Total posts: 1,201
-->
@Public-Choice
Well, if he is sleeping around with 10 women in polyamorous marriages then he is certainly not practicing Christian values to begin with.
- Which Christian values are you talking about? It is fornication? Because that is literally the norm among you Christians today, following the example of the Biblical prophets & characters. Is it inordinate sex? I think you long moved from that. Is it polyamorous relationships? Because these are legal in your countries, & have been legal (or at least nonprosecuted) for men (even married) in the Christian world since ever; even since the times of prophets, most of whom were polygamous. Women in your cultures were seen as property of men until the late 19th century, & Men were free to be adulterers & have multiple mistresses when women were not & could be murdered by their cuckold husband without repercussion until the late 20th century.
Has he even read about the crusades? Christians have a long history of taking up arms to defend their religion.
- & your example of defense of religion is the Crusades? A bunch of hungry savages from France & Britain crossing a continent towards peoples they have virtually no connection to in the Middle East, to supposedly "reclaim" a land which has never belonged to them in the first place, from its natives, by literally massacring 1/4th the population of the region: men, women, children, Muslims, Christians, Jews, without discrimination; through the most cruel & savage methods: torture, impalement & even cannibalism; while massacring fellow Christians on the way who belong to other sects, & even sacking the capital of the allies the Orthodox, raping their women & pillaging their wealth.
The difference is in the attacks. With the exception of the Inquisition, Christians have largely denounced attacking people to convert them. But for self defense it is an entirely different discussion.
- LMAO! Literally 99% of Christian history is attacking others & converting them. Your ancestors have most likely suffered the same fate for you to be Christian today. The Christian population in the Middle East went from 50% to 20% under 13 centuries of Islamic rule, in the core of the Islamic world. It took Muslims more than 4 centuries to surpass Christian population in places like Syria & Egypt, & 5 centuries in Spain. In Eastern Europe, under 6 centuries of Islamic rule, the population was still largely Christian. In Subsaharan Africa, Muslims were still minorities even after 5 to 8 centuries of Islamic rule. In India, 8 centuries of Islamic rule & the overwhelming majority is still Hindu. – Contrastingly, every nation that has ever been invaded & ruled by Christians is absolutely Christianized within a generation. When Christians took over Spain, not a single Muslim or Jew was left. When they took over Eastern Europe (Bulgaria, Greece, Romania...) every last Muslim was immediately purged. When they invaded the Americas, well you know... The indigenous religions of Africa virtually all disappeared within a single generation of Christian rule. All of this is also true for Europeans before they were Christianized.
I disagree. Muslims were torturing, raping, and pillaging people.
- This never happened. The Arab Conquests lasted over a 100 years, spread from Spain to China. I challenge you to find a single such instance.
The crusades were a defense of human decency.
- You must mean by human decency: genocide, mass rape, cannibalism, impaling, torture, & pillaging.
Large difference between Catholic and Christian in the middle ages. Also what is your proof the Catholics were raping and pillaging?
- The proof is your sheer ignorance of History & holding on to dear hope that your fantasies are true. But we are here to enlighten, some snippets:
".... On the morning of December 12, the garrison negotiated with Bohemond, who promised them safe conduct if they surrendered. The Muslims surrendered, but the crusaders immediately began to massacre the population..... I shudder to tell that many of our people, harassed by the madness of excessive hunger, cut pieces from the buttocks of the Saracens already dead there, which they cooked, but when it was not yet roasted enough by the fire, they devoured it with savage mouth.... Albert of Aix remarked that "the Christians did not shrink from eating not only killed Turks or Saracens, but even creeping dogs..."
"[our men] were killing and slaying even to the Temple of Solomon, where the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..." " in the Temple and porch of Solomon men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." "In this temple 10,000 were killed. Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain. But what more shall I relate? None of them were left alive; neither women nor children were spared."
"the Crusaders systematically violated the city's [Constantinople] holy sanctuaries, destroying or stealing all they could lay hands on; nothing was spared, not even the tombs of the emperors inside the St Apostles church. The civilian population of Constantinople were subject to the Crusaders' ruthless lust for spoils and glory; thousands of them were killed in cold blood. Women, including nuns, were raped by the Crusader army, which also sacked churches, monasteries and convents. The very altars of these churches were smashed and torn to pieces for their gold and marble by the warriors."
You mean just show up on a continent and accidentally bring diseases that they were immune to? You really want to fault all Christians for the accident of one? It was not malicious by any means.
- I don't know if this is ignorance or just denial. He actually slaughtered them to the last man, so did his successors. Even in modern America up to couple decades ago, "uncivilized" (aka non-Christian) children were mass abducted from their parents & put in boarding schools to be "civilized" into Christian "values".
Kenya?
- The Christian World*.
So when I say "Christian" I mean people who ascribe to Christianity and try to live a godly life. I don't mean nations that called themselves "Christian" and then did whatever they wanted.
- It is you who do whatever you wanted. Back then, they didn't pick & chose from the Bible like Christians do today, at least for the most part. Secularism is the moral power in your countries today, you're not living a godly life not by any stretch. Look at your own self now lying through your teeth about Islam & Muslims & everything else with no shame. Lying is a sin, or does that not matter to you?
Kenya, recently, became a Christian nation. There was no violent overthrow of the regime.A lot of the colonialism of recent history was not really Christian in action.
- The people involved very much believed it was. 'In the glory of Christ' as they used to say...
Created:
Andrew Tate gained his wealth by a model of revenue that onlyfans now runs by and/or enables. He was a webcam 'escort' service pimp. That was literally how he went from kickboxer making something but not too much to playboy (which is another issue) making millions.
- Why are you complaining. All this is good in your culture, & evidently not allowed in Islam.
He believes in fucking outside of marriage promiscuously, so much so that he would actually see the limit of 4 wives as a downgrade from his number nearer to 10 that he juggle at the moment in polyamory.
- I love how deep down you know that having no-upper limit in permissible relationship (like is the case in Sharia) is not a good thing. The guy is willing to sacrifice Western promiscuous values for more traditional ones. Maybe you should covert too.
Andrew Tate has been a diehard Christian or so he said and his brother Tristan is still loyal to Christianity to my knowledge so this move is utterly terrible and makes a rift between them.
- I thought you believe in "freedom of choice" & all that jazz! I am sure you wouldn't have given it a second thought if he converted to say Atheism or Buddhism.
I am also curious what the hell this is really about? Andrew Tate's stated reasons for converting to Islam are that they are scary, violent and intimidating in defense of their religion,
- So, to you anyone who isn't a complete slave to your destructive & oppressive West is violent & intimidating. I am not surprised, apparently misgendering someone nowadays in your countries is also an act of violence...
he literally refers to them as the only religion to still be warrior like in how they spread, he 'admires' and 'respects' that apparently...
- Stop lying. It is YOUR culture that has spread in the world with sheer violence of all forms & overbearing intimidation at global scale.
Does he actually realise the irony here?
- I think it is you who hasn't got a clue.
He went from hating the cancel culture of the West to embracing the more brutal and blatant cancel culture of the East that is violent in how it operates not just socially oppressive.
- You are projecting. I am guessing to feel less miserable about your disgusting tyrannical culture.
So were the Christians, they did not colonise much kinder at all.
- You are right in that Muslims colonized others with kindness, I wouldn't say the same about Christians.
It is definitely not Islamic to rape, especially outside of marriage.
- This is true.
It also is Christian to pressure people to turn to the 'real' or 'true' God it's just less explicit than Islam on the matter.
- It's actually just as explicit. The Christian "Compel them to come in" vs the Islamic "There is no compulsion in religion".
Otherwise, Christianity would never ever have spread beyond its original group of disciples and their close friends and family.
- As much as I recognize Christianity's spread by the sword, it is not fair to generalize. Christianity has indeed spread in many parts of the Middle East in the earlier centuries without much violence.
In case you are unaware, Qur'an is considered the absolute script to follow, the Hadith is considered somewhat flawed.
- This isn't true. Some Hadiths are authentic, some aren't. Authentic Hadith have the same authority according to most legal schools (except Hanafis) as the Quran).
As in, Muslims are allowed to disagree and not follow the way Muhammad did Islam but they are not allowed to deny a teaching in the Qur'an.
- This is absolutely not true. Literally, the criterion of entering Islam or leaving it is the belief in the truth of the beloved Prophet (pbuh), not the Quran. If a person believes in teh Quran but does not believe what the Prophet (pbuh) said is true, they are not considered Muslim. & if hypothetically, a person believes sincerely that the Quran is not relayed by the beloved Prophet (pbuh) yet believes in the truth of what the Prophet (pbuh) said, they are deemed Muslim.
that said, I am with you on this, I have very very little nice to say about Islam
- I expected nothing less. The beautiful Islam is a poison to your ugly culture.
and am shocked Tate converted, it seems to be a marketing ploy so that he now can appeal to the Muslims viewers more as he's been chased off of Western ones.
- This is beautiful.
I mean your own proud nation of US, study what Columbus and his homeboys did.
- Your secular liberal nations did worse, & still doing.
Take literally any nation that is now Christian and study how they were turned Christian.
- Why don't you do the same for Muslim nations & study how they became Muslim. You will realize than that not everyone else does it like you do, by forcing others to submit to your values & beliefs. Muslims ruled much of Black Africa for 5 to 8 centuries & were still the minority. Once Christians invaded, the entire continent Christianized in one generation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
That is good advice, but I am 40 and studies seem to show that once you hit 40 your kids are more likely to have cognitive impairments.
- This applies to women. Unless I am mistaken, you are a male.
Actually Bacha Bazi was such a predominant problem that soldiers were often warned against intervening because they said it was just Muslim culture and that's just what Muslims do.I apologize. I believe Bacha Bazi was mostly just a practice in Afghanistan and the Islamic Taliban gained popularity because they promised not only to end the degeneracy of raping boys like the faggots in Afghanistan do, but also they fought to end the degeneracy of opium production as well.It seems islam was a factor in reducing those things until the U. S. Government stepped in and kind of ruined that
- I was about to tear that sh*t apart, but you retracted. Cool.
Created:
Posted in:
Sahih International: [Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, "I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip."
- Now that seems like the perfect verse to bring up in a debate to defend your case. What would be the resolution? Islam & Violence, or Islam & Freedom of Though, or maybe Islam vs Secularism... lots of options.
Muhammad's religious career spanned 23 years. He started as an oppressed preacher and ended up as a powerful ruler. During this time he was many things, played many roles, displayed many emotions, and performed many deeds, both good and bad.But did he act as a terrorist? That is our focus and we have to review the historical record and examine its facts. I will cite incidents directly from the historical records mentioned above and present my case. I'll summarize 5 incidents for examination and I'll provide their specific references. There are more to choose from but these five should be sufficient.1) Attacks on the caravans.Muhammad began to commit and authorize acts of violence against non-Muslims after he arrived in Medina. This was in his 13th year as a religious preacher. Prior to this, while in Mecca, he and his followers were quite weak and unable to commit acts of violence. Had they attempted violence the Meccans would have killed Muhammad outright and possibly killed all of Muhammad’s followers.Eventually the persecution became severe and Muhammad fled Mecca running for his life. After arriving in Medina he sent his men out to rob trading caravans. (At this time his Meccan enemies decided to leave him alone. Their perspective was that their problem had run away and they were done with him - good riddance! Tabari’s History states that it was Muhammad’s attacks on their caravans that started the war between Muhammad and the Meccans). As these raids continued caravan attendants were murdered by the Muslim thieves and Muhammad's attacks transgressed the cultural norms and Arab mores’ of warfare. To justify his crimes Muhammad claimed to have received a special message, a "revelation", from Allah. You can read about this in Tabari Vol. 7 pp10-22 and LoM pp281-289.Put this in perspective. Muhammad's attacks against these caravans are akin to highwaymen's robberies. They hold up trucks carrying goods and in some cases murder the drivers. But unlike normal criminals, Muhammad claimed to get a special message from God allowing his actions.Is this a moral standard to be followed?2) Murder of an old man.Muhammad was not received by all the inhabitants of Medina. Many people rejected his claim of prophethood. Some of these people were concerned for their fellow citizens and spoke out about the false prophet who had duped them. One of these was a 120-year-old man named Abu Afak. Abu Afak did nothing more then speak his heart and mind and chide those that followed Muhammad. He viewed Muhammad like people today view leaders of religious cults and encouraged his fellow citizens to doubt. Muhammad could not tolerate any criticism of his claim to prophethood and he asked his followers to murder Abu Afak. Abu Afak was murdered, under cover of night, while he slept. A Muslim plunged a sword through the old man’s chest. You can read more details about this murder here: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/abu-afak.htmThere is little difference between what Muhammad did to Abu Afak and what Saddam Hussein has done to his critics. Of course at that time Muhammad did not rule the country, so like an illegitimate criminal he acted furtively, and the end result was the same. In Medina if you challenged Muhammad's credibility you would most likely be murdered for it. You can read about this in LoM p675, and Tabaqat Vol 2 p32.3) Murder of a mother of five children.One lady, Asma bint Marwan, spoke out about Muhammad’s cold-blooded murder. She chided her tribesmen for allowing him to get away with it. Again Muhammad faced criticism. Again he could not brook it. Again he asked his followers to murder. Again a Muslim man, under cover of night, snuck up to the victim’s home and stabbed her to death. Her children slept nearby. You can read more details about this murder here: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/asma.htmDo you believe that Muhammad was so threatened by this woman that he had to murder her?4) Murder of a shopkeeper.Muhammad was not able to get along with non-Muslims very well. His relationship with the Jewish tribes deteriorated quickly. Muhammad was very unhappy that the Jews rejected his claim of prophethood and he wanted to silence their criticisms. An incident follows:"The apostle said, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power." Thereupon Muhayyisa b. Masud leapt upon Ibn Sunayna, a Jewish merchant with whom they had social and business relations, and killed him. Huwayyisa was not a Muslim at the time though he was the elder brother. When Muhayyisa killed him Huwayyisa began to beat him, saying, 'You enemy of God, did you kill him when much of the fat on your belly comes from his wealth?' Muhayyisa answered, 'Had the one who ordered me to kill him ordered me to kill you I would have cut your head off.'" (LoM page 369).This story is also detailed in the Hadith collection of the Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 19, Number 2996:Narrated Muhayyisah: The Apostle of Allah said: If you gain a victory over the men of Jews, kill them. So Muhayyisah jumped over Shubaybah, a man of the Jewish merchants. He had close relations with them. He then killed him. At that time Huwayyisah (brother of Muhayyisah) had not embraced Islam. He was older than Muhayyisah. When he killed him, Huwayyisah beat him and said: O enemy of Allah, I swear by Allah, you have a good deal of fat in your belly from his property.(The Sunan of Abu Dawud is a collection of "traditions" or anecdotes, mostly about Muhammad’s specific actions or teachings).Muhammad’s command was bigoted, "Kill any Jew that falls into your power". Muhammad was not looking to mete out justice, instead he was looking to murder and terrorize those that rejected his prophethood. This is akin to the fundamentalist Muslims today who say, "Kill any American, or Britain, or Jew, ..." whoever is their enemy of the day. The Muslim terrorists of today are doing what Muhammad did earlier.Is this low standard worth emulating? Hasn’t humanity done better?4) Torture and murder of a man to obtain wealth.Earlier I quoted Sina and his reference to Muhammad’s conquest of Kheibar. Here is one sordid detail from this conquest:"Kinana al-Rabi, who had the custody of the treasure of Banu Nadir, was brought to the apostle who asked him about it. He denied that he knew where it was. A Jew came (Tabari says "was brought"), to the apostle and said that he had seen Kinana going round a certain ruin every morning early. When the apostle said to Kinana, "Do you know that if we find you have it I shall kill you?" He said "Yes". The apostle gave orders that the ruin was to be excavated and some of the treasure was found. When he asked him about the rest he refused to produce it, so the apostle gave orders to al-Zubayr Al-Awwam, "Torture him until you extract what he has." So he kindled a fire with flint and steel on his chest until he was nearly dead. Then the apostle delivered him to Muhammad b. Maslama and he struck off his head, in revenge for his brother Mahmud." (LoM page 515).Let’s review. Muhammad attacked and conquered Kheibar. It was rumored that there was buried wealth or treasure. Muhammad had one of the Jewish leaders, Kinana, brought to him and demanded the wealth. Kinana said he didn’t know of it. But Muhammad’s greed drove him and he ordered that Kinana be tortured. They built a fire on his chest hoping to cause him enough pain and suffering to make him talk. But Kinana never told them about any buried wealth. In the end Muhammad ordered that he be beheaded.Is this a great example for humanity to trust in and follow?You can read more in-depth about this event here: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/kinana.htmCONCLUSIONWas Muhammad a terrorist? Of course he was. You’ve seen the information quoted exclusively from Islamic source materials. And there are many more crimes committed by Muhammad that could be detailed. To keep this article brief I only listed five. Yes Muhammad was a terrorist, and yes, terrorism is allowed in Islam. And yes, Fundamentalist Muslims are in a state of war with all those who reject Islam and terrorism is a legitimate weapon for their use.If you want to do more in-depth study of violence and "jihad" in Islam, how it developed and changed over time, you can read this long, detailed article: http://answering-islam.org/Silas/jihad.htm
- All the above is very useful material to use in a debate. You're already half way there to establish your case. I suppose the resolution should be about the beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). Prophet Muhammed Is A Terrorist? or Prophet Muhammed Is Violent -or Peaceful? Or maybe Muhammed Is A True Prophet?... So many options!
Challenge others first then, I am not sure what you are talking about buddy.
- You're perfectly willing to make arguments in the Forum, Debate is just one click away... I have made several challenges before, including to you. All gone unaccepted. Hoping things will look up in the future.
I step into the ring every single week nowadays, you?
- To bully weak debaters.
You're having your first.
- I wouldn't say that. Maybe in this particular website.
Created:
Posted in:
Make some debates, open challenge, I'll accept when it suits me, how it suits me where it suits me.
- I just hear "I am chicken". You didn't accept on your request for debate. I doubt you will in an open challenge... I might do just that, why not.
I don't enjoy reading the Qur'an and Hadith and digging for a 'this but that' conflict between all the conflicting merciless vs merciful parts of the Qur'an vs Hadith.
- Yet you love to talk incessantly about Islam...
I have no passion for Islam at all and against Islam it's also not as much a passion against it as one for secularism. I don't believe religion should be blackmailed upon people, simple as that.
- & yet here you are believing in Secularism & Liberalism... no religion has ever been "blackmailed upon people" in Human History as these two have been, starting from you, constantly bombarded & indoctrinated since birth into this nonsense.
Islam is the widespread religion that disagrees the most with secularism, so I resent it the most all other sins of it aside.
- Well yeah. Secularism is a sh*t system. See? You have so many opinions about Islam & Secularism, but you don't seem to be willing to defend them in a debate. Maybe it's not lack of will, but of ability.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Public-Choice
I have gathered that you are a Muslim.How can you be a Muslim and then support LGBT+ stuff?
- I don't support it ideologically, morally, theologically or spiritually, nor am I going to participate in propagating this degeneracy. I support it recognizably, in realizing & understanding that there are beneficial outcomes to it, a greater good. The same way I would support two murderers killing each-other, not to condone murder, but to realize the greater good in such event.
What is the Quranic justification for this?
- Theologically, "Every soul will taste death. And We test you O humanity with good and evil as a trial, then to Us you will all be returned." We believe all things are from God & we accept His decree (Qadar). God tests us with good & evil to establish who among us will be rewarded & who will be punished. LGBT+Feminism is also part of God's decree, we accept His decree. But at the same time we discern that it is an evil, for God also decreed that this is evil. There is not support for the act, rather acceptance of God's decree. The beloved Prophet (pbuh) said "things will come to be towards the End of Time [...] Men will practice anal intercourse. Men will marry men. Women will marry women. Their prayers will be rejected, until they repent..." he also said "the Hour will not come until a meteorite humbles a people for legalizing sodomy" & also said "five things when spread among you expect doom [...], and when singers pervade, men are content with men, and women with women"...etc. It is what it is.
- Morally, it matters not that non-Muslims practice LGBT or otherwise, they are under no Sharia obligations. They must convert first to be subject to divine Law. Disbelief, taking the lives of non-hostile humans, & adultery, which are also widespread in the West, are in themselves a greater sin than LGBT acts. The moral issue with this movement is not LGBT desires, for people are not accountable for their thoughts; nor is it even LGBT acts, for one can repent after the act & have his sins forgiven & we are all sinners. The real moral issue is that LGBT want to change "go and sin no more" to "go and sin is no more". They want to make what sinful acts ideals...
- Spiritually, each human has their own journey with his Lord, Muslim or non-Muslim. Only God knows what is truly in people's hearts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
The Muslim logic behind throat slitting.Muslims believe cutting the foreskin around the head of the penis (circumcision) will cause the penis to behave.Applying the same logic slitting a persons throat which is just below a persons head will also cause the infidel to behave.
- I gotta admit, I laughed when I first read this. This is new sh*t I ain't seen before. Genuinely clever. I was gunna respond, but I'll let you have this one. Until next time.
But when you look at the millions of Muslim refugees fleeing their country. One might ask why Muslims are okay with circumcision but slit the throats of infidels because they want only infidels to behave . It’s a double standard.
- The countries which your countries decimated & pillaged.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Like talking to someone with Alzheimer's. Forgetting everything they just said.
- You should have that checked out. Pronto.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman,
I didn't run away lmao?
- You're laughing cz it's true.
Do you think I need to reply to you endlessly on a forum as a slave or you 'win'?
- We both know I am referring to formal debate.
I have better things to do than debate you and saying too much against Islam doesn't do me any good.
- Case in point. You have so many debates on Islam with other members, yet not once with me even when challenged. Chicken much? Or maybe you just like bullying...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
This argument pisses me off, but not going to lie it seems spot on.
- Which part pisses you off?
Luckily I don't have to be ashamed of being white for too long
- Shame is reserved for God alone, not Man.
as the half of whites who are degenerate are either mixing with non whites and their descendants are leaving us or they are voluntarily castrating themselves and being removed from the gene pool that way.
- Indeed, Family oriented gene pools will inevitably always come out victorious. Unfortunately, it is clear the next generation will be predominantly degenerate. It will take at least a generation or two for your side to gain predominance again. But you can expedite this process by having 12 children families today.
Hey I support what you are saying about white degeneracy and support it's eradication, but you have to admit Arabs are a bunch of 3rd world people because of inferior brains.
- & here you are swimming in the world they created. Arabs are literally the most successful race that has ever existed. We all have ups & down though.
I also think you underestimate the degeneracy of Muslims. A ton of Muslims in Pakistan for example fuck little boys because they are faggots and this is usually dismissed as a cultural thing.
- Fake news. But it's cute that you are comparing the once in a year occasional such news in Pakistan, with the daily thousands of such occurrences in your country.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman
That is the way Muslims debate, genuinely.
- I see you debate Muslims no problem. But when it comes to debating me you always run away & find excuses. Now we know why, you only wanna debate weak debaters.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
What is there for me to say? I posted your words verbatim. Show where I am confused about you supporting a way of thinking that will decimate the white race according to you and your own words.
- I am afraid ways of thinking do not have the ability to decimate things in the real world.
Created:
Posted in:
- How does one go about displaying an image in a debate round? Thank you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Why I Support LGBT & Feminism""That LGBT+Feminism is the shortest & amplest path to population collapse. White populations fertility is currently at about half replacement rate, & declining. This is the generation which grew up in the 70s & 80s, during 2nd & 3rd wave Feminism. The upcoming generation, of which close to half are LGBT+, will likely half the fertility, to probably quarter replacement rate; since LGBT+ contribution to fertility is, well, insignificant. Half replacement rate means half the population over a life expectancy cycle, idem for a quarter. Specifically, the 600 million Whites in the world will become 300 million by the end of the century at half replacement rate, & 150 million at quarter replacement rate. "Where am I confused?
- Why don't you say something first so I can point out to you where the confusion is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
You are aware the 1800's are the 19th century, no?
- I was referring to the 1800s as in from 1800 to 1810. Maybe I should've specified. The same goes for the "1900s" mention, meant for the 1900-1910 period.
if you actually wanted a 20th century demographic i can get you that too, but not much changed. heres another demographic map This map tells us the British empire constituted 23% of the worlds population. But if we click the "show" button on the British empire, we find out 300 million of that demographic was from Indians, not Europeans. You could add Britain, France, and the United states' population together in the 19th century and it still wasn't more than India. You're also once more still counting all of Europe vs. one country, which is ridiculous.
- You are the one who keeps counting all of the Indian Subcontinent as a single country. There were dozens of states in 19th century India, virtually all with a significantly smaller population that Britain. The same way individual African states had a much smaller population than France or Britain. Also, Europeans (including the British or French or all others) weren't just settled in Europe, they settled everywhere. There were huge numbers of European settlers in Africa & Asia. 15% of the Algerian population for instance was French. In fact, Algiers (the current capital) was a French majority city before independence. – There was never a clash between something called India & the UK.
If i counted the white declining population in the modern day, it still accounts for at least 500 million people on Earth, so still relative to India. Why are you counting the entirety of Europe vs. one country?
- That's what you're doing, counting the entirety of the Indian subcontinent vs one country. More so, total population isn't as relevant as urban population. Rural areas generally submit to & follow whoever rules the city. & the UK did in fact have a larger urban population than India.
Yes, it makes sense for an entire continent to have 15% of the worlds population. This is still relatively the case with Europe.
- Europe then constituted 1/4th global population, & Europeans overall close to 2/5th. In terms of urban population, more than 2/3rds.
Its just now not dominated by France, Germany and the UK anymore and Are you saying Britain was capable of doing what it did purely because of its population's size? that once more i find ridiculous.
- No. But I am saying that without population size it wouldn't be able to. The other major factor being extraordinary amounts of deceit & betrayal. The technological advantage came mostly in the 20th century.
Britain had technological advantages.
- No it did not. At the onset of the 19th century, the India subcontinent was more technologically advanced than India. As I said, what you like to call the "Industrial Revolution" in Britain, was in effect a technological transfer from the Muslim world. The sewing mills, cotton factories, shipyards...etc, around the Bay of Bengal, many of which managed by the British India Company itself, were replicated in Britain. The same happened with the Ottomans, from where other technologies originate, like the steam engine, clock & watch making, weapon factories & so on. – From there, Britain & the rest of Europe begin to industrialize at rapid pace & eventually reach supremacy. This does not mean that the rest of the Muslim world did not continue industrializing. On the contrary, factories in the Ottoman empire did not cease to be built, especially with the discovery of coal. & if it was not for the huge population advantage they had against Muslims (almost 3 to 1), they wouldn't have been able to impede their advancements.
Do you really think the British empire in the 1800's was sending hundreds of thousands of soldiers to fight in other continents? That's just not practical. We can see how Russia can barely send its army past its own borders in the modern day. What really happened is what you said, Indians sold one another out. Backstabbing each other, which let the British take advantage.
- The backstabbing which they incited. It's clear you're not familiar with the Colonial History to say the least, you are nonetheless right. Actual force did not prove to be very successful in subduing the subcontinent (or elsewhere), as can be clearly seen by the battles with the Mughals. The Brits resorted, thus, to a lot of deceit & treachery, & policies like divide & conquer.
Not manpower, but tactics and timing.
- You call it tactics, I call it deceit & betrayal. These things are not sustainable. It may work if you have the advantage & your enemy is divided, but it can not last forever.
Relevant how? they're still the ethnic predecessors of modern day Indians. I know it isnt modern day india.
- If Europe was united today as one country, you wouldn't assume it was always one country would you! There are many more ethnicities, languages, religions... in today's India than in all of Europe. What you think of as one India today, wasn't a thing back then. It was a bunch of neighboring states with different dynasties, ethnicities & religions.
So much for Muslims always having higher birthrates.
- Have =/= had. English! The Ottomans did not purge almost three continents of their inhabitants so that their population might grow to take their place, as the Europeans did.
Muslims within these nations are also much poorer and less educated on average.
- What can you do when you live under an apartheid right! You seem to still have a colonial mindset. The world is quickly changing back to its pre-Colonial state friend. Last year, the scientific output in S&E of native Muslims who originate from Muslim countries was greater than that of native Westerners who originate from the West. Countries like Saudi & Iran today have greater scientific output in STEM than countries like France & Italy. Turkey has long surpassed countries like Canada, Italy, Spain... in REAL GDP, & should surpass France & the UK in a couple of years, albeit already having 50% larger industry.
Again, im confident Muslim's demographics will fall.
- & yet Muslim demographics in previously secularized places are strongly bouncing back. Regardless, you keep missing the point. Fertility rates may very much decline in Muslim countries, it matters not to us here. The concern is lower than replacement fertility rate, which comes with the breakdown of Family.
I'll listen to the experts. We can look at historic trends and see Muslims don't always have children the faster either. That's just not true.
- Population decline in the past had much more to do with infant mortality & life expectancy than fertility rate as it does now. When the average woman dies at the age of 40, instead of 50, or when a third of her children die early, it affect population index. Today, infant mortality is so negligible that fertility rate above replacement values are sufficient to maintain population.
You will see your demographics fall below replacement.
- No. As long as LGBT+Feminism doesn't take over, this will not happen. & LGBT+Feminism will indeed never take over.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Poorer immigrants always tend to have higher birthrates than the native people.
- Muslims in the US have generally higher income level than the average American & yet a higher fertility rate. It is just that having lower income among immigrants in some places also coincides with having Family values.
Would you like to give a source proving either this wrong or that the Qatari's have higher birthrates than the immigrants?
- Aside from the fact that fertility rates in their origin country is much lower than that of native Qataris?
I did not find it very relevant to comment on, when we can already see the demographic decline in many middle eastern nations begin.
- It is relevant, since it negates your premise. You claim that given time fertility rate among Qataris or Muslims will fall to Europe levels, when in reality Muslims in Europe still boast higher fertility rates. The argument is moot.
In just the last 20 years many of them had birthrates per woman at over 4+ now many are only at replacement level at 2.2, like turkiye.
- Again, you're missing the point. It boils down to Family values. There are two levels to this issue. Urbanization, in the sense of moving from rural to urban centers, does indeed lead to lower birth rates (& also coincidently higher income), for Family needs change & thus so does the size. But this is completely irrelevant to our topic, which is population decline & replacement rate fertility. Urbanization does not induce below-replacement fertility, only breakdown of Family does. 2.2 in Turkey is actually a rebound in fertility rates, since the country is becoming more traditional.
Its only going to get worse in these nations. This source suggests, an immigrants birthrates mirrors its home countries.
- This alone undermine your claim that fertility rates relate to income. It is only natural that immigrants birthrates mirror home countries, for the shared values they have. Muslim immigrants from more traditional countries, like say Iraq, should have higher birth rates than immigrants from more secular countries, like Albania.
With the decline of Muslim birthrates beginning to happen, the immigrants from these nations will have less children too.
- Irrelevant. Decline in birthrates does not entail decline in population. This only comes with below-replacement birthrates, which is a result of breakdown of Family. It is not about being Muslim or otherwise, it's about Family values. Abandoning Family values naturally leads to lower birthrate. What I am postulating is that Muslims tend to generally have stronger Family values, more so than others. I did not say Muslims are perfectly immune to LGBT+Feminism, instead they are *largely* so. In fact, some Muslim countries too have below-replacement fertility, like Albania. Not because they are rich, but because they lost their Family values with secularization. Some other Muslim countries which underwent heavy secularization are today experiencing strong rebound in fertility as they become more traditional. Fertility rates in Central Asia went from below-replacement in the 2000s to around 3 today.
I'm not sure where you have got that information from. Would you like to cite this statement?
- I've done a study on this. It's not that complicated, you calculate the total income in 1946 Europe, which is slightly less than $6k (in 2010 constant USD adjusted for inflation), & do the same for Africa today, which is about the same. You can infer that Africa's economy today is much larger than post-WWII Europe's, given the population ratios. – The fact that this information surprises you makes one wonder about your Education systems, still hung on old narratives.
You appear to be having contradictory statements. At one minute Europeans dominated the worlds population, the next minute Muslims always have higher birthrates.
- These are mere facts. It is a fact that Europeans dominated global population in the past. It is also a fact that Muslims have higher birth rates today. These are not opinions I am expressing so that I may contradict myself!
If Muslims always had higher birthrates it would be demographically impossible for Europeans to have ever surpassed them.
- First, no one said Muslims always had higher birthrates, & that's irrelevant. They do today though. Second, higher birthrates do not always mean higher population growth, for that's that is contingent on lower death rates & lower infant mortality. In the past, infant mortality was much more indicative of population growth than fertility rate. Third, having stronger Family values isn't the only factor to birthrates. Particularly in the past, periods of prosperity generally led to population surges & vise-versa, due to decreased infant mortality & increased resources. The population of Mughal India went from 100 to 180 million in a century. Likewise, Europe went into a period of prosperity & thus experienced a surge in population. But the more important factor which contributed to the West's unprecedented population explosion is population replacement. Populations naturally adjust to land & resources. US population, for instance, grow 1200% in a century from the 1820s to the 1920s. The invasions of the Americas & Africa coupled with the genocide or displacement of their native peoples afforded European vast amounts of lands with copious amounts of resources, why European population grew so rapidly to adjust accordingly.
Muslims currently have higher birthrates because they're generally poorer. Its mostly because of that.
- 4 of the 10 richest nations on Earth are Muslim, & yet boast some of the highest fertility rates out there. You don't have to keep going back to this, it's beaten to death.
Muslim nations are usually significantly poorer.
- I don't know about that. With roughly the same population, the Middle East's REAL GDP is almost 6/10th the EU's, except with a larger agricultural & industrial sectors, & a faster economic growth.
well im sure we would both agree having women in the workplace does affect birthrates. But im asking how much? i want to know how much. Is it 0.1 births per woman or 1.2 births per woman?
- You're looking at it the wrong way. Mainstream female participation in workplace means below-replacement birthrates. That's the relevant part. Again, lower birthrates do not necessarily entail declining population. It is not that Feminism affects fertility rates by a certain degree, rather, it is that it leads to below-replacement fertility, thus population decline.
clearly the latter is much worse than the former, and if it is the case may make us have a broader discussion on whether the way the west currently functions is viable.
- Even a 1.2 decline in fertility rates isn't relevant if it doesn't get you below-replacement. Indeed, Feminism is not viable, it's unsustainable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Muslims wanting to destroy their opponents is hardly new or radical.
- This is a debate website. It's literally meant for destroying opponents. Ain't nothing Muslim about it.
Now Muslims trying something different instead might be one for the record. Is it because Islam is reaching equality with Christianity in numbers, so slitting the throats of infidels is less necessary?
- You are projecting. Not because you do it, then everyone else must do it too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Yet you support the thinking that is causing what you say you don't want.
- Very confusion, much confucious, such confused.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Not sure I agree with that. Some seem noticeably more willing to kill people for violations than others. And even within Islam, there are Shia and Sunni Muslims that interpret things differently.
- I do mean mainstream Sunni Islam, fringe sects notwithstanding. Shia-Sunni categorization is a Western invention, & it's more political than anything else. Sunni Islam from Sunnah (i.e. prophetic tradition) is Islam from prophetic Isnad (i.e. chain of authority going back to the beloved Prophet (pbuh)). This chain of authority (Isnad) is what distinguishes mainstream Islam or Sunnis from all other sects, which either they lack or they reject. The Shia, for instance, claim to have Isnad when in reality they don't. They don't even bother proving it, as they believe it's esoteric knowledge. The Mutaziles (probably the most prominent non-Sunni Islamic sect in History) reject Isnad. They rather believe prophetic truth can be accessed through Reason. The Wahhabis/Salafis too reject Isnad, & they believe in going straight to the sources (i.e. scripture) without the need of any chain of authority. The Protestant version of Muslims if you'd like.
- As to Sunni vs Shia interpretation. As I said, Sunni/Shia is fake news. It's more like Sunnis vs Bid'i (everyone else, who combined do not constitute more than 10% of Muslims historically & today). Here are some examples of theological differences between Sunnis & other sects.
- On human agency: Qadaryah believe in true free will, Jabryah in absolute determinism (these were prominent during the 7th & 8th century, & were adopted by the Umayyad dynasty for a short period of time). The Sunnis believe in free will in intention, & determinism in action.
- On political leadership: Shia = leadership is divinely appointed (specifically the descendants of the beloved Prophet (pbuh)), Haruryah = leadership is fake news (like ISIS, in some form of anarchism) , Sunnis = leaders are elected by the people.
- On reason vs. revelation: Mutazilah = revelation is subject to reason (they were very prominent in the 9th century & controlled the Abbassid empire for almost half a century), Atharia = reason is subject to revelation, Sunnis = reason & revelation are congruent.
- On God's attributes: Jahmyah = God is all transcendent, (i.e. does not act on the world), Mujasima = God is all immanent, i.e. a literal body in time & space (like the Wahhabis), Sunnis = God is transcendent & immanent.
- On faith vs. works: Murjia = faith alone for salvation, Khawarij = works sufficient for salvation (experienced many rise-&-falls in Islamic History, like Wahhabis). Sunnis = faith with works are required for salvation.
Could you honestly, with a straight face, tell me that India and South Africa were better off before colonialism?
- South Africa is not a colony, it's a settlement, as America or Australia are. It's part of the West. As to India, you must be utterly ignorant of Indian History to be saying such nonsense. The Mughal Empire in India was the richest & most advanced nation in the world pre-Colonialism. It boasted arguably the most industrialized are in the world in the Bay of Bengal (next to the Aegean region in the Ottoman Empire). The Bengal region particularly had the highest income level back then. What the West like to call the "Industrial Revolution" is in fact merely a transfer of technology & knowledge largely from Mughal India into the UK by the British & to the rest of Europe (also from the Ottomans). Textile manufacturing, sewing mills, factories, shipyards, cotton machines...etc, all that came from India.
Colonists brought high speed rail, electricity, plumbing, concrete roads, many things that would otherwise not exist
- To themselves, for sure. To the colonized, the rail line was only a way to plunder their countries & rob of them of their wealth & work for the benefit of the colonizer.
During colonial rule, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) was the breadbasket of Africa. Once the “colonists” were forced out, they had food insecurity.
- This is so convoluted & twisted I don't even know how to start to answer it.
The Crusades were initially a response to Islam trying to militarily conquer Europe. It was an anti-colonial response against imperialistic aggression
- Gotta love the fantasies. Islam is a religion, it can't conquer anything... The majority of crusades were actually carried out against fellow christians, many sects of which massacred in the process (such as the Catharists). Must find that "imperialistic aggression"... The crusaders also massacred Middle Eastern christians, along with Muslims & Jews & everything that moves. Even the Orthodox who allied with them weren't spared & their capital Constantinople was sacked & its people raped & massacred. So much for a "response" huh! – Also, claiming that invaders (Franks & Brits) crossing a continent to take "revenge" on peoples (in the Middle East) they had virtually no contact with, & to "reclaim" land (Jerusalem) which they never had in the first place, from its natives (either native Christians & Jews or Muslims descendants of them) centuries after Muslim conquests, is a response against imperialistic aggression is delirious to the extreme. The same can be said about the Spanish crusaders who invaded southern Spain & removed its natives from it. – Say, if the Crusaders as you claim were waging a retaliatory war against the supposed Muslim aggression, then what aggression has the Americas, Africa, India, East Indies & the entire effing world committed, that the Crusaded has to retaliate against & annihilate them too?!! As I said, Colonialism is simply an extension of the Crusades, albeit much more brutal. For anyone who studied History, the Crusades never stopped. Christians have since pursued the idea that the Earth belongs to us, we only need claim it. From then, to the Age of "Discovery", to the Colonial Period, the whole narrative is about lands "without" natives with lush plains & abundant resources, all left unattended. In fact, the West still thinks of the world as theirs to this day.
- More importantly, it is not the instigation of the Crusades that's the issue, invasions happen. It's the brutality & savagery with which these were carried out. A quarter of the population was annihilated in the most atrocious ways: men, women & children massacred mercilessly, genocide, torture, impalement, rape, cannibalism...etc.
Muslims in North Africa had the largest slave trade in history.
- You don't have to resort to stupid sh*t like this to feel better about your abominable History. No such thing. What you mean by "slave" is 'chattel salve', which is not a thing in Islam or Islamic History. It's a misnomer. The worst type of slave in Islam 'Qin' had better status & rights than the best serf or laborer in the West. Qins in North Africa largely constituted the noble & military class. The Bukhari "slaves" (from West-Africa) in Alawite Morocco (17th+ century) made up the bulk of the state army, & the main political faction of the country for centuries. Qins even founded some states in North Africa, such as the Turkic Bahri dynasty, the Circassian Burji dynasty & the Nubian Kafur dynaty.
Some majority-Muslim countries still enslave people
- Don't project. Slavery is literally decreed in the US Constitution. Prisoners in the States are explicitly slaves. The US enslaved 800k German captives in WWII who had to labor for the US without compensation until their deaths. – But you don't have to look too far. US soldiers themselves are effectively, for all intents & purposes, slaves. In fact, by our definition of "slavery" a collage graduate who has to work to pay his student load is a slave (equivalent to a Mukatib slave in Islam).
Nothing. He is a sissy. Might be as cowardly and liberal as his mother. Only thing he knows well is what good architecture looks like
- I heard he usually expressed his political opinions & made several recommendations to previous PMs. I still have some hope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
No drugs here. Just the beauty of islam.
- Then you DEFINITELY need to see a psychiatrist pronto.
I can still send you a picture of my penis in case you want to see what muslims did to me. It doesnt have to be gay. Or are you saying it will tempt you so you dont want to see it? Its okay. I understand.
- You can tell your psychiatrist about these fetishes too, It may be related to your insanity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
That's not true.
- My bad, it was 4.0 in 2019 according to this report. I had the impression it was 4.1 or 4.2, we all make mistakes.
Qatar has a below replacement rate birthrate of 1.8.
- Maybe you should've thought about that for a minute before you jumped the gun... I mentioned *native* Qataris, who constitute a tenth of the total population of Qatar, who also happen to be obscenely rich. The rest are immigrants who came to work in the country leaving their families back home. Of course Qatar is gunna have low birth rates stats, since the children of most residents in the country are born & live somewhere else.
It is only going to get lower. Give them time, and they will catch up with the Europeans and North East Asians.
- You do have a tendency to skip a thought or two... How very convenient of you to ignore the fact that European Muslims still do have high birth rates: around 3 in countries like France & the UK for instance, about double that of the natives.
We must remember that Europe has been prospering for much longer than these richer Middle East counter parts.
- I wouldn't be so sure about that... the average income of Europe post WWII is less than the average income of Africa today. So, maybe by a couple of decades.
Time will tell.
- Time has told. Muslims always have higher birth rates, wherever they are. Evidently due to strong Family values. For instance, the countries with least female participation in workforce are all Muslim countries. Muslim women would rather leave their jobs & take care of their families.
If you're going to make these statements, you're going to need evidence to support them.
- Evidence for what?! That abandoning Family in favor of Labour does not lead to lower birth rates?
You critique me for saying things with no evidence,
- Still do.
speaking them into reality, but are you not doing the same if I'm guilty of it?
- No.
False. You seem to believe that if you say it magically becomes true. – The West's total population by the end of the 19th century was a third of global population, equivalent to China's & India's combined. & In terms of urban population -which is the effective population- they had more than two thirds.
China in the 1800's represented 30% of the world's population, and India, 21%.
- English, learn it. I said "by the end of the 19th century". There wasn't much global Colonialism in the 1800s was there! Regardless, in the 1900s, Western population (Europe, America & settlements) accounted for some 38% of global population, & the combined population of China & India accounted for some 41%.
France and Britain were 5%, respectively. Maybe they're equal if you're counting literally every nation in Europe? And if you are counting every nation in Europe, that is nonsense.
- You're proving my case. The major European -later Colonial- states then (according to your own source) constituted a quarter of global population, also making up almost the entirety of Europe's population.
The French didn't add their army or men to the British army to take over India. It was Britain that took over India, with France as its main competitor.
- Your ignorance keeps showing. There was no India in the 1800s. The Indian Subcontinent then had more states & kingdoms than Europe. The Brits fought individual Indian states, which they vastly outnumbered, at different instances for a long period of time ranging 200 years. The same way France fought individual African & Asian states they vastly outnumbered. The exception is probably the Mughal & Maratha empires, which went under more due to infighting, then to British conquest. Britain never actually conquered India, it mostly ruled by proxy (as in tributary or vassal states) except in some particular regions. – Also, 1800 India was probably the most industrialized region on Earth (besides the Ottoman Aegean region), especially the Bengal Subah. It is the origin of transfer of technology & industrialization to Europe, when the UK duplicated their model into their own country, then later claimed the "First Industrial Revolution". LOL!
It should also be noted that this is counting British and French possessions, so colonises and not just the ethnic French and British.
- What? like Scotland & Ireland for Britain, or Poland & Belgium for France. I fail to see your point...
- Here again you are proving my point. The Ottomans had less people than individual European countries like France, UK, Germany... (their predecessors) each. European population increased from 80 million in mid 17th century to some 500 million by the end of the 19th century.
We're seeing it. In 100 years, the Middle East will not be any different from Europe. In 200 years, Africa won't be either.
- Unless Muslims adopt Liberalism & Feminism & all the isms, which isn't gunna happen, this ain't gunna happen. & even if we assume it will, by then it will be too late. Europe's population is projected to fall under 5% of global population & the Muslim world's population to soar to over 40% in just few decades.
Time will prove me right as Qatar and its neighbours have lower and lower birthrates.
- Lower birthrates =/= below replacement rate.
There are, of course, a million factors that go into a country's birthrates, from access to contraceptives and values, although the biggest factor is definitely wealth and education,
- It ultimately boils down to Family values. As you said, access to contraception & values & education all pertain to Family values. Western style education today is a Feminist education, designed to create a labour force, not to promote knowledge. The result is job chasing women, not wives or mothers. The other main factor in birthrates is Urbanization, though not much of a factor in below-replacement fertility. Going from rural to urban lifestyle impacts Family needs & therefore Family size.
not so much Islam.
- Yet, we consistently across the board see Muslims having higher birth rates than their counterparts everywhere in the world, no matter the income level, education, contraception access & everything in between. In Africa, Muslim nations always have higher birthrates than their Christian neighbors. Even within single nations, Muslims always have the highest birthrates. In India, more than Hindus. In Nigeria, more than Christians. In Palestine, more than Jews...etc.
Women being in the workplace also affects birthrates, but not having women in the workplace is even worse and could strip many western nations of hundreds of billions, if not into the trillions, of their GDP if women were to be taken out. making everyone collectively poorer. It's also very hard to raise a child on one person's income unless they have an affluent job. Which isnt many people, most people needed their mothers to be working growing up to have a decent life themselves.
- This is the Big Lie incessantly told by proponents of Feminism. You have it completely backwards. In effect, the normalization of women's participation in the workforce may at first glance seem to increase labour force & thus productivity, but in reality it leads to below replacement birthrates, which leads to a fast aging & declining society, which leads to an increasingly shrinking working-age population (i.e. productive population), hence an ever smaller labour force, to oblivion. In Japan, the working-age population fell from 87 million to 74 million in a mere two decades -& declining, while its population slightly decreased in the same period (from 128 to 126 million, it peaked in 2012). Without said normalization, Japan would've definitely more than made up for lack of mainstream participation of women in workforce with increased of men in labour force, for its population would have drastically increased, & this its working-age population as well. – This is the epitome of the Western Value. Immediate self gratification at the expense of others & the future. No vision, no legacy. As long as we can increase production for our benefit today by making women work, it matters not if the future is bleak or if anyone else gets hurt. The most daunting consequence of this horrific project is the collapse of Family. Women are made to serve strangers & be at their disposal at the expense of their husbands & children.
- In truth, having women stay home adds to the stability not just of her children but also of her working husbands, which subsequently increases their productivity. Women participation in the workforce does not add real value to the economy, it just induces a different distribution of tasks. Stay at home mothers were not & are not stationary, they are also constantly active. Housework, food prep, nursing, child tutoring, shopping.. & all sorts of House & Family related tasks must be done either way, by the woman present at home, or delegated to someone else at an extra cost. If the wife isn't cooking the food, then the chef at the restaurant is. No new value has been created. – On the surface, this may seem like more jobs are being created, which should drive the economy. But in reality, the cost of living increases the more things are delegated to others. You are paying for the labour & profits of others for domestic tasks, instead of keeping it in the family. It is not that a one person's income is insufficient to raise a family, rather, it becomes insufficient when domestic tasks are delegated elsewhere. – They want to be able to afford eating at restaurants, having a nanny, getting a tutor, buying clothes for their children...etc, all domestic tasks traditionally taken care of by women. – The question is who really benefits from having women in the workforce? It's not laborers for sure. As the woman of the house joins the workforce & gains more income, family lifestyle costs soar, with much of domestic tasks delegated elsewhere. Not much gain is made. Indeed, it is the capitalist. The more delegated services, the more wealth is accumulated. Hence, why women are made to join the workforce.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I have talked to many muslims. Most of the time they talk about beheadings, stoning, cutting off limbs...ect.I heard them talk about what are proper stones to use: round ones or sharp ones.They said that one day, US will follow muslims example and introduce stoning and cutting off limbs of homosexuals. Not just homosexuals, but anyone who has sex outside marriage.
- I don't wanna be the one to break the news to you, but you need to check yourself in asap into an asylum or a mental institution. What drugs are you using?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Ehyeh
Population collapse has little to do with the LGBTQ community and more so to do with economics and technological availability.
- Switch them.
We can see these same demographic falls in China, despite them, as you yourself say, not being feminist in the least. This is also true in Korea and Japan.
- I don't think you are aware of what you're saying. Having women participate in the workforce as men IS Feminism. This naturally comes at the expense of Family, thus birth rates.
It has nothing to do with feminism and more so with industrialisation, cost of living and the availability of material options.
- & the Earth is flat.
Islamic nations will catch up the west in poor birthrates too when they get richer as nations.
- Wrong. Qatar is the richest nation on Earth & its native population still boasts +4 in fertility, one of the highest in the world. Even in the "richer" West, Muslims still have high birth rates (around 3 in countries like France & the UK).
The west has also never really had a population advantage over the rest of the world, only coming close to China or India's populations during the industrial revolution.
- False. You seem to believe that if you say it magically becomes true. – The West's total population by the end of the 19th century was a third of global population, equivalent to China's & India's combined. & In terms of urban population -which is the effective population- they had more than two thirds.
The west conquered most of the world through superior technology tactics and overall being less divided than other places,
- You people must realize that your version of History does not work elsewhere right? Let's see, at the onset of the 19th century, the Ottomans had firearms, rotary guns, cannons, tanks, torpedos, rocket, grenades... etc, tech which Europe was just acquiring. What you are referring to is a time that comes later, after all attempts by non-Europeans to compete in industrialization have been thwarted back to the Stone Age with sheer violence -like Ali Pasha's project. Eventually Westerners came out victorious & continued their industrialization efforts with no Eastern or Muslim competitors. – I do agree though that the West was able to maintain its Colonial project even after losing their population advantage thanks to superior technology & deceptive tactics, & most of all global institutions.
which constantly are infighting like china and India.
- Compliments of the Colonialists' divide & conquer.
Not population.
- Don't be too sure. Pre-17th century, the population of the Ottoman Empire & its European vassals was close to that of the rest of Europe. By the 19th century, individual countries in Europe (such as France, UK, Germany...) had a larger population than the entire Ottoman Empire combined. The West's population tripled. For instance, France invaded Egypt with 10 times the population & Algeria with 13 times the population, & still failed to conquer either. In Egypt, Napoleon won against the peasants, but once the standard Ottoman army came he was chased out. In Algeria, they were only successful after massacring 1/3rd (yes 1/3rd) of its population through mass scorched-earth invasion. They burned villagers & farmers in their fields. Also, this was in a time where much of the rest of the world was declining & de-urbanizing, when Europe was urbanizing & rising. It terms of urban population, there were two Westerners for each non-Westerner. It would simply be impossible for Europe to overtake the Ottomans if 16th century population ratios persisted...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
You support a way of thinking that "you" say will decimate the white race.
- I am not God, I can't decimate a race with my thoughts... But the White race are decimating themselves by themselves. They don't need my help.
I extrapolate that to mean you want the white race gone. I will concede you didn't say you hate whites but do want them gone based on your description of what you support.
- I love Whites. They are going extinct, so I want them back. But the only way they can come back is to shrink in size & lose their dominion, so that they may go back to fostering Family again & increase their birthrates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
I made no reference to the Dark Ages. I suggested that they may become like most majority-Muslim countries on the face of the planet
- I do hope they indeed become decent humane societies.
Grooming gangs, gang rape, and beheadings weren’t a problem pre-mass-Muslim-immigration
- Don't be so sure. Much of that is still carried our by Westerners today.
Any supposed lack of death toll by the Islamic world is entirely due to incompetence and lagging technology, not desire.
- Except they conquered the world & dominated it in technology & science & law & politics for 10 centuries. The death toll of the Arab Conquests amounts to 130k people over a period of 100 years, whereas the death toll of the Conquest of America is a thousand times that. The difference? The places Muslims conquered actually thrived with their conquerers.
And the vast majority of colonized countries are way better off than they were before colonization and better than they otherwise would be
- You can't possibly believe this. You might have been able to get away with this fantastic pretentious narrative in the past. Not anymore. Colonialism is the Crusades on steroid. It is undoubtedly the deadliest & most destructive event in Human History, probably besides the Flood.
But, I’ll level with you. I’d prefer moderate Islamic values on aggregate to the current degenerate culture being exported by most Western countries. I don’t find that optimal at all, but those values are better than feminist ones.
- Islamic values are Islamic values. No moderate & immoderate values. But I am glad you came to your senses.
But rest assured, there is a right-wing resurgence in many European countries and to some degree in America. Anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ candidates are bringing back family values without Islam
- Old coots. The might bring back some sparks here & there, but it's hopeless. The younger generation are overwhelmingly Left to the extreme. Close to 40% of GenZ are themselves LGBT. I wouldn't bet on resurgence. As long as your societies uphold Liberalism & Secularism & Democracy & all that jazz, this will not change. The only way is to go back to the olden days, bring back kings & popes. We'll see what the newly appointed King Charles will do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
In most cases, people were required by law to wear masks. They had no choice, so no one is making the argument that it was "fine" or that they wanted to wear a mask. Now mask mandates have been dispensed with, very few people are still wearing them.They were also mandated for reasons pertaining to health (apparently), which further illustrates that there is absolutely no comparison.
- So if something does not pertain to health to you, then it's invalid? Are you Jewish because it pertains to your health then? Is smoking allowed in your country because it's good for health? What a bunch of nonsense! – You are missing the point. Those same excuses they used to bring up against the face veil, "security" "sociability"... were dropped when it came to masks...
We were told to wear masks because of coronavirus and we did not have a choice, whereas Muslim women are told to cover their face because you don't want "strange men" looking at them...😂
- Aren't you Jewish? You gotta follow your laws. A Jewish woman who leaves her house without face veil has left it without her religion, right? I hear the Haredi Jews still abide by those rules.
Btw, what do you think men do when they see a woman's face? Do you think they get immediately hard and lose all capacity for self-control?
- Why do you cover any part of your body then?! Go out naked & show everything. What do you think men do when they see women's skin?
Not all women have faces like mine, Yassine.
- That's probably the reason why that woman covered her face. Maybe you should too. We don't want out-of-control men roaming around, do we. Or maybe you like the attention from strange men.
Agreed. But, how does this make Islam a good religion that is beneficial to the West? It doesn't, when Islam has led to more problems.
- Most good things in the West are thanks to Islam. You have rights as a woman thanks to Islam. Women in Europe had no rights to property, consensual marriage, divorce, education, inheritance, voting, contraception...etc not too long ago, whereas they had all these rights & much more since the inception of Islam. They gained full property rights in France in 1939. Until the 1880s wives were still literally sold by their men in the marketplace. It is the influence of European thinkers who either studied in the Muslim world or were hugely influenced by the Islamic Tradition, like Locke, Berkeley, Rousseau, La Martine, Le Bon...etc, that brought these rights slowly to European women. Until the 80s, honor killing was still permissible in Italy. Divorced was allowed in Ireland some two decades ago.
Without Islam, the West would still have rape and it, naturally, would need to address and rectify that.
- Stone rapists & cut off their limbs. Problem solved. OR, you can just do away with all the over-sexualization & go back to being a modest decent society.
With Islam, the West has more instances of rape, specifically child rape, which means they have more rape to deal with and more issues to rectify.
- You do love to spout incessant drivel. Given that rape in Islam is both a major sin & warrants capital punishment, it negates the supposition that Islam promotes rape... As to the few -alleged- Muslims in the West who rape, well, they are not following their religion are they? These people drink alcohol, pick up girls, fornicate & do all kinds of anti-Islamic disgusting sins for the purpose of assimilating to your degenerate culture of course; rape is just around the corner after that.
Islam has not helped to decrease the likelihood of rape, because more rapes are happening as a result of Islam.
- In Islam, looking at a woman's face or hands with pleasure is a sin. Looking at a woman's body (except face & hands) is a sin with or without pleasure -unless otherwise necessary. It is also a sin for a man & woman to be alone in a private space, or to touch skin to skin....etc. Flirting is also sin. Rape is a loooong way from this. – Contrastingly, from drunkenness to fornication to adultery to promiscuity to porn & even to prostitution, all promoted as women empowerment in your societies. Rape is just one gesture away from "she said no".
The conclusion here is that Islam is clearly not good for the West.
- There is no conclusion without premises. You have no case. Just hateful drivel.
LGBT and feminist agendas also cause harm, but that does not and should not deflect from the harm that Islam is causing.
- If you're truly concerned about rape & child sexualization, then your enemy is the West & what it stands for, Liberalism, Egalitarianism, Secularism...
That is not true, and you surely know that.
- Your ignorance of something does not entail it's untruthfulness. You can just admit you don't know.
*Some* women
- *NOBLE* women. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is the king of Austria from your side of the world with his wife in 1916.
wore face coverings in western cultures but it was not routinely practiced and the reasons for it varied.
- On the contrary. It was indeed common, though reasons may have also included sun protection. This reminds me of a poem from 16th century I stumbled upon some time ago:
Weare masks for vailes to hide and holde,
as Christians did, and as Turkes do use,
To hide the face from wantons bolde.
According to you, it's just bad to see a woman's face and body in Islam.
- On the contrary. What you actually meant to say is to give stranger adult men pleasurable access to the women with whom they have no blood relations or offer no commitment or critical help. That's disgusting! In Islam, an adult non-elderly free woman must cover her Awrah (hair & body except hands & face) when in worship, or in the presence of adult straight virile men who aren't kin. & a adult free man must cover his Awrah (body except back, head arms & legs) when in worship, or in the presence of others with whom he has no sexual relationship.
It seems women can only be sexual objects to you,
- You have it backwards! That is what YOU promote, but you call it women empowerment. Modesty precludes sexualization. Your women uncover, & your men pretend to cover them in their heads. It's too funny :-D... Having women sexualized for all men to see is the definition of sexual objectification.
and that as a man you have no ability to control yourself or prevent attraction *unless* women wear a face covering.
- Face covering is not an obligation in Islam, it's optional. Men must lower their gaze though. Attraction is a biological fact. Men are made to be attracted to women, & vise-versa. Sexual desire is a good thing, without which the Human species can not live on. Attraction in itself is not the issue, it's the action that follows. As I said, Family is a sacred right in Islam, precisely to insure the survival of the species. Practices which are conducive to breakdown Family are restricted in Islam. Men are allowed to look at stranger women only in the pursuit of marriage, or otherwise if it's necessary (like a medical check-up or a surgery). Hence, out-of-wedlock sexual practices, adultery, bastard children, abandoned children, sexual harassment, rape...etc, are prevented at the source. This insures a healthy society where women are taken care of & children are reared in sustainable families, all with their full right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
I don't have the time or interest to debate you, lol.
- Just say you can't defend your case. No need to save face.
It's funny how users like you often jump to the suggestion "let's debate" when you are already really struggling to defend your stance.
- You have made no case. Just ranting & whining.
You're desperate to show us all how wonderful Islam is, but you aren't convincing anyone. That is because we know how harmful and toxic the Islamic faith is. If you think otherwise, you are deluded.
- Beauty may indeed seem harmful & toxic to ugliness.
Not sure who "your children" is supposed to refer to, as I am Jewish with family that come from Eastern Europe.
- & without Islam, you wouldn't exist today. "Your" as in the Western obviously...
The rest of your commentary here is opinionated, absurd, banal, and barely readable because of how childish it is.
- This sentence is opinionated, absurd, banal, and barely readable because of how childish it is. As to the rest of my commentary, it is simply a series of facts, which clearly you are unable to rebut. Let's see:
Do you groom children in the West into sexual identity? Yes, you do.
Do you groom children into sexual education? Yes, you do.
Do you make children participate in drag & pride in the West? Yes, you do.
Are 23 million children participating in sex in the US? Yes, they are. (this is older stat, I am sure it's so much worse today).
Are more than 40k children participating in sex in the US? Yes, they are. (older stat).
...etc...etc
- If you personally or your family do not adhere to these practices, & if your concern is actually child sex & child grooming & child rape, then start condemning your own moral bankrupt societies instead of deflecting. But we both know it isn't, it's just hate. I still suspect you are completely fine with children participating in all kinds of sexual practices with as many partners as they wish, as long as this is not within the abhorrent disgusting barbaric backwards matrimony.
You've based an entire paragraph (and paragraphs) on pure misguided opinion and assumption
- FACTS*.
- well done to you! If saying "ooh but everyone in the West gets abortions and loves seeeex 2 much" is what I would see in a debate with you, then I'm really glad that I've refused your request.
- Do you always defeat opponents in your head like this? You know this isn't how a debate is done, right? It is your opponent that advances their arguments, not you in your head.
News flash: it tends to be non-virgins who commit rape.If stoning perpetrators of rape is what you do in Islam, why isn't that happening or at least being encouraged in some way? 🤔
- It's probably because the overbearing interference of the West in Muslim countries to prevent them from applying their laws.
LOL! Has it occurred to you that cases of rape are probably, you know, underreported in your beloved Muslim nations?
- This is always the excuse Westerners love to bring up whenever they are uncomfortable with failures like this in their countries. "Oh it's UnDerRePortEd"...
In Islam, there is stigma attached to being raped and as a consequence, many women will not say they have been raped.
- No such thing. It is obligatory in Islam to report rape, & as promptly as possible. If you mean in Muslim societies, again you'd be wrong. There is a huge stigma attached to having sex out-of-wedlock, not to being raped. On the contrary, family support is the most important thing. Most stories I heard about rape in Muslim countries generally end up with the guy having his parts cut off by the woman's brothers or someone.
Another factor is that the police in their countries likely do not care.
- Isn't all this so very convenient... It must be hard to swallow that rape in the West is so much worse than the Muslim world, that you resort to all this nonsense. How can the "civilized" people be so disgusting... Even if we suppose that everything you say is true beyond wishful thinking, it will still not account for the 1000% & 2000% & 4000% increase in rape rates between Muslim countries & European countries, not even a little bit. Even if you double & triple & Quadruple the rates in Muslim countries they would still be negligible as compared to those in Europe.
In the West, it's encouraged to claim rape if you think you have been raped. And, the police have been made to care. This would somewhat allude to the "feminism" that you purport to despise.
- I personally know of girls in the US who have been raped & have not reported it, because their families didn't care. & yes these were White Christian families. It has been shown that destigmatizing rape reporting by assuming women's word which the Feminists championed leads more to false reporting than to actual rape reporting. The police in the West (or huge parts of it) have not been made to care, they have been made to believe women who accuse men of rape. The former implies seeking the truth & abiding by the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty', while the latter implies allowing women to lie to ruin men's lives.
Apparently now though, it's convenient for you to like it.
- I like Justice. If Feminists side with Justice, I am there, if they don't, which is usually the case, I am against.
How about no?! Those resolutions wouldn't be appealing to me and I've no desire to debate you anyway.
- I'll take that as a concession. You can't have enough of screaming assertions right & left, but you fold the moment you know you'd have to actually face your opponent.
In response to your comment on Muslims and China, I can only presume that you are unaware of current events there.Muslims, are not popular in China.
- Don't project.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
That is just one part of my muslim experience. A painful part.
- Are you a mythomaniac?
I can send you a picture of my penis if you want proof.
- Gayyyyyy...
They did it to me when I was 1 year old. Thats when I joined the islamic cult.
- You told them "cut what?" when you were 1 year old!? They must've been shocked a 1 year old spoke. I'd have a heart attack!
Penis cutting seems very popular in muslim countries.In Turkey, 98% of boys have their penis cut.I am surprised you didnt know this. You say you live there?
- I don't swing that way comrade. I am sure you can find others in this form to help you with your fagottery needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
When I entered islam, they took off my pants and said "we gonna have to cut that". I was like: "cut what?". They said: "The extra skin". I was like: "What extra skin?" They said: "its necessary for joining the islamic cult".
- This didn't happen. Are you gay though? You like talking about this a lot.
I thought all muslims practiced cutting the penis, but now you say those muslims lied to me. Weird. Why would those muslims lie?
- Not because you lie, everyone else is a liar like yourself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you cant cut penises in islam? I was told by my islamic cult leaders that muslims must cut their penis. Did they lie or do you lie?
- My condolences. They ripped you off, no pun intended. On the bright side, you are half way through transitioning. I hear Karen is a popular name.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I thought islam was about cutting penises?
- You have to go to the West for that. Just say you feel like a woman, & they will hurriedly castrate you & excise your part. They will even call you a hero as a cherry on top.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I thought Muslims followed the God of Abraham. Here you are joining a Korean God.
- I thought I was gunna move to Islam. Damn I got tricked.
Muslims believe that Allah is the same God worshipped by the members of the Abrahamic religions that preceded Islam, i.e. Judaism and Christianity.
- God is as God is regardless of what anybody believes He is. God is not bound by our ideas of Him. Though, as Muslims we only believe what God told us to believe about Him, through His messengers. There is One God, whether you call Him Allah, YHWH, Elloh, Dios, Dieu, God, Khuda, or Brahman, or the Ultimate Reality, or whatever. We do not believe in a God of Abraham, we believe in God, of whom Abraham happens to be a messenger among the other 124k messengers, albeit a very important one. Besides Judaism & Christianity, the other great religions are also most likely of divine origin too. The beloved Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) did mention that Zoroastrians had a prophet & a book, but they burned their book & replaced it by a fake one (which actually happened). He also told the story of another prophet (Khidr) who shares a lot of similarities to Buddha; for instance, he was also a prince who renounced life & who eventually gains immortality...etc. We believe that all religions worship God, albeit based on corrupt beliefs. Some have preserved their revelations -namely the Christians & Jews, some have lost theirs -like the Zoroastrians, & some have forgotten theirs -like the Hindus.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
islam is very good. Maybe move to islam.
- Then I'll come join you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
Not when you consider that Islam is culturally void and morally bankrupt in many ways.
- You seem to be pretty convinced. Let's have a debate on that, maybe you can convince the others too. Still all this post is off-topic.
In the OP you write:
Is child marriage a "family value" that you think we should nurture?
- Your children have more sexual intercourse, sexual partners, pregnancies, & abortions than any in History. You groom them since early age into sexual identity, sexual education, pride, drag, & all the based sexual perversions. Idk where you're from, but in the US 23 million children below 17 have had sexual intercourse, & more than 40 thousand below the age of 10. & it keeping getting worse every year. I know you love to have your children f*ck & attend strip clubs & have abortion after another or children of their own out of wedlock, & participate in all kinds of sexual deviations, but GOD FORBID! they join in holy matrimony. As I keep saying, the only thing your societies promote is degeneracy, nothing else. It's OK if children have all the sex & partners & abortions in the world, as long as they do it out of wedlock. What a sick disgusting culture this is.
What about Islamic rape gangs in the West - are they nurturing family values?
- No such thing. Gang rape is punishable by settlement, cutting off two opposite limbs, & exile in Sharia. & if the perpetrator happens to be non-virgin then stoning on top of all that.
Rape is wrong and degenerate, so where is all this wholesomeness and moral superiority that you are alluding to?
- Muslim countries have the lowest rates of rape, while Western countries dominate the top rates. What do you expect, having the most over-sexualized society that ever existed in Human History is bound to have such consequences. A third of female students in US campuses experience sexual abuse, there are 1% Muslims in the US. You got your rape needs all covered -in abundance- by yourselves, you don't need Muslims to help you with that.
As much as celebrating LGBT lifestyles can degrade a culture, child rape and sexual slavery is worse. These issues are prevalent and plague Islam; therefore, we should not consider Islam as having more virtue and should try to stop it from becoming the dominant culture.
- You are projecting. But I feel you! Having to live in such a degenerate society plagued with all kinds of sexualization & violence & hate can have a toll on someone's psyche that they can't admit it to themselves. As for Islam, it is the best thing that happened to the West. We taught you everything, from chivalry, to religious freedom, to liberty & human rights, women's rights, to animal rights... etc, all of which Europe had none of not even a century or two ago.
I think at this point, you should clarify what you mean by family values when people belonging to the Islamic faith like to engage in child marriage, have organized child sex gangs, and engage in child rape.
- You must eventually come to terms with all the disgusting & sickening depravity that your societies exude, instead of this nonsense projection. The overwhelming majority of sexual & pedophile tourism in the world is by Whites. In the UK, despite multiple investigations on over 1400 members of the county's elites belonging to pedophile rings, the Media's entire focus is on Asian child groomers who total less than 10 with not more than dozens of victims ; knowing that only one of those 1400 alone -like Jimmy Saville- abused more than 400 child victims, of course, these findings came after his death... We don't need to talk about Jeffery Epstein & where that leads...
You can't tell me that they are not a problem when I know businesses belonging to Muslims in my area that have been raided, had people arrested and sent to prison, etc. because they, their friends, their family members and so on have enslaved and raped children.
- I know nations of people who have been invaded, their wealth plundered, their men enslaved & their women & children raped by the West.
This has been a widespread problem all over my country, and the rest of Europe.
- I am sure it is. We all hear the stories of people like Josef Fritzl in your countries. Horrifying! Again, Idk where you live, but I follow US news. Every other day, a girl is kidnapped, or raped by her father, or murdered by some stalker... crazy huh!
China is #132 in world fertility rates, while U.S is #133.Not much of a difference, is there?
- Not when you compare it with Whites. Also, White fertility rates in the US is declining, China's isn't. The US still holds a bit to their Christianity, thus Family values, so there is less hopelessness for them as compared to Europe, in which the fertility rate is dropping closer to 1/3rd replacement rate in some places.
Regarding your point, though, this only makes sense when we consider cultures that truly do foster family values.
- Nothing better than Islam to foster Family values. In fact, Family is one of the 6 Fundamental Rights (along with: Faith, Life, Reason, Wealth & Honor).
It is hard to make a case for Islam fostering family values, when child marriage, organized sex gangs, and child rape are problems that Islamic communities have. If anything, because of the aforementioned (in particular rape gangs), Islam has inflicted more moral harms on the West, and it has become more morally bankrupt as a result of allowing so many Muslims to settle here.
- I am sure with such certainty with which you speak you wouldn't shy away from a formal debate on the subject. Say, Family values in Islam, I'll take Pro you take Con. Or, gang rape in Islam, I'll take Con & you take Pro. Maybe we can have a debate on who has the best Family values, I'll take Islam, you chose whatever you want.
Islam is a poison, not a remedy.
- To the utter degeneracy & depravity of your societies, absolutely it is. It will kill it. You don't want Islam, it may ruin all that hedonism you got going.
I would also note that China and Islam aren't really compatible, so I wouldn't be relying on them to be your allies in your battle against the West.
- How is that relevant to the topic?! Regardless, Muslims aren't the ones to be worried about China, the West is. There is a 100 year old debt they are owed, & they will come to collect it.
- As for the China-Muslim relations, we had 1300 years of virtually peaceful History. The Ming dynasty (arguably the most successful post-Antiquity, those who built the Wall of China & the Forbidden City...etc) is fairly a Muslim dynasty, since a lot of the elites, including state chancellors & princesses, were Muslim, even some of their emperors are suspected to be Muslim. 2/3rds of the world's Muslim surround China, namely in Central Asia, South Asia & Southeast Asia. Hence, 5 of the 6 land economic corridors & all maritime economic corridors out of China (as part of the Belt & Road) go through Muslim countries.
Because a face is what people use to speak and express themselves with?!
- You are talking to me here & you haven't seen my face. Just think of it as a protective mask... I love how Corona exposed all these types, wearing a head cover or a beanie with a mask is fine, but a hijab with niqab is an unacceptable. Also, you are a girl (I assume); you don't have to worry about seeing her face, that's only for strange men.
No one wants to talk to a Darth Vader.
- I recall many did. It's really funny, the face veil in virtually all traditional cultures, including Western cultures, was worn by noble women for the most part. But once the lower class people in the West suddenly gained wealth & joined the middle class in the early to mid-20th century -largely thanks to Colonialism & Industrialization, they brought their backward barbaric customs with them & imposed them on the rest of the society as the new trend. But I digress.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The future is bright the future is swarthy and bearded.And I won't care because I will be dead.Though swarthy has its own self-destruct mechanisms.And wailing atop a tower is what it is.Until such times when the Earth is engulfed by the Sun.Though one must consider Chinese/Asian types.Who knows what intergalactic colonists will look like.Will they still be wailing to the non-existent bloke in the sky.Random thoughts.
- Random indeed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
So you hate white people basically. Got it.
- Not everything in the world is about skin color. Get over it. But whatever it is that I hate, you sure hate Whites if you condone their extinction.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Your resentment gives you away. You hate the West and want it permanently like the backwards, oppressive, murderous Middle East
- You have it backwards! Buddy, the Middle East is the Cradle of Civilization, & the birth of most great religions & civilizations. White Europe entered civilization not even 5 centuries ago, & still needs another 5000 years to catch up to the Middle East. As to backwards, oppressive & murderous...etc, Europe's contribution to those literally outshines the rest of the world combined. The US alone has caused in half a century more deaths than all Muslims combined have in 14 centuries. & we all know in terms of death toll, the US isn't even close to the top of Western countries.
So would Europeans start raping, blowing themselves up, and stoning women at astronomically higher rates than they currently do?
- It's always possible that they don't emulate the Muslims, since they'll probably go back to their Dark Ages as you suggest. Now that I think about it, nothing much has changed, just better PR. Same old invading, pillaging, raping, torture, & all unimaginable injustice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
You want a weak Europe to dominate and that is the end of the story. You don't want a strong European people
- What do you mean by strong European people? If you mean oppressive, exploitative, hedonistic, barbaric, ingrate racist people living off the rest of the world, then no I don't want that. I want what God wants, which is Justice & Good. Being European or White or whatever else is just accidental. There is no essential difference if 99% of the world's population or just 1% is European. Though I'd prefer there are more Whites than Blacks, for aesthetic purposes of course.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
Call me crazy, but I don't think you want that
- I'm calling you crazy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
White Sharia soon.
- Hopefully. Probably next time Western people rise, they will realize this Feminism+LGBT nonsense isn't so good & not go back to it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lemming
Of 1. Telling women that they aren't the property of men, probably 'does lead to declining population,
- They are not, & it doesn't.
But by our values, it is the right action.
- You have it backwards. Instead, you do tell Women they are the property of the government & their wage & everything & everyone, but GOD FORBID they have a duty to their husband & family. This IS your values. Stop dreaming.
LGBT, Well, telling people they 'have to get married and have kids, even if they aren't attracted to the opposite sex, probably 'does lead to a declining population,But again, by our values, it is the right action.
- Yeah, by your values, degeneracy is the right action, & degeneracy alone. Anything decent is an abomination to you of course.
Values emphasizing individuality, I mean.
- Degeneracy*.
Of 2.Hm, of world statistics, other nations, I'm not very knowledgeable.
- It's just numbers, easily looked up.
Of 3.I agree, people 'are a powerful resource,Though of quantity 'and quality,By this I'm not saying that LGBT or feminism promotes quality or not,Just that a focus on quantity above quality, can have negative effects.
- The West would never have been able to conquer the world if they did not have the huge population advantage that they had. All the dominion & success which came after stems from that. When France invaded Algeria, it had 13 times the population, & more than 20 times the urban population. In fact, there were more people living in France then than all of Africa combined. In a couple of decades, there will be 50 times more people in Africa than France.
Of 4.We're all part of the world,And as mankind has grown, we all find ourselves interacting with each other more than the past,It'd be easier to be isolationist, if we lived in an older era,Before planes, trains, and automobiles,Internet, phones,
- Entirely beside the point!
Though I want for each to their own,The countries of the world interact too much, influence too much, to ignore.To have ignored the world, would have been to let the USSR do as they like to Germany, and 'then, and then?No, one must be mindful of one's power, responsibility, other's.
- This is childish fantasies.
Of 5.People often 'do follow example, I'd agree.
- Hence, your "values" are not sustainable. No society can thrive without nurturing strong Family values, for it will inevitably go under those societies which do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ahiyah
Let's not pretend that Islam isn't plagued by its own set of very significant problems.
- Definitely not birth rates. Also, off topic.
Also, China has a declining birth rate as well.
- Rebounding fertility rates. They did dip below replacement rate, but not too much, as is the case for Japan or Korea or the Whites. It doesn't matter either way. The point is very simple, societies which foster Family values will inevitably dominate those who don't, from sheer population.
Created:
Posted in:
@RationalMadman,
to literally show her face to someone means she wants to fuck them?
- Why are you so adamant to see her face?
To each their own kink, I suppose.
- Not everything in this world revolves around sex & sexual identity & sexual gender & sexual orientation like in your perverted societies.
Created:
Posted in:
RationalMadman,Islam is itself a fascist religion both theologically and politically via Sharia.- Everybody seems to use that word these days, kinda makes you wonder. What does fascist exactly mean to you?
- Let's see...
Definition of fascism1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual
- No. God above all else.
and that stands for a centralized autocratic government
- No again. Islamic rulership is community-based, it's anti-centralized by design.
headed by a dictatorial leader,
- More Nos. In an Islamic government, the leader is expected to abide by the prophetic law, like all his Muslim subjects.
severe economic and social regimentation,
- Nah. Islamic government is limited government, since, again, rulership is community based. The bulk of the burden is taken by the individual, then his family, then his community & so on, up to the government level.
and forcible suppression of opposition
- Nope. Islamic system is community based, by design all & each community must have representation, unlike the sh*t style government of the West that is majority based, where minorities are necessarily at the mercy of the majority.
The term "Islamofascism" is defined in the New Oxford American Dictionary as "a term equating some modern Islamic movements with the European fascist movements of the early twentieth century".[3]
- This is why you are confused. This is all yours buddy. What you like to think is "Islamic" government is merely Western style government of one form or another imported into or imposed onto Muslim societies, admittedly so by the very article you're citing. When I think of Islamic state I think of the many dozens (even hundreds) actual mainstream Sunni states across Muslim history, especially the major empires, like the Umayyads or the Abbasids, the Ottomans & so on...
I actually agree with you there, they have no idea what it is they are claiming to welcome and embrace. If they did, they'd reject it immediately.
- Nothing is being embraced or welcomed. Liberals never welcomed Islam or actual Muslims, they welcome other liberals like themselves who happen to identify as Muslim.
I don't know but then again you blindly believe in a book written in times of extreme ignorance founded by a narcissistic sociopath who even had pedophilic tendencies.
- I don't actually believe in such stupid things written by your ignorant sociopathic narcissistic founding fathers... maybe you do though!
This reply doesn't necessiate a rebuttal, it is not an argument or a question.
- I was agreeing with you ...
Just like your nations and cultures aim for extremely fascist conservatism, those of the West you detest are aiming for a tolerant and progressive society.
- The only "tolerance" the West offer is for degeneracy, & absolutely nothing else. The modern liberal western secular nation-state is the most expansive dictatorial intolerant fascist that has ever existed in History. Your life since your birth in virtually all its aspects, is regulated by the state. Your education, learning, health, food, movement, money, finances, business, charity...etc, are regulated by the state, if not then monitored or at the very least accessible. But you are free to chose your pronouns & be as much degenerate as you want -allegedly... (expect all the degenerate ways we find distasteful at the moment...). What you don't seem to get is that your nonsense culture is unsustainable, breakdown of Family values means inevitable extinction. Our "conservatism" is everlasting. So, we won't be seeing you for long anyways. On that note, the Islamic system is much more tolerant in all the above except in public degeneracy. We believe those who pay your expenses & feed you are responsible for your education & rearing, i.e. parents must teach & raise their kids as they see fit, not the effing state. We believe people have a right to decide who or what received their tax money, not the state. We believe the people have a right to chose their own contracts, they own form of currency & manage their own money...etc.
In the end the friction and tolerance can only last until there's a severe push and it is reasonable to fear Islam's spread,
- Obviously. With your unbearable intolerance, it gotta stop some day.
they are very rapid at spreading their ideology and very good at blackmailing people to stay within the ethnic group even if they secretly disagree or doubt.
- Indeed, I know. They start by mass indoctrinating your children, by abduction if need be, to their degenerate ideologies. It gets easier to punish dissent after that.
I am agreeing with you, cancel culture is pretty fascistic. The difference is that it generally is done by the society rather than the government.
- Idk about that... try a couple of things & see where you end up.
Created:
Posted in:
Back than body was contrasted to the neck and head, it would have said 'head and body' if it means the level of covering you're implying,
- How do you know this? Or do you just expect reality to bend to your wild imaginations.
that is some extremely fanatical interpretation, are you one of those people who want women walking around in this:
- Why does that matter to you how she is walking around? Or is it that you can't deal with your perversion that you can't see her naked? She clearly is not interested in mating with stranger men, she shows her beauty to the important people in her life & even more to those she actually intends to mate with.
Created:
Posted in:
You are playing semantics.
- Yeah, no. 'Khimar' (plural 'Khumur') was strictly used to refer to head-covering among 7th century Arabs.
It clearly meant more of a shawl than a veil and was referring to covering one's chest area and sexy curves of any kind from the neck down essentially.
- I know in the West they teach you that your comprehended meaning from the text supersedes the intended meaning of the author... reason why every last Christian nowadays decides what the Bible "actually" means to them, as if the author(s) of the Bible had no intended meaning... A number of modern Muslims do this with Islamic scripture as well.
You are playing semantics. It clearly meant more of a shawl than a veil and was referring to covering one's chest area and sexy curves of any kind from the neck down essentially.
- How do you know it 'clearly' meant that? Did you travel back in time to 7th century Arabia? We actually have Arabic dictionaries dating back to 7th century.
Created: