sharia infiltration into society

[Chronamut]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid949801312001?bckey=AQ~~%2cAAAACEco_Vk~%2c9bOat4XcfB_88ri1a3UMdKnLpH9aM8Fv&bclid=0&bctid=1271237687001

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/peaceful_majority_irrelevant/#.U6UXA6GQa30.email

and

http://dotsub.com/media/b5ee5ada-5b37-4b0b-9916-e0896337ec4b/embed/eng

so my parents of all people sent me a bunch of links to showcase to me just how bad the muslim "agenda" is getting on trying to corrupt and take over places like the USA and canada from within.

I don't know if this subject would be better off in the politics forum - I don't know if religion and politics are interchangeable, or if a subject of religion is even WELCOME on newgrounds.. I will let the mods decide that. I do however believe that these 2 videos showcase very good points - one from the view of a regular citizen and one from one with the background OF islamic knowledge, in this case specifically an anti terrorism expert.

-----

Now this is a subject that is tiptoed around a lot - because nobody is quite sure how one fights an IDEOLOGY - and very rarely in history has an entire ideology ever been stamped out completely - paganism, or polytheism is the only one I can really think of as far as a "religion" goes - there is still some polytheism as far as spiritual beliefs go, hinduism etc.

Personally I agree with these people you cannot allow a belief that wishes to eradicate anything that does not follow its twisted laws to exist, let alone slowly corrupt the youth of the people it is being exposed to. I realize that there are many reasons to hate america. but the ones they are showcasing are riddled with lies. No god that is benevolant would wish for people to exterminate its own creations just to justify the egos of a few, or treat its creations like property, as women are. This religion is a hate filled excuse to dominate and control, using a centuries old book of atrocities to further validate their current atrocities. One could also say the same for the bible, but to a lesser degree.

-----

The issue of muslim takeover has been with us for centuries - the christians attempted to exterminate the muslims through the crusades, and ultimately failed, for violence against them only solidifies their cause, and with the promise of wealth in heaven their sacrifices mean nothing to them - and when you have a faith so strong that peoples lives no longer mean enough for them to stop their current action, you have a very serious problem.

TL:dr; so my question to you is how would you fight the muslim agenda? You can't blow them all up - 300 million muslims exist that are radical - and 1.2 billion exist in general - that is like.. 1/8th of the human population and they are EVERYWHERE. My personal solution is to fight ideology with ideology - promote a better one and slowly convert people to that - but they will rape and murder and kill and persecute all the way. It is becoming a virus, well.. it always was, but now it is affecting the generations that come after us, and the roman mentality of destroying from within (troy) seems to apply here.

[Kel-chan]

They say this is the major culture clash of the age. Western liberalism vs muslim extremism.

In parts of scandinavia there are some really horrific things that I've read in the dailymail and telegraph.co.uk

Supposedly Britain is worried that radical muslims are leaving to go to syria and iraq to join isis and they're worried about them returning and there's even some places in Britain that white brits can't really go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgKMI1wV0ps

I'm starting to think the west will loose the war. Mainly because liberalism believes in plurality and cultural marxism. Also they believe everyone is equal.

When that happens, won't the muslims win just because they're willing to die for their fanaticism?

It's really horrible.

[Chronamut]

I think in the end you have to respect peoples right to BELIEVE what they want, but also defend YOUR right to retain what you believe.

So while muslims can have their faith, by no means can anything they believe be justified legally. If they try to stgone someone due to sharia law then they are breaking the law.

In essence their book is deemed unconstitutional and illegal, and thus any practicing of their actual FAITH is in turn illegal.

We separated religion and state for a reason - islam is no different, it's just a different religion.

[Kel-chan]

At 7/7/14 01:34 AM, Chronamut wrote: We separated religion and state for a reason - islam is no different, it's just a different religion.

I'm not sure that islam is as much a religion as it is a code of culture and laws. Sharia law is very much intertwined with islam so I'm not sure how much a devout muslim can truly separate themselves from that.

This is where the problem comes in.

Even devout muslims that are not fanatics will agree with sharia law and would likely lobby for it's adoption by western cultures. Liberal gov'ts would give in thinking it's just another subgroup of the populace to placate and pry for votes. But the problem is sharia law is completely uncompatible with the western secular laws and completely at odds with things like civil rights.

You can't have civil rights for gays and things if you're an adherent to sharia law because that would be an abomination. The crutch is - whereas Christian people will picket or shout slurs, the muslims are willing to jihad.

I don't know how this is even remotely reconcileable without just separating the populaces.

This was the solution to the crusades. After enough blood and treasure had been lost in fighting, they decided to basically have no contact with the muslim world and it remained like this until world war 1. Only Ataturk in the Ottoman empire could keep islam and its shia and sunni subgroups in check.

Its the same today. Which is why Iraq is devolving into chaos. Without an authoritarian regime to clamp down, the factions will run rampant radicalizing the population. It's a very old an tribal thing.

I don't know how you can assimilate that into western culture when they believe in a "holy war" to the death. There's not much room for dialogue.

[NuclearInfected]

At 7/7/14 01:45 AM, Kel-chan wrote: You can't have civil rights for gays and things if you're an adherent to sharia law because that would be an abomination. The crutch is - whereas Christian people will picket or shout slurs, the muslims are willing to jihad.

Yeah, it's funny how liberals have gotten so obsessed with gay rights, but kiss up to a group that is super anti-gay to the point of killing them for it.

[Chronamut]

At 7/7/14 01:56 AM, NuclearInfected wrote:

At 7/7/14 01:45 AM, Kel-chan wrote: You can't have civil rights for gays and things if you're an adherent to sharia law because that would be an abomination. The crutch is - whereas Christian people will picket or shout slurs, the muslims are willing to jihad.

Yeah, it's funny how liberals have gotten so obsessed with gay rights, but kiss up to a group that is super anti-gay to the point of killing them for it.

in these situations you cannot kill the ideology because it is a closed loop control dogma, much like christianity is- it runs off fear and a persons fear for their very soul - with that fear one can convince someone to do almost anything.

The only way to destroy it is to show proof of its falsity - an that is a spiritual solution which would involve showcasing what ACTUALLY happens after death and that is currently beyond the ability of any known general person on earth, nor would it be believed regardless. The truth is people want to hate, and they want to have a justifiable reason for doing it - until you can address that hate you will never change anything. Do not address the problem - build a workable alternative solution and replace the problem with it.

[Kel-chan]

At 7/7/14 02:20 AM, Chronamut wrote:
The only way to destroy it is to show proof of its falsity - an that is a spiritual solution which would involve showcasing what ACTUALLY happens after death and that is currently beyond the ability of any known general person on earth, nor would it be believed regardless. The truth is people want to hate, and they want to have a justifiable reason for doing it - until you can address that hate you will never change anything. Do not address the problem - build a workable alternative solution and replace the problem with it.

This is true. But in the meantime Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world.

I think you can only Isolate. Contain. Execute.

There's no real reasoning with unreasonable people which is pretty sad. I saw that YT video of those isis guys pulling over random truckers in iraq asking whether they were sunni or shite and then pretty much murdering them in a ditch.

How you can even have a conversation with that level of insanity? If the US didn't need oil, we would just abandon that region and isolate it just like africa

[Painbringer]

Liberalism is the key to pacifying any religion.

[Gumburd]

At 7/7/14 01:34 AM, Chronamut wrote: We separated religion and state for a reason - islam is no different, it's just a different religion.

You can't look away from the destructive trends in muslim culture. I mean, you don't see Tibet monks blowing themselves up despite the oppression they face every day. I think it's not unreasonable to assume one religion can be inherently more dangerous and destructive than others.

[Entice]

At 7/7/14 01:31 AM, Kel-chan wrote: I'm starting to think the west will loose the war. Mainly because liberalism believes in plurality and cultural marxism. Also they believe everyone is equal.

When that happens, won't the muslims win just because they're willing to die for their fanaticism?

Where the hell did you get that idea?

People from the west, the middle east, really from all over the world are willing to and do fight Islamic militant groups. Some of them are Muslim themselves. There's probably someone dying right now doing it.

People are more than willing to defend their way of lives, including liberals. Tolerance of other cultures does not equate to allowing extreme religious groups to waltz in and change life as they know it. If sharia law took effect there wouldn't be any kind of plurality, "cultural marxism", or liberal ideology- don't you think they know that?

All in all it's amazing to me how distorted some people's view of liberalism is.

[Kel-chan]

At 7/7/14 02:45 AM, Entice wrote: All in all it's amazing to me how distorted some people's view of liberalism is.

I just go by what people say. Not every liberal believes the same things.

[exudaz]

Here's how I look at it.

There are many of Muslim extremists (around 300 million), mainly in the middle east, who would eagerly die for their beliefs.
We can never get Muslims to stop believing in their god in the way they do. Just look at ISIS. They're a group establishing a new caliphate in the middle east. No one can stop them, they're too dedicated and eager to die. I guarantee you that the average ISIS trooper is more dedicated and eager to fight than a Marine. Because they aren't fighting for a president or a country, they're fighting for a god. And they don't even fear death.

Because of globalization, Muslims are all over the earth. So now you have extremists in places like the UK (like in that video
Kel-chan posted) who want to spread their beliefs and make the world more like what they want it to be, regardless of what the natives want.

And because of all this globalization and mixing of vinegar and olive oil, natives are now taking a stand and feel like their beliefs and cultures are at risk of being exterminated (which they are in a way). Which is why we have far-right groups coming back in Europe. (Just do a google search for "golden dawn")

Islam has survived for thousands of years, it's never going to disappear. ISIS is going to take over the middle east, it's just inevitable. They're far stronger than the Iraqi military and more dedicated to their cause.
And in Europe, I'm 99% certain that riots are going to start taking place between Muslims and natives. This has happened in the past, and history always repeats itself.

History will always repeat itself.

[Chronamut]

At 7/7/14 02:41 AM, Gumburd wrote:

At 7/7/14 01:34 AM, Chronamut wrote: We separated religion and state for a reason - islam is no different, it's just a different religion.

You can't look away from the destructive trends in muslim culture. I mean, you don't see Tibet monks blowing themselves up despite the oppression they face every day. I think it's not unreasonable to assume one religion can be inherently more dangerous and destructive than others.

you DO see them setting themselves on fire though, as was the famous case when the monk burned himself alive to protest.

[yurgenburgen]

I can say with no uncertainty that Islam was one of the main reasons I emigrated from the U.K. to Canada

[Chronamut]

At 7/7/14 02:30 AM, Kel-chan wrote:

How you can even have a conversation with that level of insanity? If the US didn't need oil, we would just abandon that region and isolate it just like africa

the oil will eventually run out, as will their usefulness at that point. America could most likely destroy them all in a heartbeat, but they need them to further their own agenda, so they fund them.

[exudaz]

On the bright side, however, Muslims have really cool beards.
My father has a friend from Egypt who's a Muslim. He treats Women like shit, but he does have a cool beard.

[Reiska3]

Its only the evolution of religion actually.

Here's how it works.

What happens is if a master religion weakens. The answer is another will try to conquer it. ISIL has basically made itself independent, i am mostly critical about sunni and shia, both direction just suck and has political religious theocracy ideas in it. It would be so much better with "Quranism". One step in the right direction.

[Chronamut]

At 7/7/14 03:53 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I can say with no uncertainty that Islam was one of the main reasons I emigrated from the U.K. to Canada

it's starting to corrupt canada too.. slowly..

at least there is always the new age movement, which at least offers some balance to their viral jihad movement.

[Gumburd]

At 7/7/14 03:51 AM, Chronamut wrote: you DO see them setting themselves on fire though, as was the famous case when the monk burned himself alive to protest.

While that certainly is awful, it's nowhere near as terrifying as suicide bombers.
For one, self-immolation only damages the person acting on it. Suicide bombings deliberately targets innocent people and aims to spread fear and terror.

I'd say one is distinctively worse than the other.

[venturequestlord]

| INFO ON SHARIA LAW: |

*SIGH*..., As a Muslim I must tell all the people in Newgrounds (many of them my good friends) Sharia Law is only applicable to Muslims and people belonging to the religion of Islam. All the rest people are exempt from this; but those who convert must conform to SOME RULINGS LISTED IN SHARIA. In the Christian community located in Pakistan - They are all exempt including the Jews, Christians, Atheists and many other religious people.

| Applications of Sharia Law: |

Just as the European Constitutions and Judicial Proceedings in Interpretation of the European Law certain 'aids to interpretation' are applied, to assign meanings to ambiguous words or statements that may come in the statutes.
• Same goes for Sharia Law; if a ruling in the Law is contradicting, obsolete, not fit for modern standards it may be ruled out (on the basis of influence in the society it functions within). Example, such as the cutting of a thieves hand when caught robbing something from someone; this you might have seen from 'Aladdin' animated movie (1992). This rule is sometimes 'so I've heard applied in Saudi Arabia (a very strict Islamic state). But is not practiced in some moderately normal Muslim states in modern era: Pakistan, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia etc., thus, the strictness is entirely based on the society in which it is applied.
• Secondly, there are historical notations relating to application of Sharia in 'shared' societies on almost everyone regardless of religion (as most rulers thought it was beneficial to the society as a whole and could not afford to account for adapting to two types of Laws). Thus, they carried on; but those sort of societies are now rare. Again, Saui Arabia does not care which nation you belong to or your religion if they catch you doing something immoral and in their eyes-unlawful they will cleave your head with a scimitar. Such a case was noticed when 2 Pakistani men were caught smuggling drugs into Saudi Arabia (they head their heads cut off instantaneously right after they were caught).
• Thirdly, Pakistan having been under British rule since independence was also greatly influenced by British colonial law; and thus, (having it's Law Book written by a British White Man and Having it's ISI (Intelligence Agency - also made by a British Man) was greatly influenced by the Western Ideology.

| CONCLUSION/EVALUATION: |

Thus application of Sharia in some societies is limited to only those in the religion and are not even forcefully practiced here in Pakistan IF found contradicting with European International Human Rights Act (HRA 1998) Law. In amy case many people in Pakistan are opinionative [some are extrmists; while some are Pacifists (Majority of them Pacifists are of young generations)]
- I hope some of you now know how Sharia Law works and is highly optional and less likely to be applied on the British, Americans or their countries; it may only apply to the Muslim community living there. Thus, all of you are exempt. PEACE BE UPON YOU ALL, HAVE A NICE DAY.

[yurgenburgen]

At 7/7/14 05:26 AM, venturequestlord wrote: - I hope some of you now know how Sharia Law works and is highly optional and less likely to be applied on the British, Americans or their countries; it may only apply to the Muslim community living there.

U.K. law and Sharia law cannot co-exist because Sharia classes certain activities as crimes when they are perfectly legal under the law of the U.K.
Saying that Sharia law in the U.K. would "only apply to Muslims" is despicable. Muslims living in the U.K. should have the same rights and freedoms as non-Muslims. On top of U.K. law they should not have an additional set of oppressive nonsense imposed on them based on their religion.

[Reiska3]

At 7/7/14 05:54 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: U.K. law and Sharia law cannot co-exist because Sharia classes certain activities as crimes when they are perfectly legal under the law of the U.K.
Saying that Sharia law in the U.K. would "only apply to Muslims" is despicable. Muslims living in the U.K. should have the same rights and freedoms as non-Muslims. On top of U.K. law they should not have an additional set of oppressive nonsense imposed on them based on their religion.

I didn't even know theocracy vs democracy existed in the 21st century, that was intil islam came :/

[venturequestlord]

At 7/7/14 05:54 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 7/7/14 05:26 AM, venturequestlord wrote: - I hope some of you now know how Sharia Law works and is highly optional and less likely to be applied on the British, Americans or their countries; it may only apply to the Muslim community living there.

U.K. law and Sharia law cannot co-exist because Sharia classes certain activities as crimes when they are perfectly legal under the law of the U.K.
Saying that Sharia law in the U.K. would "only apply to Muslims" is despicable. Muslims living in the U.K. should have the same rights and freedoms as non-Muslims. On top of U.K. law they should not have an additional set of oppressive nonsense imposed on them based on their religion.

I am a qualified law student and I am well aware of European Law; otherwise, if your country felt insecure towards Muslim then they would have never even let them stay there. First of all let I think I have to end your claim about 'incompatibility' as you speak and pull fallacy from right and left and you barely know anything (highly un-professional of you):

| HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998 |:
• What is the purpose? HRA 1998 incorporates the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 into UK domestic law.
• Which Rights Are Covered? (FOCUS HERE):
- the right to life
- the right to liberty and security
- the right to a fair trial
- the right to freedom of though, conscience and 'religion'.
- freedom of expression
- freedom of assembly
- prohibition of discrimination
- the right to free elections.
• What if legislation is incompatible with the Convention?:
- Any existing legislation must be interpreted so it is compatible with the rights under the Conventional Law Act.
- If the court feels that the legislation is incompatible with the Convention and it cannot interpret it in such a way to make it compatible, then it may make a 'declaration of incompatibility'. HOWEVER, the declaration does not make the legislation invalid. It is left to the Parliament to remedy the situation through a new or secondary legislation.

| SHARIA LAW APPLICATIONS:
As I see no conflict of Sharia currently with European legislative law, thus, neither is the application of Sharia Law is acting 'Ultra Vires' or forcefully influenced on people then it is not exceeding or in conflict with European Law. Although the Facts of the Case Law and Ratio Decidendi ARE ABOVE the Sharia Law; and if certain act is found contradicting it shall not be allowed to be applied in Europe. Furthermore, as the specific mentions it is ONLY APPLICABLE TO MUSLIMS COMMUNITY and not the people of Europe: You are all exempt. Thus there is no complications/issues being raised unless found acting Ultra Vires and or Contradicting to Legislative Case Law, HRA 1998 and Conventional Law.

Thus, your statement "yurgenburgen" is false. And Europe is 'SAFE' including the people as it is specifically stated in simple terms:
a) not applicable to people outside of Islamic religion.
b) adjustable to match with national and international law applicable if the country is originally NOT of Muslim rule.
c) adjustable if found contradicting with basic Human Rights.
d) Can be applied entirely if accepted by entire community or nation based on majority of votes.

So pretty much it's politically correct and legal.

[yurgenburgen]

At 7/7/14 06:24 AM, venturequestlord wrote: Furthermore, as the specific mentions it is ONLY APPLICABLE TO MUSLIMS COMMUNITY and not the people of Europe: You are all exempt.

Why are you stating this again?
I never claimed that anyone is seeking to impose Sharia law on non-Muslims in Europe.
I stated that Muslims in Europe should not be granted the special right to impose Sharia law on other Muslims living in Europe.

a) not applicable to people outside of Islamic religion.

Why do you keep reiterating this?
Do you think that because I'm not a Muslim, that I don't care about the rights and freedoms of Muslims in Europe?

c) adjustable if found contradicting with basic Human Rights.

Sharia law is not concerned with basic human rights and is therefore incompatible with any constitution that attempts to uphold basic human rights.
You can "adjust" Sharia law to fit European law by simply not adopting Sharia law in any capacity. Simple.
Muslims in Europe who wish to live under Sharia law should simply do so in their own lives, without seeking to have it written into law so that it can be imposed on Muslims who don't want to live under Sharia law.

[venturequestlord]

Agreed and Respected, Bro :D. You are right on what you just wrote and I highly support your statement.

[MrPercie]

At 7/7/14 03:53 AM, yurgenburgen wrote: I can say with no uncertainty that Islam was one of the main reasons I emigrated from the U.K. to Canada

Really?! Where did you live? The city?

I had heard things before, but I had never imagined it was that bad.

[Voltage]

At 7/7/14 01:56 AM, NuclearInfected wrote:

At 7/7/14 01:45 AM, Kel-chan wrote: You can't have civil rights for gays and things if you're an adherent to sharia law because that would be an abomination. The crutch is - whereas Christian people will picket or shout slurs, the muslims are willing to jihad.

Yeah, it's funny how liberals have gotten so obsessed with gay rights, but kiss up to a group that is super anti-gay to the point of killing them for it.

nailed the paradox

here's the reality - liberals advocate total insanity because they're aware it exists but don't want to talk about it. conservatives advocate a totally insane alternative (or none whatsoever) because they're aware those exist but don't want to talk about it.

and here's something scary. "extreme radical Islamists" (Sean Hannity's favorite 3 words) are definitely a product of conservative thought at its most extreme. their beliefs are held firmly, rooted deeply into religion and especially "tradition." and whereas we believe in role models, they believe in demonstrations - to prove to you what their view is. and meanwhile you sit there with that stupid look on your face going, "well none of this will happen to me, it aint none my concern!"

think again, blind-eye; you're part of the public - the people they discern. go ahead man - check this out. a lot of these key phrases can be swapped out with America's key phrases;

"American historian Ira Lapidus calls Islamic fundamentalism "an umbrella designation for a very wide variety of movements, some intolerant and exclusivist, some pluralistic; some favourable to science, some anti-scientific; some primarily devotional and some primarily political; some democratic, some authoritarian; some pacifist, some violent.""

a couple of these links are kind of jokes though

[NuScarab]

Good fucking grief Newgrounds.

[Kel-chan]

At 7/7/14 07:29 AM, Voltage wrote:
here's the reality - liberals advocate total insanity because they're aware it exists but don't want to talk about it. conservatives advocate a totally insane alternative (or none whatsoever) because they're aware those exist but don't want to talk about it.

It's truly amazing when you think about it. America whole heartedly created this problem through its policy towards the middle east since the Ottoman empire fell.

[venturequestlord]

At 7/7/14 07:40 AM, Kel-chan wrote:

At 7/7/14 07:29 AM, Voltage wrote:
here's the reality - liberals advocate total insanity because they're aware it exists but don't want to talk about it. conservatives advocate a totally insane alternative (or none whatsoever) because they're aware those exist but don't want to talk about it.

It's truly amazing when you think about it. America whole heartedly created this problem through its policy towards the middle east since the Ottoman empire fell.

Well good thing I don't live in the Middle-East. I am in South Asia (an Indo-European mixture also known as Caucasians ) half asian and half western. So pretty much, I'm cool here in Pakistan; good thing our Army is defeating the rest of those terrorist in North Waziristan near the Afghan border. I think they already defeated 500+ (which will make the region more secure). Already some of the security problems are now solved and economy is becoming very safe.