"Refugees" What is Europe thinking?

[Artisan]

[MENTION=13285]Oscillation[/MENTION], [MENTION=14189]ImaginaryBloke[/MENTION], I agree that this is off topic.
Though if you have a gf or sister, they can help you prove you your right easily enough by working inside a refugee center.

That said, I think that Europe has to take responsibility for the mess it made abroad that brought about this situation in the first place.

But I do think fears of the population could be laid to rest by truthful independent investigation teams, a more thorough scanning of the refugees that do try to enter Europe to filter out known criminals and terrorists.
These teams could prove their validity by conducting their investigation on a live stream.

Situations in and around these centers should also become observable in a live stream. All be it just by placing publicly accessible webcams in the hallways. The refugees who come here to stay could be required to give DNA and tissue samples and even fingerprints, and towns with refugee centers could put a live stream on with a delay of up to an hour to preserve the safety of law enforcement during their jobs and potential situations, yet at the same time providing complete transparency of all emergency situations in the area.


Surely if nothing is a miss, then these measures provide the peace of mind with the populace and the safety of these refugees from fearful folk.

And before we begin about privacy, none of us has any anyway, because we're all under a mass surveillance program from the US anyway, you've all heard Snowden on the news.
why not make the change obama advocated and get that transparency he always used to promise ?

 

[SpecialEdition]

Also, the assertion that having any kind of aversion to this situation or presenting any data that suggests that massive amounts of immigrants increases crime is racist is exactly what makes this topic difficult to talk about. There is a clear division between those who want to look at the situation with soft hearts and those that want to look at it with a critical mind. Being soft hearted is good and the world needs people to have that level of love, compassion and acceptance but like I said in earlier comments - most of the world is still recovering from an economic crisis, many countries do not have the infrastructure or money to support massive amounts of people and they certainly don't have the resources to clean up after the riots and destruction that seems to be spreading in a lot of places.

I also feel that citizens needs to be listened to and respected when it comes to this kind of thing. If everyone can assimilate well together and it is not too financially taxing (it does cost billions, afterall), then that's not a problem. But all of these folks roaming free without direction, without law, without taking measures to locate them appropriately... it's chaos. There's nothing racist about that.

 

[ImaginaryBloke]

Firstly,

The Sweden and rape discussion is another topic, and should continue in another thread.

Absolutely. Sorry for not doing that now. :hand:

Secondly,

it feels as if there is an underlying statment that higher rates of imigrants implies increased rape frequenses. I cannot but feel that this is rasist, but I would like to get to the facts, and for someone to comment on my observation in the first place. Have I understood correctly: you (as in anyone) believe that because of the imigrants there is more rapes going on? Just to be clear.

The increasing rape rate and the blaming immigrants of that are two distinct phenomena.

The first is a trend not completely understood. The second is also that, and most probably a humbug. And both are Internet memes to a great extent, in my view.

I will take more years of research before a clearer picture emerges out of that hazy world of statistics in the social sciences.

But it is easy to blame immigrants. Let us keep doing that. :nono: :lie:

I am not sure how to get rid of them though. An we need them in the labor market too.

 

[housel]

Yes, cheap labor market..

So, this is gonna culturally rich europe? (Hungarian border)
[video=youtube;2_E_3MHeRww]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_E_3MHeRww[/video]

Meanwhile in my country.. (cca 50 miles from me)
[video=youtube;TBFKb1Yu32U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBFKb1Yu32U[/video]

cca 70 miles from me, another border, Tovarnik
[video=youtube;BI1CYzwecwU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1CYzwecwU[/video]

Police is not here to prevent them to pass, police is here to make notes of how many people is going through and to make them any kind of ID which they refuse, they don't want to have a trace.
If you look closely, you can see that when they run into police and fence, they push women and kids in front and push them in back till they break police checkpoint. Then large mass of males run through.

When you speak with some of refugees, they say that Muhamed left men behind men, not women (?).
So, men are obviously more important because they will spread semen where ever they come.
Now, how sick is that?
[video=youtube;BI1CYzwecwU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI1CYzwecwU[/video]

So, mens and fathers on this forum, how do you treat your woman?

 

[Oscillation]

Not racially motivated. There is more than one race, more than one religion, more than one culture, more than one country involved. It can't be nailed down to one group of people. To draw conclusions from various sources isn't what I would call racism. It's not hatefully motivated. It is an observation that is being made by many entities. The country has a reputation for having an exceptionally high rate of rape in comparison to many countries (that also report/record rapes). It is a connection that many are making as the increase is seemingly dramatic. That is why the topic was introduced and I do believe it is related because that seems to be the overwhelming perception. I am not saying I *personally* blame one thing or another. It's just something that is out there and a very hot topic. I am definitely open to being proven "wrong," but the numbers are still troubling to me.

But racism isn't defined by it's hate, it's about "making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes" (Wikipedia). On the other hand we're all making assumptions about everyone, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. I feel, however, that it's discriminating to assume that the imigrants/refugees that enter the country will increase the rape rate of that country. All the "rapists" could be staying in the original country for all that we know. I might be missing the bigger picture here though, but I'm slighly uncomfortable with it.

But let it be clear: rapes shouldn't be taken lightly, I'm with you there! I'm just not entirely sure that it's morally correct to put the topic of refugees and the topic of rate in the same box. The ones that flees could flee from being raped for all that we know.

 

[SpecialEdition]

But racism isn't defined by it's hate, it's about "making assumptions about preferences or abilities of others based on racial stereotypes" (Wikipedia). On the other hand we're all making assumptions about everyone, so it's hard to know where to draw the line. I feel, however, that it's discriminating to assume that the imigrants/refugees that enter the country will increase the rape rate of that country. All the "rapists" could be staying in the original country for all that we know. I might be missing the bigger picture here though, but I'm slighly uncomfortable with it.

But let it be clear: rapes shouldn't be taken lightly, I'm with you there! I'm just not entirely sure that it's morally correct to put the topic of refugees and the topic of rate in the same box. The ones that flees could flee from being raped for all that we know.

Okay, well let's leave rape out of it then. How about the migrant in Italy who broke into the home of an elderly couple and slit their throats and stole their belongings? This person had been in the country less than a month. Or how about the murders in Ikea about migrant who had been in that country less than a month?

Let's be perfectly crystal clear: When you have a very, very large amount of people voluntarily displacing themselves as well as people who are doing it out of need, having a massive influx of people with different beliefs and backgrounds is going to cause problems. There is NO way around that and THAT is what contributes to the increased rate of crime. It is NOT because they are from a certain country, certain ethnic background or certain religion but people clash and sometimes they do it in a big and dangerous way.

Something we should also be crystal clear on: I am NOT against migrating. I am NOT against refugees seeking asylum. I am against letting masses of people flow free without regulation and leaving destruction in their wake and I do not care what country, religion or skin colour they have. I am not being racist, I am not being xenophobic. I am being practical and highlighting that yes, there is an issue with ISIS but there is also an issue with unregulated, large amounts of people who are not going through any kind of formal process what so ever and many of the countries that are accepting them are not experiencing a LOT of problems.

TL;DR: Absolutely not racist.

 

[Oscillation]

So, this is gonna culturally rich europe? [...] So, mens and fathers on this forum, how do you treat your woman?

No, it's probably not going to culturally enrich Europe, but on the other hand - what are they fighting about? It's easy to draw false conclusions. And for all that we know, if we're doing this right, they might be the ones being changed for the better rather than changing Europe for the worse. Why should we hinder them from that oportunity to encounter other cultures? Women might be liberated.

But I don't know!

 

[SpecialEdition]

I wonder... Is being labeled a racist something that white people have to deal with any time they say ANYTHING against any issue that just so happens to involve some people that are not white? I find it exceptionally insulting. Maybe if I had a picture of someone as my profile that wasn't white the conversation would be very different.

Isn't that racist?

 

[Oscillation]

I wonder... Is being labeled a racist something that white people have to deal with any time they say ANYTHING against any issue that just so happens to involve some people that are not white? I find it exceptionally insulting. Maybe if I had a picture of someone as my profile that wasn't white the conversation would be very different.

Isn't that racist?

I for one doesn't think you're racist, and if I've made that impression I'm sincerily sorry.
On another note, I believe that the debate on racism is different from country to country, and perhaps it's a more hot topic to you than it is to me? I would see someone as racist no matter their color of skin. One of my assumptions is that many of the migrants that enter our country are racists, to be honest, or at least xenophobic, but people can change.

I enjoy these discussions in this thread. I feel that they're at a mature level. I hope you feel the same way.

 

[SpecialEdition]

I for one doesn't think you're racist, and if I've made that impression I'm sincerily sorry.
On another note, I believe that the debate on racism is different from country to country, and perhaps it's a more hot topic to you than it is to me? I would see someone as racist no matter their color of skin. One of my assumptions is that many of the migrants that enter our country are racists, to be honest, or at least xenophobic, but people can change.

I enjoy these discussions in this thread. I feel that they're at a mature level. I hope you feel the same way.

Well, I am in Canada which typically acts as a safe haven for anyone and anything and is very big on equal rights for everything from gay marraige to wearing a niqab at a formal civil ceremony. There are obviously some people who are afraid that other religions and cultures will warp our ultra liberal one or that our country will change for the worse if too much leeway is given with religious freedom, etc. I do think people should have the right to have their own faith as long as it doesn't interfere with the freedom and well-being of other people.

The USA still has a huge racial problem going on but they tend to focus it on white police vs black people and then the whole thing about Mexico and the issues they have along some points of that border.

The difference in Canada is that the country is so exceptionally young compared to pretty much... well... everywhere lol. We pretty much have our arms open to most people but I feel that European countries have very strong and very old sense of culture and each country has people and customs that make them unique and beautiful. I think that when you have very strong and potent cultures mixing en mass a lot of people get very bent out of shape about it. It's just going to happen because those cultures, histories, religions, etc are for the most part quite different. It doesn't matter if the mass majority of people representing each side are good people. There are always enough extremists on both sides of the coin that it becomes a problem when you have TOO MANY people coming together too fast. This is what happened in the 400+ person brawl that broke out because one group from X religion was trying to Lynch someone from a different country and different branch of that religion. Tensions are high and violence is bound to break out. That is why this huge influx of migrants is a problem and that is the basic bare bones root of the cause.

My personal belief is that when you are taken on by a country because you need Asylum from your own, you should assimilate to the country you are moving into which means learning the language and becoming an active contributor to society. If this is not your intention and you want handouts and to not work to earn your place then you have no business being there. No one earns a free ride including the natural born citizens (and those who have gone through the formal process) of that country. I also believe if you are an economic migrant then the expectation should be MUCH higher for you to assimilate to the country you are moving to. You can obviously keep your own belief system and practice your faith, but that does not mean you can carry all of your behaviours and culture with you if it is in complete opposition to the country you are moving to and if it violates the well being of any the person.

I do believe countries have a right to preserve their own culture. I believe they have a right to protect their own economy and infrastructure. I believe they need to listen to and cater to the needs of their own natural born populace and those who have gone through the process of becoming citizens and I do not believe they need to cater to outsiders who are coming in with their hand out with the sense of entitlement you might expect from a bratty child born with a spoon in their mouth. At the end of the day it comes down to respect, courtesy, decency and gratitude. It's not a pissing contest.

 

[Artisan]

I wonder... Is being labeled a racist something that white people have to deal with any time they say ANYTHING against any issue that just so happens to involve some people that are not white? I find it exceptionally insulting. Maybe if I had a picture of someone as my profile that wasn't white the conversation would be very different.

Isn't that racist?

yes. My brother is married to a girl of color, her friends tend to think he is racist because he simply does not agree that accepting such a large body of refugees into europe simultaniously is a good idea. And because he is quite outspoken about it and he tends to share news articles on facebook when horrific crimes are commited. Usually the purpetrators though are from such other cultures. Yet he posts it just as well when a white man kills his wife and kids, or something else that is fucked up.

There is however a definate trend in these purpetrators being from different cultures and the jails reflect that number. It also does not help that someone can walk within 2 years with good behaviour after commiting murder. He is also friends with a lot of police officers, and they tend to admit that the majority of the crimes are commited by people of these cultures that clash with our rights.

Something I wish to point out however, is that there is a very big divide between middle eastern and north african countries and cultures. Some of these tend to integrate quite well into our culture. The majority however does not.

It is not uncommon on TV to see a debate between native people and people from one of the well integrated migrants from a specific culture. Usually the latter gets called racist by our native people because our people seem to think that we should respect other cultures by making allowences for them in our basic human rights and the less basic ones that we are priviliged to.

These people tend to say: NO we all have human rights, and we should not allow our rights to be compromised because some people who wish to come here do not agree with them vocally admit to hating gays, girls that are not covered up and womens rights.

The point I wish to make with this, is that it is our native people who tend to play the racist card the most and refuse to admit situtions because all acts are commited by individuals. It also is already clear that there are hardly any syrian refugees left in refugee camps, as people who speak these languages simply went to refugee camps looking for them, and found out pretty much everyone coming in now is not from syria anymore but from other middle eastern countries. Economic migrants.

So the question is, should we let all these non-european economic migrants in that pretend to be syrian refugees and voice such strong opinions against our culture and rights? Clearly the swedish and germans feel like we are obliged to let everyone in regardless. But what effect would this have in the future for our kids and grand children ?

I do admit I voice my concern when it comes to letting people in that do not acknowledge the rights that currently exist in our countries. It would seem to me that people who do not acknowledge the rights of another person are more likely to violate these rights, but ofcourse I have no scientific basis of this proven by years upon years of studies, and thus my concern is irrelevant. Right?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Do you double check the information that you read online? I'm not saying it's all incorrect but when I have been sent some information it's usually not backed with any evidence but just claims from right wing groups. There is a lot of xenophobic false claims going around. People absolutely have a right to be concerned but there is a lot out there that is downright hate.

Being either right wing, or left does not ipso facto make a claim/concern/view wrong/hateful/irrational.

Part of the problem with Islam is that even moderate versions of Islam are what we would consider far-right, intolerant, and xenophobic. Their religious rules/laws and doctrines make very marked distinctions between how a muslim and an infidel are to be treated. They do not respect religious liberty (do some research into what families are supposed to do if a child converts out of Islam). And one of the principle goals of their religion is to eradicate the existence of infidels.

You can say that not all muslims would hold extreme views - but given the centrality of what we consider extreme to the Islamic religion - muslims who do not hold those view are properly not actually considered muslims, but simply non-muslims.

Moreover, Islam is irreformable because a central tenet of their religious interpretation is that their scriptures must be taken literally and must not be modified. In essence, you may have moderate quasi-muslims; but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Relating this to your point - hatred of other religions, morals, cultures, etc. is a central feature within Islam (not talking about recipes and music - but certainly about how people relate, what they believe, who can say what to whom, and even pictorial art). What reaction can a reasonable, moderate culture have to a doctrine of hate? How do we as a culture respond to hate - we shun it, as you allude to indirectly. Shunning Islam is not hate - it is the rejection of hate.

 

[La Sagna]

Being either right wing, or left does not ipso facto make a claim/concern/view wrong/hateful/irrational.

Part of the problem with Islam is that even moderate versions of Islam are what we would consider far-right, intolerant, and xenophobic. Their religious rules/laws and doctrines make very marked distinctions between how a muslim and an infidel are to be treated. They do not respect religious liberty (do some research into what families are supposed to do if a child converts out of Islam). And one of the principle goals of their religion is to eradicate the existence of infidels.

You can say that not all muslims would hold extreme views - but given the centrality of what we consider extreme to the Islamic religion - muslims who do not hold those view are properly not actually considered muslims, but simply non-muslims.

Moreover, Islam is irreformable because a central tenet of their religious interpretation is that their scriptures must be taken literally and must not be modified. In essence, you may have moderate quasi-muslims; but there is no such thing as moderate Islam. Relating this to your point - hatred of other religions, morals, cultures, etc. is a central feature within Islam (not talking about recipes and music - but certainly about how people relate, what they believe, who can say what to whom, and even pictorial art). What reaction can a reasonable, moderate culture have to a doctrine of hate? How do we as a culture respond to hate - we shun it, as you allude to indirectly. Shunning Islam is not hate - it is the rejection of hate.

You obviously don't know what the Muslim scriptures actually contain. They are less misogynistic and more egalitarian and peace promoting than the Christian Bible is. Your claim that extremism is the norm in the Islamic religion is false and I'm guessing you're basing this idea on the reporting of the actions of extreme Muslims. Muslims come in lots of different groups and are not all the same, and most Muslims in the world just want to be left alone to live out their lives, just like the rest of us. The problem with the Islamic religion is the same as the ones found throughout the centuries and currently in the Christian religion, the interpretation of it, and it's use as a political tool. It is true that many believe that their scriptures should be taken literally, but the fact is that they are easily twisted into a different interpretation. Nowhere in their scriptures does it say to kill the Infidels, it just says that you should fight your oppressors but it also says not to fight those who are not fighting against you. The problems with the Islamic religion these days is political and cultural, not religious. There are lots of moderate Muslims who are not hateful at all.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You obviously don't know what the Muslim scriptures actually contain. They are less misogynistic and more egalitarian and peace promoting than the Christian Bible is. Your claim that extremism is the norm in the Islamic religion is false and I'm guessing you're basing this idea on the reporting of the actions of extreme Muslims. Muslims come in lots of different groups and are not all the same, and most Muslims in the world just want to be left alone to live out their lives, just like the rest of us. The problem with the Islamic religion is the same as the ones found throughout the centuries and currently in the Christian religion, the interpretation of it, and it's use as a political tool. It is true that many believe that their scriptures should be taken literally, but the fact is that they are easily twisted into a different interpretation. Nowhere in their scriptures does it say to kill the Infidels, it just says that you should fight your oppressors but it also says not to fight those who are not fighting against you. The problems with the Islamic religion these days is political and cultural, not religious. There are lots of moderate Muslims who are not hateful at all.

[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION] Talking out of your hat again/as usual.

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah and worship is for Allah alone.

Qur'an (2:223) - "Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will..."

Qur'an (66:5) - "Maybe, his Lord, if he divorce you, will give him in your place wives better than you, submissive, faithful, obedient, penitent, adorers, fasters, widows and virgins"

Qur'an (4:34) - "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property. So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. "

 

[La Sagna]

@ Flavus Aquila

I have read scholarly works written by non-muslims who have analysed and compared different religious writings, in particular 'Twelve Theories of Human Nature' from the Oxford University Press by Leslie Stevenson, Deavid L. Haberman and Peter Matthews Wright, not from some website trying to promote one side or the other of the issue. I may sometimes be missing some information that can help inform me but I assure that I don't 'talk out of my hat' as you say and try to actually inform myself from credible and neutral sources.

The Q'ran is considered an addition to the Old Testament and New Testament. The quotes you have are one interpretation and often leave out crucial parts.

Here is (4:89) in its entirety - 4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them


Here is more information about the interpretation of 2:191

This is the true focus behind Jihad, and Muslims must never lose this focus. Jihad is solely for the purpose of aiding humanity and bringing justice and freedom to the oppressed. Therefore, all actions must be in-line with this focus and the strict regulations governing Jihad. The focus is to defend, not destroy. One who focuses on the betterment and aid of humanity will realize that destruction will never achieve this. Abdul Majid Daryabadi writes extensively on verse 2:190:

2:190 “And fight in the way of Allah those who fight you” — Violating the truce they themselves had signed. The Muslims, after having borne untold persecution with almost superhuman fortitude for years and years at the hands of the pagans of Makkah, are now for the first time enjoined to take to reprisals. ‘For a full thirteen years the Muslims were subjected to relentless persecution in Mecca. The Prophet and his followers fled for life to Medina, but the enemy would not leave them alone in their refuge. They came to attack them within a year, and the first three battles were fought in the very locality which will whether the Prophet was an assailant or defendant’ (Headley, The Original Church of Jesus Christ and Islam, p. 155). The Makkans had signed a truce and were the first to break it. The words ‘fight with those who fight you’ clearly show, firstly, that the Muslims were not the aggressors, and secondly, that those of the enemy who were not actual combatants — children, women, monks, hermits, the aged and the infirm, the maimed, and the like — had nothing at all to fear from the Muslim soldiery. It was in light of this express Divine injunction that the great Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, charged his troops into Syria, ‘not to mutilate the dead, nor to slay old men, women, and children, nor to cut down fruit-trees, nor to kill cattle unless they were needed for food; and these humane precepts served like a code of laws of war during the career of Mohammadan conquest.’ (Bosworth Smith, Mohammed and Mohammedanism, p. 185). Has not Islam thus, in prescribing war against those who break God’s law, who challenge His righteous authority, and who fill the world with violence and injustice, made every concession short of the impossible? Has any code of military ethics been so chivalrous, so humane and so tender towards the enemy? ‘The moral tone adopted by the Caliph Abu Bakr, in his instructions to the Syrian army, was’, says a modern Christian historian, ‘so unlike the principles of the Roman government, that it must have commanded profound attention from a subject people. Such a proclamation announced to Jews and Christians’ sentiments of justice and principles of toleration which neither Roman emperors nor orthodox bishops had ever adopted as the rule of their conduct’ (Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, pp. 367-368). (Daryabadi, The Glorious Qur’an, emphasis added)
Muhammad Asad explains verse 2:190 in the following manner:

This and the following verses lay down unequivocally that only self-defence (in the widest sense of the word) makes war permissible for Muslims. Most of the commentators agree in that the expression la ta'tadu signifies, in this context, "do not commit aggression"; while by al-mu'tadin "those who commit aggression" are meant. The defensive character of a fight "in God's cause" - that is, in the cause of the ethical principles ordained by God - is, moreover, self-evident in the reference to "those who wage war against you", and has been still further clarified in 22: 39 - "permission [to fight] is given to those against whom war is being wrongfully waged" - which, according to all available Traditions, constitutes the earliest (and therefore fundamental) Quranic reference to the question of jihad, or holy war (see Tabari and Ibn Kathir in their commentaries on 22: 39). That this early, fundamental principle of self-defence as the only possible justification of war has been maintained throughout the Quran is evident from 60: 8, as well as from the concluding sentence of 4: 91, both of which belong to a later period than the above verse. (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
And on verse 2:191, he states the following:

In view of the preceding ordinance, the injunction "slay them wherever you may come upon them" is valid only within the context of hostilities already in progress (Razi), on the understanding that "those who wage war against you" are the aggressors or oppressors (a war of liberation being a war "in God's cause"). The translation, in this context, of fitnah as "oppression" is justified by the application of this term to any affliction which may cause man to go astray and to lose his faith in spiritual values (cf. Lisan al-Arab). (Asad, The Message of the Qur’an, emphasis added)
This extensive commentary on this verse should sufficiently address all confusion and misconceptions that resulted from misquoting this verse.

As for men and women, tell me which section of the Bible has anything even close to this recognition of women:
"Verily for all men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves before God, and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remmber God unceasingly: for all of them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward." (33:35)

If you know your Bible at all you would know that the quotes you have regarding men and women are very similar to ones that are found throughout the Bible. It is hypocritical for a Christian who believes in the Bible to criticize the Q'ran treatment of women.

I'm a Christian and not at all comfortable with a lot of things that are associated with the Islamic religion presently but I like to know what I'm speaking of outside of the prejudices that are rampant on both sides of the pro or anti-muslim rhetoric.

 

[La Sagna]

[video]https://youtu.be/RvOnXh3NN9w[/video]

 

[just me]

copy "The Q'ran is considered an addition to the Old Testament and New Testament."

This is insane.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

@ Flavus Aquila

I have read scholarly works written by non-muslims who have analysed and compared different religious writings, in particular 'Twelve Theories of Human Nature' from the Oxford University Press by Leslie Stevenson, Deavid L. Haberman and Peter Matthews Wright, not from some website trying to promote one side or the other of the issue. I may sometimes be missing some information that can help inform me but I assure that I don't 'talk out of my hat' as you say and try to actually inform myself from credible and neutral sources.

The Q'ran is considered an addition to the Old Testament and New Testament. The quotes you have are one interpretation and often leave out crucial parts.

Here is (4:89) in its entirety - 4:88-91 Why should ye be divided into two parties about the Hypocrites? Allah hath upset them for their (evil) deeds. Would ye guide those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way? For those whom Allah hath thrown out of the Way, never shalt thou find the Way. They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): so take not friends from their ranks until they forsake the domain of evil in the way of God (from what is forbidden). But if they revert to [open] enmity, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (Of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If God had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then God hath opened no way for you (to war against them). Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto; if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them; in their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them


Here is more information about the interpretation of 2:191



As for men and women, tell me which section of the Bible has anything even close to this recognition of women:
"Verily for all men and women who have surrendered themselves unto God, and all believing men and believing women, and all truly devout men and truly devout women, and all men and women who are true to their word, and all men and women who are patient in adversity, and all men and women who humble themselves before God, and all men and women who give in charity, and all self-denying men and self-denying women, and all men and women who are mindful of their chastity, and all men and women who remmber God unceasingly: for all of them has God readied forgiveness of sins and a mighty reward." (33:35)

If you know your Bible at all you would know that the quotes you have regarding men and women are very similar to ones that are found throughout the Bible. It is hypocritical for a Christian who believes in the Bible to criticize the Q'ran treatment of women.

I'm a Christian and not at all comfortable with a lot of things that are associated with the Islamic religion presently but I like to know what I'm speaking of outside of the prejudices that are rampant on both sides of the pro or anti-muslim rhetoric.

If you think Islam is so moderate, would you personally ever consider becoming a muslim woman?

*Suppressing chortle*

 

[La Sagna]

If you think Islam is so moderate, would you personally ever consider becoming a muslim woman?

*Suppressing chortle*

You can chortle all you want but if I correct someone's misconception about men does that mean that I want to become a man? or if I correct a misconception someone has about trees does it mean that I want to become a tree? I like to be informed and if I have some information that can help clarify things I like to share it.

I never said that Islam is moderate, just that there are a lot of moderate Muslim people. You claimed that the religion itself and the writings promoted hate and extremism and I just wanted to share what I have learned. I attend classes with many Muslims and they are just like the rest of us. There is a lot of extremism in Islam particularly in certain parts of the world but it is political extremism that uses religion as an excuse for their actions.

I definitely would not become Muslim, but my own religion is also misogynistic and although I consider myself a Christian I have moved away from the religion itself. I protect the rights of people to live their religion in peace, and I know that there is a lot of good that has come from some aspects of religion, but there is a lot of harm that also is done in the name of religion including the Christian religions. It just happens to be that Islam is the most dangerous at the moment because of political reasons.

 

[Oscillation]

Stay on track: this thread is about refugees in Europe!​