London has just elected it's first Muslim mayor; Sadiq Khan - Polidicks

[QUOTE=orgornot;50274584]This is bad. Religious leaders in general are bad. Islam isn't modernized at all and this will have terrible consequences including: More religious schools where children are indoctrinated, push for more leniency towards sharia-laws, more "muslim areas", and probably more mosques where terror recruitment will happen. When you import islam you will get islam.[/QUOTE] L-o-L. Khan is a fucking human rights lawyer, you paranoid reactionary.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;50276667]lmfao are you ready for there to be no more great countries in the world? [editline]7th May 2016[/editline] not due to the mayor personally at all, but this acceleration towards "multiculturalism" even when the multiculturalism is, by most subjective quantities, worse than the status quo (I.E. "muslim areas")[/QUOTE] If you actually bothered doing some background reading on this subject you might figure out that Khan won because he was the best candidate. It has nothing to do with his culture.

Funny how the people who are worried that Muslims will completely overtake the country and destroy freedom of religion always want to respond by discriminating them based on their religion.

good fucking lord muslim is elected to public office fp thinks its the end of the world

[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;50277182]If you actually bothered doing some background reading on this subject you might figure out that Khan won because he was the best candidate. It has nothing to do with his culture.[/QUOTE] Oh, I don't doubt it, I bet he's 100% the most qualified person for the job. This still doesn't change the fact that Islam is one of the most aggressively recessive religions currently being practiced. Though it isn't perfectly scientific (correlation =/= causation), looking at areas which implemented Islam (and thus sharia law) had SERIOUS problems with pretty much everything that could be bad (women's rights are nonexistent, killing homosexuals, GDP right in the shitter, wars, violence, etc.) This thread reminded me that there are some people pushing for the inclusion of Islam more in our society. While I'm not necessarily saying anyone here is doing it, a lot of this promotion is done by the same people who consider themselves progressive- the Quran is, unlike other religious texts (like the bible) not ambiguous in it's statements, and not up to interpretation. Supporting Islam (in it's current state)'s integration in the west can only lead to bad things. [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] the reason I mentioned the bible is because while some people interpret it in really really bad ways, many don't. The Quran, by the way it is written (these are the words of the prophet verbatim and furthermore here are some extremely specific examples of x and y behavior, ps do not modify interpretation), does not allow for modification as society progresses.

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;50279868]Oh, I don't doubt it, I bet he's 100% the most qualified person for the job. This still doesn't change the fact that Islam is one of the most aggressively recessive religions currently being practiced. Though it isn't perfectly scientific (correlation =/= causation), looking at areas which implemented Islam (and thus sharia law) had SERIOUS problems with pretty much everything that could be bad (women's rights are nonexistent, killing homosexuals, GDP right in the shitter, wars, violence, etc.) [/QUOTE] if you ignore the fact that there are countries other than shitholes like afghanistan and iraq that implement sharia law yeah sure maybe do you honestly think that western society will allow for the implementation of sharia law? it won't. the people here aren't promoting islam, they're just rightfully defending this guy from ignorant bigots who just [QUOTE=orgornot;50274584]This is bad. Religious leaders in general are bad. Islam isn't modernized at all and this will have terrible consequences including: More religious schools where children are indoctrinated, push for more leniency towards sharia-laws, more "muslim areas", and probably more mosques where terror recruitment will happen. When you import islam you will get islam.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Radical_ed;50276667]lmfao are you ready for there to be no more great countries in the world? [editline]7th May 2016[/editline] not due to the mayor personally at all, but this acceleration towards "multiculturalism" even when the multiculturalism is, by most subjective quantities, worse than the status quo (I.E. "muslim areas")[/QUOTE] when there isn't even supposed to be an outrage over this. not supporting islam is fine and dandy but the solution isn't to alienate muslims through shit like fearmongering because that will only breed hate and create chasms rather than bringing them over to more progressive ways of thinking [editline]8th May 2016[/editline] oops i just realized you're one of the two quoted people lmao

I'm just glad Goldsmith didn't win tbh

[QUOTE=Trebgarta;50277136]Mayor being a Muslim means something because some people believe it means something. To most of us it doesnt mean anything. But a minority comes and suggests he is bad because he is a Muslim and suddenly it is the topic of discussion, the most noteworthy trait og his just out of public interest, not in any relation to capability in being a mayor[/QUOTE] Oh ya, it does mean [I]something[/I]. We could make guessed and prejudices of a Muslim person, sure, but we can't really tell how "true-blue" they are about it, or how they would actually function as a leader, and what kinda decisions they would make. So, they might be influenced by their religion, heavily even, or the mayor's decision making might not be influenced by his religion at all! Because... anyone [I]can[/I] be a Muslim, even if they don't follow the commandments and rules perfectly as to how to act in life. As with everybody else, no Muslim is perfect, and they struggle with their sins all the same. I.E. some is a homo, some likes to gamble, some likes to smoke a certain drug, etc. A Muslim may be pro same-sex marriage, and doesn't go out his way to prosecute or oppress gays at all, never, even if he believes that gays, in fact, go to Hell.

I dont get the fuss about this. If you are muslim/christian/jew or whatever religion its a private matter and shouldnt be mixed with his work as a major. People act like he is going to implement sharia law just because he is muslim.

[QUOTE=opti2000;50280273]I dont get the fuss about this. If you are muslim/christian/jew or whatever religion its a private matter and shouldnt be mixed with his work as a major. People act like he is going to implement sharia law just because he is muslim.[/QUOTE] Dude, how else am I gonna validate my rampant xenophobia?

Saying that a Muslim mayor would implement Sharia is like saying that a Catholic mayor would start a crusade.

What the hell is with people? I'm for hard laws when it comes to immigration and all that shit but this is the kind of muslim you want. A moderate one that is for other human's rights. He's born in England for christ's sake! (hehe)

[QUOTE=Radical_ed;50276667]lmfao are you ready for there to be no more great countries in the world? -snip all that shit-[/QUOTE] Canada says hi, from on top. We're also a multicultural society with gay marriage and we haven't been sucked into the gaping void by Satan yet. fite me in the [URL="http://www.nationalpost.com/news/cms/binary/1337069.jpg"]no-touching zone[/URL]

[QUOTE=orgornot;50274584]This is bad. Religious leaders in general are bad. Islam isn't modernized at all and this will have terrible consequences including: More religious schools where children are indoctrinated, push for more leniency towards sharia-laws, more "muslim areas", and probably more mosques where terror recruitment will happen. When you import islam you will get islam.[/QUOTE] Is this satire?

no it's xenophobia

[QUOTE=smurfy;50276963]Actual picture of Sadiq Khan as envisioned by some of the people in this thread [img]http://imgkk.com/i/9k2d.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Derka derka mohammed jihad! Sherpa sherpa mohammed allah!

Loving the fact that Khan didn't even let Corbyn attend the victory ceremony, this has been such an embarrassment for Corbyn so far.

[QUOTE=kimr120;50281053]What the hell is with people? I'm for hard laws when it comes to immigration and all that shit but this is the kind of muslim you want. A moderate one that is for other human's rights. He's born in England for christ's sake! (hehe)[/QUOTE] Yeah but don't you get it??!?! He's a fucking MOOZIE! He can't be English! Also for an extra bonus in this post, my wonderfully racist father (hey, he's a truck driver, they can't help it) shared this on Facebook a few hours ago; [t]https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13173997_10153621691813004_6038061371636634331_n.jpg?oh=a8704ef017cf1c90aad7585bca3b8a1b&oe=579AE8ED[/t] Nice.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;50281828]Yeah but don't you get it??!?! He's a fucking MOOZIE! He can't be English! Also for an extra bonus in this post, my wonderfully racist father (hey, he's a truck driver, they can't help it) shared this on Facebook a few hours ago; [t]https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13173997_10153621691813004_6038061371636634331_n.j pg?oh=a8704ef017cf1c90aad7585bca3b8a1b&oe=579AE8ED[/t] Nice.[/QUOTE] Nice 'progressive' Racism there mate, denying the English an identity while justifying\accepting Sadiq Khan and his islamic faith. Also, if he is a "moderate" progressive muslim, then why the hell does he sound like a cult leader and allow the jihad flag to be in his audience? [video=youtube;5qra7WdXkzo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qra7WdXkzo[/video] [highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("Alt and Gimmick" - Big Dumb American))[/highlight]

Found another UKIP voter!

By the way, you can be a Muslim and be a Mayor and not be a racist\islamist piece of shit. Take: [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naheed_Nenshi"]Naheed Nenshi[/URL] for example, he's a muslim of asian decent (Not middle east) and is currently the 36th Mayor of Calgary, he's normal, supports gay rights and doesn't have ties to islamists\terrorists like Sadiq Khan [IMG]http://www.calgaryherald.com/cms/binary/5353155.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=orgornot;50274584]This is bad. Religious leaders in general are bad. Islam isn't modernized at all and this will have terrible consequences including: More religious schools where children are indoctrinated, push for more leniency towards sharia-laws, more "muslim areas", and probably more mosques where terror recruitment will happen. When you import islam you will get islam.[/QUOTE] It must be so fucking embarrassing to be this ignorant.

[QUOTE=Terminutter;50274625]Bearing in mind the alternative is Zac, who: - Supported the bedroom tax - Was against using public money to create guaranteed jobs - Was against keeping benefits in line with prices, and against increases for the disabled or long term ill - Was against taxing bank bonuses and using the proceeds to create jobs + affordable homes (we need more houses here) - Was against a tax break for small businesses that open more jobs Yeah... I think I'd take Sadiq over him.[/QUOTE] IF anything people should keep this in mind this guy didn't win because of religion he won because the other guy would fuck you over big time

what only really matters is if he's a shit leader, or a good leader doesn't matter if he's muslim or not.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50282542]It must be so fucking embarrassing to be this ignorant.[/QUOTE] Unfortunately for such people, they think their viewpoint is the "enlightened" one, and it is everyone else who is being ignorant of the dangers of Islam. [editline]9th May 2016[/editline] It's also pretty god damn sad how many people agreed with that post by rating it star.

Meh, some people just rate stupid shit with stars exactly for reactions, it's the reason ratings were removed in the first place, don't know why they brought Winner back.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50286268]Meh, some people just rate stupid shit with stars exactly for reactions, it's the reason ratings were removed in the first place, don't know why they brought Winner back.[/QUOTE] I think its a useful system. Positive ratings are good for people short of time to find only the "important" posts (not always the correct ones). Just positive (rather than positive and negative) is also better since negative ratings serve as a form of censorship, only positive rating means that people will feel more free to post questionable or controversial views.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50286268]Meh, some people just rate stupid shit with stars exactly for reactions[/QUOTE] I don't think anyone rated his post to invoke a "reaction" considering only one (sub-)post mentioned the ratings in entire thread. Had it been a tragic article about a 6-year-old being burned alive by her father and people rated the story 'funny' would be the only time someone 'rates for reactions.'