Islam, majority religion in Belgium in decades ?

[Zloth]

No, his comment is clear and wrong. While some Christian men may be circumcised (often at birth in certain hospitals) it is NOT and NEVER has been a part of Christian belief, doctrine, or tradition!!

Errr, not and never in all caps? That's mighty strong. It took decades for Christianity to really split off from the Jewish faith and discussions about how to view Jewish law were a pretty hot topic when Paul's letters were being written. That's a pretty blurry situation to be so difinitive about.

As for the topic - of course Islam can work in the West. We've got lots of Muslims here in the USA and it's working just fine. Want to wear something that covers all but your eyes? Fine. Want to wear a big head dress? Great. Want to kill your daughter because she disgraced your family? 1st degree murder - go to jail. It can get a bit tricky from time to time but mostly you can just stick with the good old "nose ends/nose begins" rule and do fine.

 

[xSamhainx]

34 % of the rapes the police concluded were rapes. Not the reports, merely the reports that got further than a report. Which, considering how often rape cases end up being word against word, might be due to immigrants in general and non-western immigrants in particular don't seem as trustworthy as the locals. The local lads simply get more breaks than an immigrant (especially due to the whole "immigrants have a medieval view on women" trope).

That could be part of the explanation, you know. Just like the whole "poorly educated parents and a poor education of their own" thing I highlighted earlier.

This kind of outlook just cracks me up. They just love this kind of thinking by the dumb swedes.

You cannot even fathom the facts when theyre put right in front of you. Yes, 34% of the rapes that police (the ones who are in charge with dealing with this sort of thing) concluded were rapes. Youre so blind to the fact that your little multi-culti utopian worldview of the innocent immigrant could be anything but wrong. It cant be true, why the lads just get away with it more!

Why must you excuse them? Why are you looking for an "explanation" of the facts? Could the explanation simply be that its the truth? What a mind-blower!

I dont think I can go on any longer, I stay out of political threads because the absolute stupidity on display just makes me grit my teeth. Especially the multi-cultists, theyre the most clueless and absolute worst.

 

[JemyM]

Why must you excuse them?

Because the majority of the immigrants do not just work better than the majority of the inborn nationalists, they are also more liberal.

 

[Ubereil]

I'd say they usually get away with it easier than, for example, a native swede would..

And I'd say you're basing that on prejudice. Because you don't really have any concrete studies or statistics to back that saying up, do you? Other than newspaper articles (who are notoriously bad at interpreting scientific research).

You think a gang of white christian girls would be freed of something similar? Not very likely.

Freed? Not likely, no. But they might very well have gotten a suspended jail sentence just like the girls in the link got. They also got community service and one of them were handed a curfew, which don't seem like unreasonable/entirely too mild first time sentences, especially when you figure in that they were women (society is silly like that).

It's the same bullshit when immigrants commits rapes they just need to cry out in media a bit. We're already seeing articles about how we should feel sorry for the immigrant rapists, that they can't help it and that they should under no circumstances be deported because of it. It's been a trend for a while now, how the victim is neglected and the perpetrator gets a pat on the back and usually a very mild sentence.

When it comes to rape that's been a trend for ages. And, as I've said earlier, it's in no way limited to immigrants. Rape apologism runs rampant in our culture.

Uberil- do you know what a clitoris is? Cliterectomy and removing foreskin (something which ive had done and enjoy a normal sex life) are two completely different things and done for two entirely different reasons. Im not going to explain, look it up.

One is done for arbitrary cultural reasons, the other for arbitrary cultural reasons. Completely different indeed.

And there's a lot of nerves in the foreskin, so removing it decreases your ability to enjoy sex as well. Not as much as removing the clitoris

It is a tradition in Jewish culture, NOT Christian!! Please don't display your ignorance in public; it's embarrassing.

Christians in the US do it a lot. So if female circumcition is a Muslim tradition male circumsition is a Christian tradition. But, like you said:

No, his comment is clear and wrong. While some Christian men may be circumcised (often at birth in certain hospitals) it is NOT and NEVER has been a part of Christian belief, doctrine, or tradition!!

Which is exactly my point: female circumsition isn't a Muslim tradition at all. It's a cultural tradition that happens to be practised by some Muslims, just like male circumsition is a cultural tradition that happens to be practised by some Christians.

You cannot even fathom the facts when theyre put right in front of you. Yes, 34% of the rapes that police (the ones who are in charge with dealing with this sort of thing) concluded were rapes. Youre so blind to the fact that your little multi-culti utopian worldview of the innocent immigrant could be anything but wrong. It cant be true, why the lads just get away with it more!

Why must you excuse them? Why are you looking for an "explanation" of the facts? Could the explanation simply be that its the truth? What a mind-blower!

Wise men form opinions slowly.

(The same goes for women in case anyone wonders - they're no different in this respect.)

When it comes to statistics there are two very popular sayings. The less popular of the two is that statistics don't lie. That is true (unless they're forged, of course). The more popular is that there are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies and statistics. That is sometimes true. Or, rather, sometimes statistics is presented in a manner that make it seem like the correct conclusion isn't the correct conclusion at all.

The most important thing in understanding statistics isn't the numbers, it's understanding what the numbers actually say.

Now, in this case we have a number. In 34 % of the rape investigations that leads to charges being pressed the perpetrator is an immigrant. The important question is 'why?' - why is it that it's so common that pepole charged and convicted for rape are immigrants? Well, the obvious explanation is that they rape more. However, there are other possible explanations as well. One is the racism explanation I highlighted earlier. A third is that immigrants, due to not being as familiar with the subtle parts of western culture don't know how to give the appearance of not having raped anyone - when westerners rape someone they know what to say and how to act to make it seem like they either didn't do it or simply made a mistake.

That's three explanations and they all explain the data. Why then are you so quick to conclude that the first is the correct one? And why are you mocking me for awknowledging that the situation might be more complicated than it seem at first glance?

Übereil

 

[MasterKromm]

I don't know if Islam will be a majority religion in the coming decades… I would imagine that many immigrants would abandon their restrictive moral codes when given the opportunity to engage in hedonistic debauchery! All kidding aside, I think the more compelling questions would be, when will Belgium and other European countries consist of non-ethnic majorities and what will such a paradigm shift entail? Most(all?) European ethnicities are renowned for birth rates significantly below the replacement rate(2.1). Yet the immigrants gaining entry(even if their birth rates drop after "assimilation" or "integration") are from countries that have relatively high birthrates. How many waves of immigrants, fleeing religious persecution(in all it's many forms) or searching for a better future can Europe successfully absorb? Are the specters of overpopulation and/or non-ethnic majorities overstated?

 

[vurt]

And I'd say you're basing that on prejudice. Because you don't really have any concrete studies or statistics to back that saying up, do you?

Did you base your belief that it's the other way around on any stastics? Care to give a source?

When it comes to rape that's been a trend for ages. And, as I've said earlier, it's in no way limited to immigrants. Rape apologism runs rampant in our culture.

Immigrants are hugely over-represented in rape sentences, it can be seen in statistics.

Muslim girls, from the age of 9, must wear the burqa according to the Quran. This to make sure they are not "tempting" the muslim men. I think this practice says a lot about this culture, and why muslim men are over-represented as rapists in countries which, thankfully, doesnt follow their traditions and beliefs. The burqa needs to be banned, it's completely idiotic to mix our strong belief in womens rights with beliefs that women have themselves to blame if they get raped because they didnt hide under a burqa.

 

[Ubereil]

Did you base your belief that it's the other way around on any stastics? Care to give a source?

I don't believe it's the other way around. I merely believe it might be. Just like xSamhainx, you're awfully quick to conclude that muslims are rapists, without first pondering if there might be some better explanation.

Immigrants are hugely over-represented in rape sentences, it can be seen in statistics.

...okay? What does that have to do with rape apologism?

Muslim girls, from the age of 9, must wear the burqa according to the Quran. This to make sure they are not "tempting" the muslim men. I think this practice says a lot about this culture, and why muslim men are over-represented as rapists in countries which, thankfully, doesnt follow their traditions and beliefs.

Look to our courts and what do you see? You'll see lawyers asking rape victims what they were wearing, how much they'd drunk, if they were flirty, if they have a boyfriend, if they've had many boyfriends, how many one night stands they've had etc. Go back 30 years and you'll find expectations on women to dress prudely here as well. Heck, go to certain places in the USA and you'll find that that ideal isn't dead among westerners either! The idea that rape victims who acted in the wrong manner or wore the wrong clothes are to blame is hardly unique to their culture - we still do that too.

The burqa might be taking it one step further than we have. But you're trying to make into a symbol of how supperior our culture is to theirs and that just doesn't fly. Their culture is just like ours. It's merely a generation or two behind, that's all. Give it a generation or two and they'll have caught up.

The burqa needs to be banned, it's completely idiotic to mix our strong belief in womens rights with beliefs that women have themselves to blame if they get raped because they didnt hide under a burqa.

So women who want to wear a burqa shouldn't be allowed to do so because allowing them would be opressive? What kind of doublespeak is that?

Also, do you then favor banning traditional nun clothing in public as well? Or why not Darth Vader suits?

And what do you think will happen to the women who want to wear burqas in public. Do you think they'll move around as much, only they'll dress normally, or do you think that they abstain from leaving the house, since they can't do so without violating the holy book? If it's the latter, how helpful is the ban, really?

Übereil

 

[vurt]

I don't believe it's the other way around. I merely believe it might be. Just like xSamhainx, you're awfully quick to conclude that muslims are rapists, without first pondering if there might be some better explanation.

I've never said all muslims are rapists, but they're over-represented in the statistics, which should tell us something.

That we have no need for burqa or sharia laws here tells us we're a more civilised people, and yes it's an excellent example of how superior we are to the muslim stone age view of human and animal rights.

To ban the burqa would be a good start, both when it comes to integration and to get muslims to realise that their stone age views isnt a welcome addition to our society, it's them who needs to change, not us. Halal meat would be another thing i'd like to see banned completely.

In a alternative reality where Darth Vader suits serves the exact same purpose as the Burqa, then yes, it would need to be banned there too As for traditional nun clothing, i'm pretty sure we'd see a ban within no-time if it started spreading and if swedish parents forced their children to wear it, it would not be accepted.

 

[hisvin]

Muslim girls, from the age of 9, must wear the burqa according to the Quran.

The Quran never say that Muslim girls must wear burqa because burqa is not an islamic clothe nor an arabic one but an afghan pre-islamic clothe.

Total bullshit.

 

[Corwin]

OK, assuming you are correct, then where does the injunction for wearing a burqa originate?

 

[JemyM]

OK, assuming you are correct, then where does the injunction for wearing a burqa originate?

The Burqa is originally an equipment for male horse riders. When upper-class ladies began using them they indicated status. Since it's impossible to work with a Burqa it indicates "Hey, we are so rich that I do not need to work". This is a trend that is only about 200 years old.

The Burqa was later picked up by a couple of extreme groups like the Wahabbi (muslims) or Haredi (jews). The former is a "trendy" group that have primarily been spread through modern media, it can be compared to the Word of Faith movements within Christianity. They sell the clothes, now produced in cheap polyester, in online shops (the original Burqa was an expensive item that workers and unemployed couldn't afford).

Like the mainstreams Christians reaction to Word of Faith these groups and the Burqas are by the Islamic mainstream groups considered to be vulgar or extreme.

Today most Europeans who carry the items are European converts. The Burqa can be compared to the punk, goth, emos or satanists with extreme visual dresses worn to show off an extreme identity that they seldom understand. Postcolonial shame and "religious-freedom" laws creates an additional layer for them to work with that the punk, goth, emos or satanists didn't have.

The Burqa have been trapped in a postcolonial discourse in which few understands the item and both those who condemn and support the right to wear it are often severely undereducated about it's spread and who actually supports the Burqa as a religious item.

The generalizations about "the east" and "muslims" is often stupefying to the extreme, so stupid that it cannot even handle muslim/islamic discourse while they take stuff like catholic vs protestants and the difference between Italian and Nordic Christianity for granted.

 

[JemyM]

Another discourse gone haywire is "protect the women". With the perspective that women are exploited or discriminated against everywhere, people understand these dresses as a sign of oppression or dressing up because the men want it that way. It's far more complex than that. Women like men compare themselves with one another more than anything and create rules for less powerful women to follow. They are a core element in upholding old traditions, even more so than men.

The Burqa can be compared with men using long shirts and ties in the summer despite the heat, a wear that often comes with letting the tie hang loose (neck open) and large sweat-stains under the arms. This habit have disappeared here and there but you can still see it. But still it's the men who uphold this tradition and coat it with ideas about how it looking professional or "that's how men should look like" regardless how irrational and stupid it is.

 

[vurt]

The Quran never say that Muslim girls must wear burqa because burqa is not an islamic clothe nor an arabic one but an afghan pre-islamic clothe.

I meant the hijab, so you're right.

Edit:
..and Unlike JemyM i would not compare it to Goth clothing, Islam is a political ideology, it's more comparable to wearing a uniform.

 

[hisvin]

I meant the hijab, so you're right.
.

Wrong again, the hijab is not an islamic clothe but a sect clothe (Whabbism-salafism).
If you want to know, the Bible say that women must covered their head like the Quran says...

 

[vurt]

Wrong again, the hijab is not an islamic clothe but a sect clothe (Whabbism-salafism).
If you want to know, the Bible say that women must covered their head like the Quran says…

Khimar? but i think it's probably up the person who's doing the interpretation or which view he/she has, because some sources states the Quran says "hijab".

 

[JemyM]

I meant the hijab, so you're right.

Edit:
..and Unlike JemyM i would not compare it to Goth clothing, Islam is a political ideology, it's more comparable to wearing a uniform.

No. There is a psychological divide among human beings that can be seen in every socially recognized group on the planet. There are those who believe that doctrine/rules/principles should be protected and followed (conservative) and those who believe that doctrine/rules/principles should be adapted (liberal).

For some Islam is a doctrine that is meant to be followed to the letter, a political ideology to be used as a foundation for society for everyone to follow (or be forced).
For others Islam is a social identity, a recognized group that an individual belongs to that fulfills social and emotional needs.

If you ask me I consider the second group to be ignorant and naive and by taking to lightly to the identity (and use it just to fulfill what I consider egoistic emotions) they empower the bad apples. But at least I recognize that they are there. If you have ANY intention to deal with the problems with Islam, this is the first fact to accept.

 

[CrazyIrish]

Ok. Fundamentalist Muslims are bad, Non-Fundamentalist would be ok, except they help to enable the fundamentalists. Thanks for that striking bit of insight.

 

[JemyM]

Ok. Fundamentalist Muslims are bad, Non-Fundamentalist would be ok, except they help to enable the fundamentalists. Thanks for that striking bit of insight.

This can be taken one step further. Conservatives aren't necessary bad and liberals aren't necessary bad. The former is usually more consistent, clear in their intentions and reliable. It's just a question on what principles they are attempting to uphold. If an Islamic "fundamentalist" make Zakat into an important principle I have no problems with them.

In the west there are many conservatives who try to uphold stuff like the human rights, principles that aren't meant to be questioned. In the same time there are conservatives who try to uphold stuff like their own interpretion of the bible that no modern invention like the human rights are allowed to question.

In the same time there are liberals who would gladly ignore principles to be "tolerant" and agreeable to every villain of the world and those who are aware enough to see the difference between a tyrant and the victim.

 

[zahratustra]

Ok. Fundamentalist Muslims are bad, Non-Fundamentalist would be ok, except they help to enable the fundamentalists. Thanks for that striking bit of insight.

And why they would want to do that? You do realize that Muslim extremists kill many more Muslims than non-Muslims?

 

[CrazyIrish]

And why they would want to do that? You do realize that Muslim extremists kill many more Muslims than non-Muslims?

They sure do. The fear is what keeps the cycle going.