to reconsider their historical narrative of the era after study. To go back to their so-called 'sahih (authenticated) hadiths' and evaluate their reliability more, especially in the light of the many contradictions. Muslims should be encouraged to educate themselves in their religion not shallowly, taking ideas from their sheikhs and accepting them at face value, but by studying their historical narrations in an academic, systematic, unbiased scientific manner, employing the use of linguistics, and the science of historical analysis - the way their so-called scholars should be doing. This kind of religious re-education and religious revivalism will, I guarantee usher in a new era not of personal-secularist progressivism, but a kind of progressivism with a religious mandate.

Reply 270

imaanr

Original post by marcelinhodalua

Should Islam be banned in Europe? Obviously

People act like tension between the west and Islam is a new phenomenon. This has been going on for over a thousand years. Islam is an old enemy of Europe and thankfully our ancestors have been able to stop them from taking over our great continent. Last time Muslims were in Europe in such numbers they pissed people off so much that every single last one of them had their asses handed to them and were kicked back to Africa and the middle east. If Muslims don't take it down a few notches something similar will happen again.

The last time Muslims were in Europe in such numbers, we taught you guys how to wash yourselves and brush your teeth! If it wasn't for us, you guys would still be eating with your poo-infected hands.
Honestly, I think we should create a forum asking whether Christianity should be banned in all Muslim countries. I would love to see how that would turn out.

Reply 271

Evening

Once again we must bear witness to the destructive hatred of religion and the devastation that comes with blindly following a script without a thought to the consequences. This series of coordinated attacks is the deadliest to hit Paris since World War II, and the repercussions will be devastating. It’s a sad state of affairs that people automatically jumped to assume that Islam was responsible. It’s even worse, however, that people forget the victims in lieu of protecting their faith.

Perhaps the worst thing anyone can do right now is tell other people how they should feel; that she should direct their anger elsewhere; that they should point their rage in the ‘right’ direction. This is undoubtedly the best option in the long run, but to rob someone of their right to anger immediately after they have been robbed of someone they love is cruel and only serves to create more resentment to those innocent Muslims who did nothing wrong. Let people feel their anger and sorrow as they are entitled to it, and they will come round to realise that these were the acts of extremists who don’t represent an entire religion, but don’t try to silence their grief or smother their opinions at the present.

Killing scores of innocent people aside, these idiots have only served to give more people reason to hate Muslims. In the long run there probably will be severe backlash against the Islamic community, but I think we can all agree that at this very moment that the suffering of those affected both physically and mentally from such atrocities and the trauma of 130+ dead far outweighs the hurt feelings of Muslims. To add monikers like ‘the religion of peace’ to try to defend Islam is pointless. No religion is peaceful, that is a tried and tested fact from countless wars and conflicts up to the present done in the name of a faith that not everyone shares. Every major religion has been hijacked by extremists killing innocent people in the name of their faith, so don’t try to tell me Islam is innocent.

Of course everyone is too scared to offend anyone nowadays, so there will be very little in the way of discussion concerning the very real problem of religious extremism. Maybe Islam didn’t cause this, but religion can certainly be held responsible in some way. But just because I haven’t specified which religion doesn’t make it any less about Islam, any less than the crusades were caused by Christians or the Ikkō-ikki rebellion was caused by Buddhists or that the aggressive resettlement by Zionists was caused by Jews. Terrorism is definitely the immediate cause of these horrible crimes, that much is true. But religion has definitely played a part in it. The entire argument is akin to ‘guns don’t kill people; people do’. Like it or not, the people who committed the crimes followed Islam and were Muslims; don’t try to play semantics with the reality of it.

Right now, however, it’s not ideal to focus on those responsible as much as we should bow our heads for the deceased. More often than not, nowadays, we are quick to forget the victims in favour of political leverage, attacking an ideology, or gathering popular support through social media such as Twitter or Facebook. If you have a shred of sympathy for the victims in Paris and the families and friends of those affected, you won’t burden the attacks in Paris with political bandwagon. That isn’t me saying don’t speak your mind or don’t see the wider picture or implications. I’m simply trying to point out that the well-being and memory of the victims is worth more than capitalising on this travesty or by sympathising with the lesser of the two.

Yes, Israel is horrible and they have a terrible human rights track record, and something has to be done about their actions regarding Palestine; yes, the Iraq War and the War in Afghanistan were terrible, and have claimed thousands of innocent lives; yes, the US and the UK have hypocritical approaches in the international stage regarding terrorism. And yes, there are other tragedies going on right now in the likes of Japan, Mexico, Iraq, and other nations worldwide, and they deserve their own mourning and moment of silence. But they deserve them in their own time. The kinds of people who divert attention away from what has happened in Paris with clichéd responses such as ‘but what about X happening in Y?’ or ‘it’s only a tragedy when it’s in Western countries’ are missing the point. It’s an immediate, very near threat which has happened to a country that is one of the geographically closest to us, one of our most important economic partners, and one of our closest military allies. These very same people seem to stay awfully quiet about the other thousands of horrible things going on in the world, yet accuse others of being selective for caring more about their home city/neighbour’s city when they are hit by a crisis.

Right now these other events are not the focus of what has happened in Paris and trying to compare other, equally terrible events will only scatter people than unite them.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 272

ah07

Original post by llys

That is part of the problem. Muslims who deny that there are terrorist muslims. How can they expect anyone to take them seriously?

I should hope that when you try to identify yourself as a peaceful human being, people will take you seriously.

What good is labelling billions of people guilty for a thousand men's crimes? It's insane. If you reject them whilst they stand by you, where do you expect them to turn? Banning Islam will be a violation of human rights and also oppression. If this ban takes place, Europe will be no better than a "barbaric" Islamic society. You reap what you sow, show them hatred and hatred will grow.

Reply 273

billydisco

Original post by imaanr

Are you stupid? I was not questioning whether they drink alcohol, I was questioning the number of times they start complaining they have to sell it, whilst working in mainstream supermarkets like Tesco/Asda etc.

The EDL are a reaction to Islam!

Reply 274

billydisco

Original post by imaanr

Are you aware saying things like:

we taught you guys how to wash yourselves and brush your teeth

proves our point? Which country do you live in, to refer to British/Western people as "you guys"?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 275

billydisco

Original post by ah07

So instead lets admit more and hope they/their offspring don't convert? Sounds great :wink:

Reply 276

viddy9

Original post by Observatory

I agree, however there were two proposals: ban Islam and end muslim immigration. If the presence of a large number of people who can easily be turned into an enemy population is undesirable, then an obvious solution is to stop allowing that population to grow ever larger.

If it was that easy to turn them into an enemy population, then we would see a death rate far higher than we've seen so far. Threads like this make it easier, though.

Original post by Observatory

I think this is a real problem for the pro-immigration tribe because when asked at the beginning of the whole project they denied that any such outcome would occur or was even possible. The division of Britain (or Europe) into two or more tribes precariously balanced on the brink of civil war is essentially what Enoch Powell was predicting in Birmingham in 1968.

No such outcome has occurred. There is no division of Britain or Europe into two or more tribes precariously balanced on the brink of civil war.

Immigration brings immense benefits to the vast, vast majority of Muslim individuals. Banning immigration of these individuals because a miniscule proportion of Muslims engaged in an atrocity would be akin to banning cars because they regularly result in death; indeed, you're still far, far more likely to die in a car accident than you are in a terrorist attack, yet we don't see any proposals to ban cars. Why? Because the benefits of having cars outweigh the risks, and the same is the case with allowing Muslims and indeed all humans to move freely between borders.

Reply 277

Hasan_Ahmed

Original post by imaanr

No, the first ever University

Incorrect. The oldest existing, and continually operating educational institution in the world is the University of Al-Qarawiyyin, founded in 859 AD in Fez, Morocco by a female muslim named Fatima al-Fihri. That is the oldest university established by Muslims, used a relatively modern way of organisation and teaching, and is still in use today. That is impressive enough without pretending it was the first university ever.

The Academy of Gundishapur was established in the 3rd century AD under the rule of Sassanid kings and continued its scholarly activities up to four centuries after Islam came to Iran.
In China, the ancient imperial academy known as Taixue was established by the Han Dynasty in AD 3. In Korea, Taehak was founded in 372 and Gukhak was established in 682.
In Japan, Daigakuryo was founded in 671. Nalanda was established in 427AD in Bihar, India.The Pandidakterion of Constantinople, founded as an institution of higher learning in 425, educated graduates to take on posts of authority in the imperial service or within the Church.
The Platonic Academy (sometimes referred to as the University of Athens), founded ca. 387 BC in Athens, Greece, by the philosopher Plato, lasted 916 years (until AD 529) with interruptions.
Around 335 BC, Plato's successor Aristotle founded the Peripatetic school, the students of which met at the Lyceum gymnasium in Athens.
During the Hellenistic period of Egypt, the Museion in Alexandria was established, possibly in the 3rd century BC.

Regurgitating misinformation fed to us by muslim supremacists puts the credibility of all muslims in the gutter. Please don't do it. Check what people tell you before you repeat it.

Reply 278

Hasan_Ahmed

Original post by billydisco

So instead lets admit more and hope they/their offspring don't convert? Sounds great :wink:

There are other options. See my long post explaining why and how.

Reply 279

billydisco

Original post by viddy9

Immigration brings immense benefits to the vast, vast majority of Muslim individuals.

Doesn't bring any to British people though.

Original post by viddy9

Banning immigration of these individuals because a miniscule proportion of Muslims

1 billion Muslims means 1% equals 10 million terrorists.....

Original post by viddy9

engaged in an atrocity would be akin to banning cars because they regularly result in death; indeed, you're still far, far more likely to die in a car accident than you are in a terrorist attack, yet we don't see any proposals to ban cars. Why? Because the benefits of having cars outweigh the risks, and the same is the case with allowing Muslims and indeed all humans to move freely between borders.

So there are no problems with terrorism because more car accidents occur?

God it must be sad to cling to a failed dream like you do and make-up deluded crap like above to justify it....