Anti-Semitism in Germany again

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Why would someone assimilate into a culture that doesn't even want them and one that holds contempt for them. Integration and Assimilation is a two way thing

If they do not assimilate they must deal with being outsiders and not disturb the peace for the natives.
They shouldn’t integrate. They should assimilate. If that means abandoning their Islamic beliefs and history, all the better.

Nope. Religious freedom exists.

[Senegalboy]

A religion is only dangerous when extremists come into play.

It is best to destroy the weed’s roots (Islam) so that the leaves (extremists) have no foundation or basis.
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam's apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out those calling for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable emphasis on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.”
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/page ... lence.aspx

This made me laugh
Why would a book say such violent words and such compassionate words at the same time
Surah Al Kafirun says "to you to your religion and me to mine"
And have Ayats(verses) like "There is no compulsion in Religion"

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

A religion is only dangerous when extremists come into play.

It is best to destroy the weed’s roots (Islam) so that the leaves (extremists) have no foundation or basis.
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam's apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out those calling for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable emphasis on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.”
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/page ... lence.aspx

thereligionofpeace.com is bad source beacuse it is biased.

[Senegalboy]

Why would someone assimilate into a culture that doesn't even want them and one that holds contempt for them. Integration and Assimilation is a two way thing

If they do not assimilate they must deal with being outsiders and not disturb the peace for the natives.
They shouldn’t integrate. They should assimilate. If that means abandoning their Islamic beliefs and history, all the better.

But a lot are Natives I know so many Muslims who's Parents and Grandparents were born in the West

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If they do not assimilate they must deal with being outsiders and not disturb the peace for the natives.
They shouldn’t integrate. They should assimilate. If that means abandoning their Islamic beliefs and history, all the better.

But a lot are Natives I know so many Muslims who's Parents and Grandparents were born in the West

Assalamu Alaykum ya akhi. Kayfa Haaluka?
I think he/she is referring to those who just arrived.

[Senegalboy]

But a lot are Natives I know so many Muslims who's Parents and Grandparents were born in the West

Assalamu Alaykum ya akhi. Kayfa Haaluka?
I think he/she is referring to those who just arrived.

Wa alaykum salam.Alhamdulillah ana Bekhayr shukran

[The Islands of Versilia]

If they do not assimilate they must deal with being outsiders and not disturb the peace for the natives.
They shouldn’t integrate. They should assimilate. If that means abandoning their Islamic beliefs and history, all the better.

Nope. Religious freedom exists.

I disagree with freedom of religion in the case of the Abrahamic faiths.

It is best to destroy the weed’s roots (Islam) so that the leaves (extremists) have no foundation or basis.
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam's apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out those calling for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable emphasis on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.”
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/page ... lence.aspx

This made me laugh
Why would a book say such violent words and such compassionate words at the same time
Surah Al Kafirun says "to you to your religion and me to mine"
And have Ayats(verses) like "There is no compulsion in Religion"

I admittedly do not know it all, but I see it as inconsistency or trying to appeal to non-Muslims.

It is best to destroy the weed’s roots (Islam) so that the leaves (extremists) have no foundation or basis.
“The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran.

The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam's apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology.

Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out those calling for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable emphasis on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history.”
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/page ... lence.aspx

thereligionofpeace.com is bad source beacuse it is biased.

Bias is to be expected from most sites, in varying degrees.

If they do not assimilate they must deal with being outsiders and not disturb the peace for the natives.
They shouldn’t integrate. They should assimilate. If that means abandoning their Islamic beliefs and history, all the better.

But a lot are Natives I know so many Muslims who's Parents and Grandparents were born in the West

To be native one must be of native racial or genetic descent. A fair-skinned, Germanic Muslim is Native, but not one of Arab descent.
And I consider Islam a non-native faith and one of the ‘sand cults’ (Abrahamic faiths).

[The Islands of Versilia]

But a lot are Natives I know so many Muslims who's Parents and Grandparents were born in the West

Assalamu Alaykum ya akhi. Kayfa Haaluka?
I think he/she is referring to those who just arrived.

I desire the assimilation of both European-born and migrant Muslims.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Assalamu Alaykum ya akhi. Kayfa Haaluka?
I think he/she is referring to those who just arrived.

Wa alaykum salam.Alhamdulillah ana Bekhayr shukran

Afwaan, wa ana sa'eedun.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

thereligionofpeace.com is bad source beacuse it is biased.

Bias is to be expected from most sites, in varying degrees.

thereligionofpeace.com is very very very biased.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Assalamu Alaykum ya akhi. Kayfa Haaluka?
I think he/she is referring to those who just arrived.

I desire the assimilation of both European-born and migrant Muslims.

I prefer integration.
And what about Euro Jews, Christians and others?

[The Islands of Versilia]

Bias is to be expected from most sites, in varying degrees.

thereligionofpeace.com is very very very biased.

Most likely, however I stand by my anti-Islamic views.

I desire the assimilation of both European-born and migrant Muslims.

I prefer integration.
And what about Euro Jews, Christians and others?

They must all be assimilated as they are of the Abrahamic faiths.
I’d personally prefer an intense revival of paganism in the entity of Europe at the expense of Christianity, Judaism and Islam.

Edits: spelling fix

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I admittedly do not know it all.

We know. Someone who uses stupid websites might not know too much on the subject.

Bias is to be expected from most sites, in varying degrees.

Bruh, that site is more than 'biased'. It lies.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

thereligionofpeace.com is very very very biased.

Most likely, however I stand by my anti-Islamic views.

You'll believe a lie?

[New Edom]

It's always the fault of feminists and progressives with you isn't it?

"It's always the government and never the opposition passing shitty laws with you, isn't it."

Regardless of your hostility to the truth being noted, what I posted IS the truth. That is what these people think and why they think it. The surge in the far-right happened under the watch of progressives and feminists. Clearly what they are doing is counterproductive, and if you actually speak to the alt-right as human beings instead of just hating them all the time, you'll learn what I posted is accurate.

I have some statistical evidence that the progressive anti-white agenda pushed by middle class whites exists, rich whites are more likely to give money to homeless blacks and think their situation is understandable.

In fact, when you consider it, the entire ego of the capitalists rides on racism being the reason there aren't more black rich people.
The meritocracy works, clearly, the working class can rise (they mostly can't.)
So why no blacks?

Couldn't be capitalism isn't meritocratic. Has to be racism.

They're hateful and extremist because the alternative explanation is that capitalism is full of shit, and even with decades of legal equality, there isn't a proportionate number of minority rich people, because NOBODY has risen. When it was whites, this went unnoticed.
So the "Scroungers, reeee, you're poor because you're shit" mindset gets levied purely against whites while the capitalists still retain enough self-awareness to notice there aren't many minority rich folk, and desperately try to conjure up excuses as to why, rather than admit they aren't ubermensch, they mostly inherited their property, and capitalism is fucking shit.

As soon as they socially engineer a proportionate number of minority rich folk, expect all the social justice shit to immediately collapse now that their egos are no longer threatened by reality. But, since they're often lazy, they'll leave all the anti-white shit in place. Doesn't effect them after all, the rich are basically above the law.

Social justice isn't about allowing minorities to get rich.
It's about letting a few thousand get rich, then slamming the gates shut, like they are for white people and SJWs are too caught up in the bullshit to notice.

Here's some backup for you, Ostro.

Why the Left is losing. I put this here because I can see how leftists are foolishly comforted in the wake of #Metoo, failing to realize that it is their own artistic and political icons who are mostly being attacked by the allegations. The general attitude of 'only the wicked deny their guilt' holds true with the article here.
But more importantly, from the article:

The New Left of cultural warriors that became influential in the 1960s, he argued in Achieving Our Country, led America on a very different path than the one blazed for them by union organizers, progressive activists, and the other architects of the New Deal state and postwar economy. The “cultural left,” as he called it, took concerns over Jim Crow and the Vietnam War and transformed them into a fiery jeremiad against American society and its principles. A kind of political nihilism emerged, Rorty observed, as anti-war activists arrived at the view that the Vietnam War “not only could never be forgiven, but had shown us to be a nation conceived in sin, and irredeemable.” At the same time, the new generation of activists did not follow through on the egalitarian economic agenda and savvy political strategizing of their predecessors, which would have provided a useful counterweight to their idealism. As a result, Rorty claimed, America’s left became trapped in its own indignation and skepticism, substituting sound and fury in the secular pews over the sorts of constructive, pragmatic, and unabashedly power-hungry action required to change an oppressive system. Importantly, it gave up on the white working class, neglecting their concerns about the disappearance of good jobs and the growth of economic inequality, and leaving that crucial voting bloc to be wooed by America-first conservatives like Pat Buchanan—and, later, Donald Trump.

The article points out that identity politics has not always been a divisive thing, and that at times it has produced some good results, such as helping build bridges of understanding on racial issues. However the article stresses that it has almost become an end of itself, and has become a means by which people who have done nothing wrong are accused of being unworthy.

Here is another article drawing similar conclusions.

I agree with Ostro here. This is less of a conspiracy theory than simply a political reality--you cannot alienate people and then expect them to vote for you and support you. You cannot, further, condemn normal outlets for complaint and then not expect those complaints to turn up in contexts that will welcome them, however distasteful. Having said this, I have a great deal of distaste for the alt-right, as he does, but understanding is not the same thing as approval.

Feminists (generally) and racial identity politics groups and their liberal supporters have generally behaved arrogantly and foolishly. Just because you claim a good cause (egalitarianism) does not mean that your moral actions are correct or that your plans are good. Pushing theory at the expense of effectiveness is the height of arrogance and stupidity.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

thereligionofpeace.com is very very very biased.

Most likely, however I stand by my anti-Islamic views.

Even when there based on biased info?

[Liriena]

Most likely, however I stand by my anti-Islamic views.

Even when there based on biased info?

Nothing like admitting that your worldview is based on convenient lies, eh?

[Dumb Ideologies]

Article in the OP and OP's analysis are reaching a bit and conflating a lot of different things.

The people protesting Trump's Jerusalem decision are inuitively more likely to be leftists than alt-right. Some neonazis no doubt, but probably far from the plurality. Many of the people who hate Israel are Muslim immigrants or leftists who buy into Hamas propaganda or Marxist analyses of ebil colonialism.

[Liriena]

Article in the OP and OP's analysis are reaching a bit and conflating a lot of different things.

The people protesting Trump's Jerusalem decision are inuitively more likely to be leftists than alt-right. Some neonazis no doubt, but probably far from the plurality. Many of the people who hate Israel are Muslim immigrants or leftists who buy into Hamas propaganda or Marxist analyses of ebil colonialism.

Or maybe we genuinely, legitimately see something really wrong with the Israeli state's behavior?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Article in the OP and OP's analysis are reaching a bit and conflating a lot of different things.

The people protesting Trump's Jerusalem decision are inuitively more likely to be leftists than alt-right. Some neonazis no doubt, but probably far from the plurality. Many of the people who hate Israel are Muslim immigrants or leftists who buy into Hamas propaganda or Marxist analyses of ebil colonialism.

Or maybe we genuinely, legitimately see something really wrong with the Israeli state's behavior?

It shouldn't exist at all. I say this as a Muslim American.

[Greater Cesnica]

Article in the OP and OP's analysis are reaching a bit and conflating a lot of different things.

The people protesting Trump's Jerusalem decision are inuitively more likely to be leftists than alt-right. Some neonazis no doubt, but probably far from the plurality. Many of the people who hate Israel are Muslim immigrants or leftists who buy into Hamas propaganda or Marxist analyses of ebil colonialism.

Or maybe we genuinely, legitimately see something really wrong with the Israeli state's behavior?

The Israeli State has been playing the victim card for the past 60 or so years, while they've repeatedly struck at their Arab neighbors with no regard for the sanctity of human life. Now, I'm not gonna deny that the Arab states literally tried to wipe Israel off the face of the fucking Earth for decades.

But now, Israel is too powerful for such an invasion and attack to succeed, thanks to U.S support and the introduction of Iron Dome. Therefore, Israel should not be going out of its way to create further tensions.

[Greater Cesnica]

Or maybe we genuinely, legitimately see something really wrong with the Israeli state's behavior?

It shouldn't exist at all. I say this as a Muslim American.

And your reasons for Isreal to not exist are...?

[Internationalist Bastard]

Or maybe we genuinely, legitimately see something really wrong with the Israeli state's behavior?

The Israeli State has been playing the victim card for the past 60 or so years, while they've repeatedly struck at their Arab neighbors with no regard for the sanctity of human life. Now, I'm not gonna deny that the Arab states literally tried to wipe Israel off the face of the fucking Earth for decades.

But now, Israel is too powerful for such an invasion and attack to succeed, thanks to U.S support and the introduction of Iron Dome. Therefore, Israel should not be going out of its way to create further tensions.

Doesn't help the literally have committed crimes against humanity. But nah, if I say that I hate jews.

[Greater Cesnica]

The Israeli State has been playing the victim card for the past 60 or so years, while they've repeatedly struck at their Arab neighbors with no regard for the sanctity of human life. Now, I'm not gonna deny that the Arab states literally tried to wipe Israel off the face of the fucking Earth for decades.

But now, Israel is too powerful for such an invasion and attack to succeed, thanks to U.S support and the introduction of Iron Dome. Therefore, Israel should not be going out of its way to create further tensions.

Doesn't help the literally have committed crimes against humanity. But nah, if I say that I hate jews.

I have no problem with the idea of a Jewish State. I have a serious problem with an aggressive and highly militant Jewish State.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Article in the OP and OP's analysis are reaching a bit and conflating a lot of different things.

The people protesting Trump's Jerusalem decision are inuitively more likely to be leftists than alt-right. Some neonazis no doubt, but probably far from the plurality. Many of the people who hate Israel are Muslim immigrants or leftists who buy into Hamas propaganda or Marxist analyses of ebil colonialism.

Or maybe we genuinely, legitimately see something really wrong with the Israeli state's behavior?

Maybe. But I see such ferverent criticism of the most pluralistic and tolerant state in the whole Middle East, which shows extraordinary restraint in the face of regular terrorist attacks, as surely very ideologically biased rather than based on the real.