France under attack by Islamists (including Erdogan)

Relations between Nazi Germany and the Arab world

The relationship between Nazi Germany (1933–1945) and the leadership of the Arab world encompassed contempt, propaganda, collaboration, and in some instances emulation.[2][3][4] Cooperative political and military relationships were founded on shared hostilities toward common enemies, such as the United Kingdom[3][4] and the French Third Republic,[2][3] along with communism, and Zionism.[2][3][4] Another key foundation of this collaboration was the anti-Semitism of the Nazis and their hostility towards the United Kingdom and France, which was admired by some Arab and Muslim leaders, most notably the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini[3] (see Anti-Semitism in Islam).

In public and private, Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler made warm statements about Islam as a religion and political ideology, describing it as a more disciplined, militaristic, political, and practical form of religion than Christianity, and commending what they perceived to be Muhammad's skill in politics and military leadership.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world

 

Aside for Islam, there are obviously other factors besides age and sex as well well. Education level, social isolation, money. To gauge how disproportionate it is, you'd need to control for those. Any studies you are aware of that have done this?

To the extent that any ideology deriving from Islam is incompatible with living and being part of a secular society, that should be openly criticized. It should be done in a manner that does not alienate the people you want to be part of the society.

Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying attacking Islam with the implication that one can only be Muslim if they believe in those things will create the opposite effect. I have no problem with criticizing the specific things you mentioned. But you don't persuade or bring about reform by making the target of that attack the religion itself. So, in the US, preaching tolerance of gays is far less likely to make a Christian fundamentalist double down on their homophobia than attacking Christianity itself.

 

Authoritarians recognize authoritarians.

 

This is why I am always apprehensive about Americans discussing issues with Muslim immigrants. The situation in the USA is completely different than in Europe. It really has to be something to witness first hand... and to be clear, I have seen many Europeans treat immigrants poorly, but I have never seen as abrasive or stubborn group of immigrants. This is not a situation where these people were conquered or forced to do anything, they all went out of their way to get to Europe.

 

"Had Charles Martel not been victorious at Poitiers [...] then we should in all probability have been converted to Mohammedanism, that cult which glorifies the heroism and which opens up the seventh Heaven to the bold warrior alone. Then the Germanic races would have conquered the world."[11]

~Adolf Hitler

 

12/28/2016 was the last terrorist attack happened in Xinjiang China. Before that, 5 to 10 terrorist attacks yearly dating back to 1950s.

You can say anything about the PRC way, but it is working without losing any human lives, including extreme Islamic terrorists'. Most Muslim countries have no complain. Most Western countries are whining. A definite sign that PRC way is working.

 

This would be a Dune fan fic

 

I would rather live in a world where I could be a victim of a terrorist attack than live in fear of being erased by the government for having the wrong opinion.

For me there, is no difference in living under shariah law and living under CCP rule.

 

There goes my November streak. @Jontro

 

Man, there are a lot of disgusting things being said here from a lot of people I respect. That's a damn shame.

 

@AroundTheWorld to be fair, our liberal democracies exist in Europe due to violence. Emperor Napoleon literally went across Europe deposing monarchies. Imagine if you were posting from the HRE instead of De. Thank the violence of liberalism.

 

You point to Islamic teaching itself to explain why treating women in that manner is against both Western values and is also un-Islamic. There is no credible Islamic defense to treating women like trash or raping/molesting them. Focus on and make the case for shared values of respect and human dignity.

You point out that in Western society, free expression of views, even views that may cause offense, is tolerated. Frame the argument for not responding to words with violence (or inciting violence) by using teaching from Islamic scholars. It is probably a good idea also to suggest that people refrain from insulting others just because they can. Being legally entitled to do something doesn't mean you ought to do it. Making this point is not in any way inhibiting free speech. It is reminding people, especially those who have a loud platform, to use their freedom responsibly while considering the health of the society as a whole.

Why do you think it is important to even make this point to Muslims?

How can I possibly call their prophet a deviant pedophile in a nice way, though? Um, how about don't?

Why would you want to put emphasis on passages calling for murder and violence against non-believers, if your goal is to promote peace? Isn't the goal to encourage them to skip over those parts? Confused.

There is no option other than to argue for your principles and values in a constructive manner. And it will be gradual process. It must involve participation of moderate Muslim thinkers too. If your intent is to lash out and insult Islam out of some visceral hatred of its teachings, then this will be difficult.

 

The fact that some immigrants are violent and pull off crap like these attacks is a problem.

It is best to move forward by looking for solutions. It needs to be explained what is expected for people living in the new country before they decide to live there.

Let them know what they can do to try and legally change things, but explain the process clearly.

The moderate voices need more publicity. That way they get acknowledgement and that gets some flash

 

My posts were about migrant crime rate and the extent to which it can be attributed to the particulars of the culture from which they came or their religion. Not the Islamic terrorist attacks. That should have been clear.

 

It’s not a completely anything issue as humans have devised many reasons to kills one another.

Abrahamic religions rose from blood shed.

 

Very true. Judaism was not about peaceful trade empires. It was about dominating the levant. The Zealots wanted to overthrow Roman rule of Judea. Romans 13 has been used to justify political violence and the early Church gladly killed in the name of God.

Dharmic religions are not exempt either. Hindu extremists, right now, are going around India killing Muslims for slaughtering cows. People are violent and our religions reflect that.

 

Imagine if we still worshipped Ra (Egypt), Anu (Mesopotamia), or the proto-Dyēus (Proto-Indo-European peoples) instead of religions based on the worship of God. We'd still be killing each other.