Islam doesn’t belong here, say two-thirds of Germans - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50308355]This kind of thing only plays into ISIS hands, this is exactly what they want, they want Islam to be hated, it fuels their narrative and fills their ranks, giving them more power. So much for not letting the terrorists control us through fear.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dzonintz;49983553]How do you know this? Where is your source? Why are people repeating this? All those PhD educated and engineer Muslims were so oppressed that they willingly joined ISIS, along with bunch of other upper class people. I just don't get it.[/QUOTE]

If you don't think the source is trustworthy here is another one: [url]http://www.dw.com/en/almost-two-thirds-of-germans-believe-islam-does-not-belong-in-germany-poll-finds/a-19251169[/url] Also added it into the first post.

[QUOTE=Killstr3aKs;50308225]As far as I know christians don't blow themselves up or perpetrate mass-shootings against civilians just to make their god happy. Yeah, Christianity had a fucked up age full of witch hunts and all-powerful inquisition, but we managed to move on. Meanwhile hundreds of people die every day due to fanatic suicide bombers that think 72 virgins are awaiting them after they fulfill Allah's command. And while the Jihad doesn't represent the entire Islamic culture, it's still a big and well-known part of it.[/QUOTE] Yeah as we all know violent Christian extremist groups don't exist. Oh wait except they totally do and are in fact a far more common domestic threat to most western countries than Islamic terrorists.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;50308355]This kind of thing only plays into ISIS hands, this is exactly what they want, they want Islam to be hated, it fuels their narrative and fills their ranks, giving them more power. So much for not letting the terrorists control us through fear.[/QUOTE] It seems less a response to terrorism and more a response to the regressive sociopolitical aspects of Islam clashing with western libertarian values.

[QUOTE=Dzonintz;50308679]~absolutely nothing~[/QUOTE] A lot of people willingly join ISIS because they believe the western world is out to get the Middle East. And to be fair, western nations and Russia have continuously meddled in their affairs for decades now. The more the idea that western nations hate Islam gets affirmed, the easier it is to be convinced that it's true.

[QUOTE=elowin;50308718][B]A lot of people willingly join ISIS because they believe the western world is out to get the Middle East.[/B] [/QUOTE] Where, just where are you people gathering this information?

The real problem isn't Islam It's the at Odds with the west culture of the middle east.

ISIS has stated that one of their goals is to drive a wedge between western governments and their Muslim populations so people take this vague, tertiary goal and try to apply it to practical life with absolutely no proof as to how much stories like the one in OP help radicalize native Muslims, if at all. All that is really achieved is setting up a no-win scenario for western nations and their citizens where any action or reaction towards Islam means "the terrorists win", an unproven theoretical that clashes violently with the practical fact that we are dropping a shitload of bombs on them every day and pushing them back to Raqqa.

[QUOTE=Dzonintz;50308751]Where, just where are you people gathering this information?[/QUOTE] Do ISIS's own publications count? Because in Dabiq, they regularly highlight Western intolerance towards Muslims. Their motivations for doing this aren't exactly subtle. In driving as big a wedge as possible between Muslims and Non-Muslims, they push more people at risk of radicalization over the edge, causing greater recruitment rates and an expansion of power, wealth, and reach.

[QUOTE=Superkilll307;50308758]The real problem isn't Islam It's the at Odds with the west culture of the middle east.[/QUOTE] Which is largely caused by islam

[QUOTE=Annoyed Grunt;50308583]Christianity was founded by an ante-litteram hippie who may or may not have existed. Islam was found by a child-raping jew-genociding warmongerer who definitely did exist and who just wrote a holy book for his own personal gains, making up laws as he pleased for his own benefit. Oh, and he imposed his religion by the use of the sword, while Christians managed to do that simply through their message. In the end, as an atheist, I don't care what religion you prefer, but pretending that Islam and Christianity are the same is historical revisionism at worst simple ignorance at best.[/QUOTE] Ah yes, as history will tell you Christianity was never imposed through violence. Like I'm not going to argue that Islam has no history of violence or that it's scripture doesn't ever endorse violence because it totally does, but it's also completely disingenuous to argue that Christianity doesn't. If people here are going to seriously argue that the Bible never ever endorses violence against people who are faithless or don't abide by the religion's moral code, I'm fairly certain most of you have never actually read it. As to whether or not that's what Jesus Christ himself was advocating, that's an entirely different argument (what Jesus Christ preached and what the rest of the Bible preaches are sometimes contradictory believe it or not), but to claim that Christian scripture doesn't ever endorse violence whatsoever is just blatantly incorrect.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50308811]Which is largely caused by islam[/QUOTE] No it's caused by actual conflicts (like, you know, war) in actual places

[QUOTE=Mooe94;50308829]No it's caused by actual conflicts (like, you know, war) in actual places[/QUOTE] Which are fueled by islamism and its anti western sentiment

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50308806]Do ISIS's own publications count? Because in Dabiq, they regularly highlight Western intolerance towards Muslims. Their motivations for doing this aren't exactly subtle. In driving as big a wedge as possible between Muslims and Non-Muslims, they push more people at risk of radicalization over the edge, causing greater recruitment rates and an expansion of power, wealth, and reach.[/QUOTE] Why is the bar so low for Muslims? I can't even imagine someone making that argument in the opposite direction: "The bad acts of ISIS cause western civilians to radicalize and want to commit terrorist attacks on Syrian civilians." It's essentially nonsense, but when you say it about Muslims, then it seemingly makes perfectly sense. [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Geikkamir;50308817]Ah yes, as history will tell you Christianity was never imposed through violence. Like I'm not going to argue that Islam has no history of violence or that it's scripture doesn't ever endorse violence because it totally does, but it's also completely disingenuous to argue that Christianity doesn't. If people here are going to seriously argue that the Bible never ever endorses violence against people who are faithless or don't abide by the religion's moral code, I'm fairly certain most of you have never actually read it. As to whether or not that's what Jesus Christ himself was advocating, that's an entirely different argument (what Jesus Christ preached and what the rest of the Bible preaches are sometimes contradictory believe it or not), but to claim that Christian scripture doesn't ever endorse violence whatsoever is just blatantly incorrect.[/QUOTE] Every society and religion ever endorses violence in one way or another (like, say, in the legal system). So, please, be more specific. I'm almost certain that I know what ignorant points you're talking about, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you specify before responding. Please point out a general or Christian (not Jewish) specific command by God to violence.

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;50308077]Islam isn't intrinsically more violent than Christianity, Christians just have the privilege of living in countries that right now are stable.[/QUOTE] Yes it is. The Quran states everything from God loves Muslims who die as martyrs in battle more than he loves Muslims who die in peace to the acceptability purging away al-Fitnah (disbelievers, Polytheists, and other "transgressors"). Beyond that, Muhammad himself was a conquering religious warrior who overran much of the Middle East to spread his religion by force and wanted to exterminate multiple Jewish tribes living in Arabia at the time (because they were Jewish, and supposedly because some Jewish shopkeeper had exposed a woman accidentally in Medina or Mecca; I don't remember what city anymore). He didn't exterminate the Jews of course; one of his followers convinced him instead to seize most of their valuables and just exile them instead. Although after the Battle of the Trench in 627, he killed hundreds of the Banu Qurayza off. [quote=Ibn Ishaq]"Then they surrendered, and the apostle confined them in Medina in the quarter of d. al-Harith, a woman of B. al-Najjar. Then the apostle went out to the market of Medina (which is still its market today) and dug trenches in it. Then he sent for them and struck off their heads in those trenches as they were brought out to him in batches. Among them was the enemy of Allah Huyayy b. Akhtab and Ka`b b. Asad their chief. There were 600 or 700 in all, though some put the figure as high as 800 or 900. As they were being taken out in batches to the apostle they asked Ka`b what he thought would be done with them. He replied, 'Will you never understand? Don't you see that the summoner never stops and those who are taken away do not return? By Allah it is death!' This went on until the apostle made an end of them. Huyayy was brought out wearing a flowered robe in which he had made holes about the size of the finger-tips in every part so that it should not be taken from him as spoil, with his hands bound to his neck by a rope. When he saw the apostle he said, 'By God, I do not blame myself for opposing you, but he who forsakes God will be forsaken.' Then he went to the men and said, 'God's command is right. A book and a decree, and massacre have been written against the Sons of Israel.' Then he sat down and his head was struck off."[/quote] (They also beheaded a woman after the battle for killing a Muslim by striking him in the head with a millstone.) Then there's numerous issues with how women have been treated by it, the experiences of religious minorities under Islam (here in modern times as well as the old days under the Ottoman Empire), etc. It's an abhorrent religion, and I say this with half my family (my dad's side) being composed of Shi'ite Persians. I was taught about it, and I was also taught about Christianity because my stepfather was a Catholic. Islam is intrinsically more violent than Christianity is, and their distinct founding histories proves it. Jesus was crucified and that was the end of him (after preaching things like turn the other cheek, love thy neighbor, etc.); Muhammad on the other hand went on to fulfill his ambitions as a conquering holy warrior. [editline]12 May 2016[/editline] Goddamn do I hate this ignorant relativism everybody tries to live up to and tries to impose on everybody else. They are not the same religion, they do not have the same beliefs, they have completely different histories and foundations which are what have made them distinct from one another in the first place, and that's all there is to it.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50308840]Why is the bar so low for Muslims? I can't even imagine someone making that argument in the opposite direction: "The bad acts of ISIS cause western civilians to radicalize and want to commit terrorist attacks on Syrian civilians." It's essentially nonsense, but when you say it about Muslims, then it seemingly makes perfectly sense.[/QUOTE] It's not? Any demographic in similar sociopolitical circumstances would be similarly affected. That's a pretty slimy argument you're trying to make.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50308879]It's not? Any demographic in similar sociopolitical circumstances would be similarly affected. That's a pretty slimy argument you're trying to make.[/QUOTE] Many of the muslim terrorists have been educated and well off and the same arguments have been used for Muslims in the west (that we shouldn't alienate them or they might radicalize into terrorists). So what's your point? You also have the literal millions of Christians living under oppression around the world who, again, don't have nearly the same issues. I think there's a difference because it's a lot easier to convince a person to terrorism when you don't have to stretch their scripture to justify it, but clearly you disagree. A Christian has to go way out of their way to stretch and ignore huge portions of basic theology to justify something like terrorism (especially because it started in a time and place where terrorism would have been justified if it was at all. Instead Christians were told to suffer peaceably as their savior did.). That doesn't seem to be the case for Islam. Just look at the early heroes of Christianity: - Jesus, God in human flesh who allowed himself to be tortured and killed because he so loved mankind. Described as "a lamb to the slaughter." - The 12 disciples, many of whom were killed because they taught against the authorities wishes - Paul, a man of violence who was converted and became a man of peaceful teaching, being put in prison over and over - Stephen, the first martyr of Christianity, killed because he was teaching Christianity. As he was being killed he asked God to forgive those killing him. Now let's look at early Muslim heroes: - Muhammad, a holy warrior who spread Islam through war - Abu Bakr, same thing - Umar, same thing - Uthman, same thing - Ali, fought in civil wars against other Muslims because he was cheated out of the Caliphate - etc.

[QUOTE=Dzonintz;50308751]Where, just where are you people gathering this information?[/QUOTE] There is a pretty good article in the March National Geographic where they interviewed several fighters as well as the soldiers fighting against them.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50308885]Many of the muslim terrorists have been educated and well off. So what's your point? You also have the literal millions of Christians living under oppression around the world who, again, don't have the same issues. I think there's a difference because it's a lot easier to convince a person to terrorism when you don't have to stretch their scripture to justify it, but clearly you disagree. A Christian has to go way out of their way to stretch and ignore huge portions of basic theology to justify something like terrorism (especially because it started in a time and place where terrorism would have been justified if it was at all. Instead Christians were told to suffer peaceably as their savior did.). That doesn't seem to be the case for Islam. Just look at the early heroes of Christianity: - Jesus, God in human flesh who allowed himself to be tortured and killed because he so loved mankind. Described as "a lamb to the slaughter." - The 12 disciples, many of whom were killed because they taught against the authorities wishes - Paul, a man of violence who was converted and became a man of peaceful teaching, being put in prison over and over - Stephan, the first martyr of Christianity, killed because he was teaching Christianity. As he was being killed he asked God to forgive those killing him. Now let's look at early Muslim heroes: - Muhammad, a holy warrior who spread Islam through war - Abu Bakr, same thing - Umar, same thing - Uthman, same thing - Ali, fought in civil wars against other Muslims because he was cheated out of the Caliphate - etc.[/QUOTE] lmao are you kidding? You can name thousands of early christian warlords and any "evildoers" and as many who were important historical figures who were early muslim. And by the way Jesus is an important figure in [I]both[/I] religions so I don't even know how you can put him there and not under Islam as well

[QUOTE=Mooe94;50309035]lmao are you fucking kidding? You can name thousands of early christian "evildoers" and as many who were important historical figures who were muslim. And by the way Jesus is an important figure in [I]both[/I] religions so I don't even know how you can put him there and not under Islam as well[/QUOTE] I listed the earliest heroes of both. These are the originators who started the whole thing. I'm not listing off random people associated with the religions. Jesus may be an important figure in Muslim theology, but he has nothing to do with the origination of Islam.

[QUOTE=sgman91;50309044]I listed the earliest heroes of both. These are the originators who started the whole thing. I'm not listing off random people associated with the religions.[/QUOTE] ah sorry read that too hastily then, my bad! :)

[QUOTE=Killuah;50308592]Noone wants that, that's why integration is so damn important. We have experience with what happens with no integration from the 60s and 70s[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing for closing the country, but at the same time I feel the "we just need to integrate them better" is avoiding talking about the real issue; Integration is only going slowly in some aspects, and I don't think it helps taking in more (which doesn't mean we should sidestep our responsibilities to people fleeing war). I mean, just last week we had a news story about a swimming hall closing the blinds and prohibiting men for a certain time frame so a team of young girls could swim. I mean great, they're doing sports, but is that integration? Especially when one father (can't tell you if everyone else said something else, though) said that while he's proud of his daughter, he'd prohibit her from swimming if the arrangement wasn't kept in place. It's a whole can of worms because these girls of course have freedom of religion, but the question is if we're simply enabling these control structures and really not doing much for the girls. Obviously it's a very specific incident, but it kinda frames the question of whether you can avoid a parallel society without nudging a bit? I don't know, but I don't see obvious stuff that we're simply doing terribly wrong with regards to integration right now. Is it simply a hard core that we're not getting through to, and how do we get through to them? Should we just wait three or four generations for those opinions to get diluted?

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50309080]I'm not arguing for closing the country, but at the same time I feel the "we just need to integrate them better" is avoiding talking about the real issue; Integration is only going slowly in some aspects, and I don't think it helps taking in more (which doesn't mean we should sidestep our responsibilities to people fleeing war). I mean, just last week we had a news story about a swimming hall closing the blinds and prohibiting men for a certain time frame so a team of young girls could swim. I mean great, they're doing sports, but is that integration? Especially when one father (can't tell you if everyone else said something else, though) said that while he's proud of his daughter, he'd prohibit her from swimming if the arrangement wasn't kept in place. It's a whole can of worms because these girls of course have freedom of religion, but the question is if we're simply enabling these control structures and really not doing much for the girls. Obviously it's a very specific incident, but it kinda frames the question of whether you can avoid a parallel society without nudging a bit? I don't know, but I don't see obvious stuff that we're simply doing terribly wrong with regards to integration right now. Is it simply a hard core that we're not getting through to, and how do we get through to them? Should we just wait three or four generations for those opinions to get diluted?[/QUOTE] And you have enough situations where integration is simply not working at all. Molenbeek being the most extreme example of it, but unfortunately, there are lots of those districts scattered around West Europe, where the muslim population, for the biggest part, completely refuses to even make a halfassed effort to integrate into the culture of the country they immigrated to. It shouldn't be that we should adapt to their backwards culture, they have to adapt theirs to our western culture, simple as that.

if you believe that any religion is intrinsically one way or another and not transmutable to suit its surroundings then you're a hypocrite of the highest order for believing in a kind of fatalism and determinism which is the essence of religion, and even worse one that you have been taught by people who preach it like faith. so many of you trust in science and the power of a superior "rationality" that allegedly sets your beloved heritage apart from the islamic one yet far be it from any of you to ever engage with the western tradition of actual scholarship of these issues, all of which universally point to the fact that the resurgence of radical islam is symptomatic of political issues revolving around identity and nation, problems the West collectively did its best to exacerbate and worsen, and not the other way around [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] it is just a massive fucking calamity to me that the world is so purblind to the middle east after everything done to it

[quote]At that time 52 percent of respondents were against the idea that Islam is a part of Germany[/quote] Such a sensationalist article. Of course a lot of people are going to be against ANY religion "being a part" of their country. You'd get similar results with christianity in America.

[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;50309080]I'm not arguing for closing the country, but at the same time I feel the "we just need to integrate them better" is avoiding talking about the real issue; Integration is only going slowly in some aspects, and I don't think it helps taking in more (which doesn't mean we should sidestep our responsibilities to people fleeing war). I mean, just last week we had a news story about a swimming hall closing the blinds and prohibiting men for a certain time frame so a team of young girls could swim. I mean great, they're doing sports, but is that integration? Especially when one father (can't tell you if everyone else said something else, though) said that while he's proud of his daughter, he'd prohibit her from swimming if the arrangement wasn't kept in place. It's a whole can of worms because these girls of course have freedom of religion, but the question is if we're simply enabling these control structures and really not doing much for the girls. Obviously it's a very specific incident, but it kinda frames the question of whether you can avoid a parallel society without nudging a bit? I don't know, but I don't see obvious stuff that we're simply doing terribly wrong with regards to integration right now. Is it simply a hard core that we're not getting through to, and how do we get through to them? Should we just wait three or four generations for those opinions to get diluted?[/QUOTE] I am not sure if i can consider a request for a some more privacy in a public swimming pool a significant conflict of values.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;50308091]It's surreal to sit and watch self-destructive ignorance feed itself like this. The deeper the cultural schism, the deeper the roots of extremism can burrow. It doesn't take insanity to start a man down the path of radicalization, it only takes enough alienation and doubt for him to start questioning whether there might be a seed of truth in the rhetoric of radical voices. I am not a religious man, and I think that organized religion, especially organized religion operating in exclusion, can feed itself into an unhealthy force quite quickly. However, I can tell you one thing for certain: if you are trying to fight radicalization within a particular demographic, targeting that demographic with persecution, hatred, and societal exclusion is absolutely the worst way to go about it.[/QUOTE] Yeah, that'd be a completely valid point if they were actually being systematically alienated. Saying something 'doesn't belong' isn't the same as alienating against those that are Islamic. Also, you can't assume that alienation is the ONLY reason that people are joining the likes of ISIS. Religious nuts have always exisited. There doesn't have to be alienation for extremism to grow, and you have to accept that to some extent, such extremism is rooted within the middle-eastern (and a minority of western) religious values themselves.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50308429]While Christianity had the inquisition, Islam was peaking. While European Christians had inquisitions to torture and kill apostates and heretics (sound familiar??), the Islamic world was in a literal golden age. Most historians literally call the middle ages "the Golden Age of Islam." The European university system, created by the church, was inspired by Muslim educational institutions - which were both secular and religious in scope. A Muslim minority population was able to operate and rule over a Christian majority without issue while expanding philosophy and mathematics and effectively having an early renaissance. This only ended because the Mongols raided everything. Islam during the Middle Ages valued the concept of [I]ijtihad[/I], which literally means "independent reasoning," and meant that [I]mujtahids[/I] were religiously obligated to use logical reasoning to [i]personally interpret the Qu'ran and Hadiths[/i] rather than rely on tradition or literal interpretation. Meanwhile, Christianity was executing apostates en masse and engaging in religious warfare. Progress isn't "oh we moved on they should too." It's not linear - Islam was undeniably a more progressive and peaceful religion than Christianity for a very long time. They allowed Christians and Jews and other religions to coexist peacefully [i]and codified it in Sharia law[/i]. The fact that it isn't now doesn't mean that it's somehow inherently more violent - it means that fundamentalism is having a resurgence due to literally thousands of different social, economic, and theological reasons.[/QUOTE] The "Islamic Golden Age" is largely a PC myth. It is true to say that the Arab/Persian world was more advanced in the areas of science, mathematics, and astronomy than Europe was at the time. But if you're setting your bar as low as the early middle ages in Europe then anything is going to look better. For example, the treatment of Jews under the Umayyads in Spain was better than the treatment of Jews under European kings [I]only by comparison[/I]. But my second and more important disagreement with this is that [I]the golden age had nothing to do with Islam[/I]. Islam was not the reason for the success of the Arab/Persian world. Nobody credits Christianity for the Enlightenment, rightfully so. Why do regressives insist on crediting Islam for the "Golden Age"? [editline]12th May 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Geikkamir;50308817]Ah yes, as history will tell you Christianity was never imposed through violence. Like I'm not going to argue that Islam has no history of violence or that it's scripture doesn't ever endorse violence because it totally does, but it's also completely disingenuous to argue that Christianity doesn't. If people here are going to seriously argue that the Bible never ever endorses violence against people who are faithless or don't abide by the religion's moral code, I'm fairly certain most of you have never actually read it. As to whether or not that's what Jesus Christ himself was advocating, that's an entirely different argument (what Jesus Christ preached and what the rest of the Bible preaches are sometimes contradictory believe it or not), but to claim that Christian scripture doesn't ever endorse violence whatsoever is just blatantly incorrect.[/QUOTE] The difference here is about scale. Of course Christians spread their doctrine by the sword (look up the Baltic Crusade for example). But these cases were the exception, not the rule. Contrast this with Islam, where Jihad is a core doctrine.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;50308237]For a very long time, Christianity was the same way. The idea that you could personally "interpret" the scripture was ridiculed by the church. It changed with the times. There are several prominent Muslim scholars that criticize the violent aspects of Islam. Saying that a religion [i]cannot[/i] be changed ever is absurd. Islam has changed enormously over the generations - the rise of ISIS and wahhabism and fundamentalist Islam came after an era of largely secular and progressive post-Ottoman-Empire states in the Middle East. Filled to the brim with Islam with little violence. The modern fundamentalism is a very recent development in Muslim history.[/QUOTE] It may have been said by the churches but it's not like the bible says "this is the direct infallable word of god", wheras the quran is very specific about how it was told directly from Gabriel to Mohammad. So, no. You're wrong. Islam will always carry that because it's a core tenant of the faith.

Muslims believe that the words of the Quran are coexistent with Allah, himself. It's not a controversial tenet of Sunni Islam (the large majority of worldwide Muslims).