The Problem about [Radical] Islam (especially to Turks)

[Northern Seleucia]

Do you mean incompatible? If you meant incompatible, then I agree.

Honestly, shocking yet not shocking. Shocking because "what the hell" but I'm not surprised at the same time.

I did, typo.

It's hardly shocking at all. There were two other Islamist candidates who were elected on similar platforms.

No worries. But yes, I agree. It's not compatible with a Judeo-Christian society that we uphold.

Tragic how this is happening.

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

On a personal level, I have never been a fan of Islam, and have strongly argued against it everywhere. I have no issues with individual Muslims and have had many casual conversations with them, am friends with some, etc. However, the religion itself, the core tenets of it, the religious text, the founder and other religious leaders after him, I have strongly disliked, argued against, and express my disgust towards. At least the hardliners. The more liberal ones, I am less hateful of their beliefs.

I have strongly disliked how Christians don't count their fellow christians as human enough to NOT support a genocidal group about just because they're a different denomination.

But again, this was in the medieval era. Most complaints against Muslims date from today.

[Western European Khilafat]

I have strongly disliked how Christians don't count their fellow christians as human enough to NOT support a genocidal group about just because they're a different denomination.

But again, this was in the medieval era. Most complaints against Muslims date from today.

This complaint is from this very forum, on a different subforum..
The most complaints against Non-Muslims date from today as well.
Search up any Hindutva attacks, there were literal documentaries about Modi (May Allah deal with him in this life or the next),
the triple K still exists.
Stabbing incidents, which I know of all too well, literally living on the doorstep of Croydon-very rarely Muslim.

[Northern Seleucia]

I have strongly disliked how Christians don't count their fellow christians as human enough to NOT support a genocidal group about just because they're a different denomination.

But again, this was in the medieval era. Most complaints against Muslims date from today.

He said it because I'm not an ecumenist and so when Israel struck a building next to the Church of St. Prophyrus in Gaza, I said it was tragic but they were not necessarily my brothers in Christ, and it's certainly not a reason to end the war against Hamas. But that's on the Israel thread, not here, so I'll leave it at that.

[Western European Khilafat]

But again, this was in the medieval era. Most complaints against Muslims date from today.

He said it because I'm not an ecumenist and so when Israel struck a building next to the Church of St. Prophyrus in Gaza, I said it was tragic but they were not necessarily my brothers in Christ, and it's certainly not a reason to end the war against Hamas. But that's on the Israel thread, not here, so I'll leave it at that.

Not being an ecumenist doesn't excuse any shite.
They're your brothers in Adam anyway.

[El Lazaro]

But again, this was in the medieval era. Most complaints against Muslims date from today.

He said it because I'm not an ecumenist and so when Israel struck a building next to the Church of St. Prophyrus in Gaza, I said it was tragic but they were not necessarily my brothers in Christ, and it's certainly not a reason to end the war against Hamas. But that's on the Israel thread, not here, so I'll leave it at that.

Disgusting

[Northern Seleucia]

He said it because I'm not an ecumenist and so when Israel struck a building next to the Church of St. Prophyrus in Gaza, I said it was tragic but they were not necessarily my brothers in Christ, and it's certainly not a reason to end the war against Hamas. But that's on the Israel thread, not here, so I'll leave it at that.

Not being an ecumenist doesn't excuse any shite.
They're your brothers in Adam anyway.

If we wish to speak on that nature, we all are brothers in Adam, and my "brothers in Adam" have done some atrocious things on October 7th. But this isn't the thread for Israel, this is the thread for Radical Islam.

---

He said it because I'm not an ecumenist and so when Israel struck a building next to the Church of St. Prophyrus in Gaza, I said it was tragic but they were not necessarily my brothers in Christ, and it's certainly not a reason to end the war against Hamas. But that's on the Israel thread, not here, so I'll leave it at that.

Disgusting

Lodge all your comments and complaints on that topic here, please.

[Kreigsreich of Iron]

But again, this was in the medieval era. Most complaints against Muslims date from today.

This complaint is from this very forum, on a different subforum..
The most complaints against Non-Muslims date from today as well.
Search up any Hindutva attacks, there were literal documentaries about Modi (May Allah deal with him in this life or the next),
the triple K still exists.
Stabbing incidents, which I know of all too well, literally living on the doorstep of Croydon-very rarely Muslim.

On a different subforum? II?

[United Greater Seljuk State]

see, i don't disagree that the awami government wasn't good. it didn't have much political freedom or any towards the end. it was heavy handed wrt censorship.

But do you not know what happened when it collapsed? when the 'mafia ringleader' went away, the entire mob rampaged freely. a huge mob almost set fire to the hotel my uncle and his friend were in, simply because it harbored Hindus. they were ransacking and burning stores and homes, just because their occupants had been granted safety under the previous regime. i shudder to think what would have happened if they hadn't caught the last flight out of Dhaka.

and it's funny that you mention the Chakma. Because now that the Jamaat is in power, they've all but declared Islam as the official religion of Bangladesh. Since Independence, nearly all the Bangladeshi Chakma have fled to India, targeted for their religion in East Pakistan and Bangladesh. And now the rest are being forced to flee too.
If the new government is as faultless as everyone claims it is, I don't see why the persecuted are leaving in droves, or holding large peaceful protests. And what does the government do? announce two days off for Durga Puja, and have the President visit a temple. then categorically deny any (most of the) persecution and mob attacks. You know, all the parties in Bangladesh, the BNP, whatever, have condemned the attacks on Hindus and other minorities. You know who hasn't? the Jamaat. I wonder why, its almost as if they have an agenda here... you know they, the Jamaat and others, are the direct descendant of the Islamist groups which had supported the 1970 genocide? Who supported Pakistan in the Liberation War?

I'm really not against the people of Bangladesh, or their religion(s). I'm against the radicalizing forces that try to convert young people with a bright future into suicidal fanatics. I'm against the corruption of the government, whether Awami or BNP, Congress or BJP, which tramples on people's hopes, all over South Asia. I'm against the US and China, both of which try to destabilize countries and ruin economies for their geopolitical gain. i hope you understand.

You make a very strong case for the BJP and Sheikh Hasina despite your criticisms of both. I salute you.

Both the BJP and Sheikh Hasina have attempted to uphold and defend the rights of non-Muslims in India and Bangladesh respectively. India should invade Bangladesh, depose the genocidal Islamist regime and reinstate Sheikh Hasina as dictator-for-life of a secular Bangladesh. In exchange, Bangladesh should accept mass Hindu and non-Muslim immigration into their country with a view to overturning their Muslim majority and guaranteeing the rights of non-Muslims once and for all, at which point Bangladesh can be safely annexed into India. As an allied dictator, Hasina can be pressured to crack down on corruption and uphold some basic human rights and dignity for all, including Muslims.

India should also encourage mass Hindu and non-Muslim settlement in Kashmir with a view to overturning the region's Muslim majority there. Pakistan, another genocidal Islamofascist state, has no right to exist. They are killing Christians on trumped-up charges of blasphemy while Muslim "doctors" purposely condemn their LGBT patients to die while they celebrate and gloat about it.

America and Israel must work together to depose the Iranian Islamic regime and restore freedom and democracy to the Iranian people, and the only way that can happen is if Donald Trump wins the 2024 presidential election. Iran could reinstate the Shah and steer its people towards power and glory once more. That will go a very long way toward mitigating the spread and influence of radical Islam.

Israel should arm the Christians and Druze of Lebanon to wage another civil war to defeat Hezbollah from the north while the IDF secures Israel's northern border from the south. The Palestinians who settled illegally in southern Lebanon should all be deported to other Arab countries, restoring Lebanon's Christian majority.

Sarawak should declare independence and insist that the Malays and Muslims either get with the secular program or leave. The Federation of Malaysia as a whole should cease to exist.

The whole world must co-operate to contain the spread of radical Islam by aiding non-Muslims in regions that border the "Muslim world" and arming infidel militias and governments to defeat and repel Islamist terror groups as needed. As for Muslim countries themselves, it may be necessary to prop up "secular" allied dictatorships to crack down on radical Islamist influences in cases where a more democratic solution may be unfeasible, as the failure of the Arab Spring has made abundantly clear. Examples of this include Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Egypt and Jordan. We must aid the Saudis in annihilating the Houthis, whose existence threatens Israel in addition to other Yemenis and Muslims of the wrong sect, in Yemen.

Non-Muslims seeking to secede from Muslim-majority countries should be actively supported in doing so while Muslims seeking to secede from non-Muslim countries should be actively opposed. Pro-Muslim separatists and terrorists in the southern Philippines, southern Thailand, Myanmar and Xinjiang should all be crushed militarily.

Muslim "democracies" that either succumb to or otherwise fail to contain the Islamist threat should be deposed, whether internally or externally, in favor of more secular-minded strongmen. Malaysia, imo, is on thin ice in this regard. It is my view that, with few exceptions such as ex-communist states, democracy has its limitations in Muslim-majority countries. In my country, our rights as non-Muslims have not improved in the slightest and our freedom of speech continues to be curtailed. Some "democracy". Hostile Islamist dictatorships, however, should be deposed. This includes Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the AKP in Turkey and the Ayatollahs in Iran. Democracy may actually be feasible in those states, but we'll see.

As for non-Muslim democracies, citizens should actively vote for anti-Islam parties and candidates in elections in order to contain radical Islam and ban Muslim immigration at home, and adopt a more pro-infidel, pro-Israel stance abroad. In America, this would mean electing Donald Trump and voting for Republicans in federal House and Senate elections. In Canada, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, this means voting for right-wing parties and leaders such as Pierre Poilievre, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, Giorgia Meloni and Nigel Farage/Kemi Badenoch. In India, this means continuing to re-elect the Hindu nationalist BJP and Narendra Modi to uphold the rights of non-Muslims. In Israel, this means voting for Netanyahu, Likud and other right-wing nationalist parties that will never compromise with or surrender to the enemies of Israel and all infidels alike.

Radical Islam, AKA Islamism AKA Islamofascism AKA Muslim supremacy, is a global threat that demands a coordinated, global response. We cannot afford to be divided or distracted on this issue over such trivial, irrelevant matters such as DEI or climate change, let alone aid and abet the Islamists who would threaten our very rights and existence as non-Muslim infidels. We must all unite and stand as one.

#InfidelSolidarity

I agree, to SOME point.

First, about voting for ANTI-Islam parties. These parties are not only right-wing, but FAR-RIGHT. Which almost makes them fascistic. We should make alternative parties which cracks upon ILLEGAL immigration (not valuable people like engineers, workers or students) and that works to INTEGRATE the Muslims (not religious, but culturally, so they don't demand a German Caliphate) in the European countries at any cost, and if there's ones who refuse, you can kick them out. And it is NOT rational for you to support BOTH «freedom and democracy» AND «dictatorship». The latter can be the dictatorship of the proletariat though, since communists (I mean Bolsheviks) crack down upon radical religiousness (such as Christians and Muslim Basmachis) very well.

Second, our focus must be: 1) integrating Muslims in a society, and 2) ensuring that NEITHER party is endangered/deprived of their rights (so they never radicalized). One example could include building synagogues and churches in the Turkish Republic (for those who left Islam). Buildimg synagogues everywhere and building churches in the Southeast (especially in Hákkāri, where Christian Assyrians used to live) so Assyrians could be used to counter Kurdish influence and repair the broken relationships with Turkish Muslims and non-Muslim world.

To me, when in religious affairs, it's never right to empower 1 religion in any country, be it Islam, Christianity or Judaism. Religion (and especially the lack thereof) should be kept NON-RADICAL so all religions live in peace without mutual harm.

[Western European Khilafat]

don't demand a German Caliphate

Ehhhh too late- I'm demanding a British Caliphate.

[Fahran]

(May Allah deal with him in this life or the next),

Emphasis mine.

Let's not test how close we can get to vaguely advocating or celebrating death. That still violates our malicious content policy. Please and thank you.

[Nightralia]

The Iranian Islamic Revolution forced the Saudis to embrace Wahhabism for a time, an unforgivable stain on the modern history of Islam. I think the Arab Spring has thankfully forced a rethink among regime insiders and especially MBS of all people. Now they just want to be modern like anyone else. I'm not saying they're angels, but focusing on the economy and modernization instead of promoting radical Islam abroad in order to "one-up" the Ayatollahs in the religious department might just be a good thing you know?

yeah well everyone talks about the Iranian Revolution as the main culprit for radicalism and all, but you must remember that it was originally seen by most of the people as an upgrade from the previous regime: the Shah, who was secular, sure, but very corrupt and authoritarian. Seeing that replaced by a 'democratic republic', if only in name, would have been good for most people.

no, the real problem all started when the UK and US (who else but CIA) overthrew Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in a really shadowy coup, egged on by the two devils Eisenhower and Churchill when all he did was implement progressive policies and try to nationalise Iranian oil. Apparently that was too commie of him.

[Wolfstruppen]

The Iranian Islamic Revolution forced the Saudis to embrace Wahhabism for a time, an unforgivable stain on the modern history of Islam. I think the Arab Spring has thankfully forced a rethink among regime insiders and especially MBS of all people. Now they just want to be modern like anyone else. I'm not saying they're angels, but focusing on the economy and modernization instead of promoting radical Islam abroad in order to "one-up" the Ayatollahs in the religious department might just be a good thing you know?

yeah well everyone talks about the Iranian Revolution as the main culprit for radicalism and all, but you must remember that it was originally seen by most of the people as an upgrade from the previous regime: the Shah, who was secular, sure, but very corrupt and authoritarian. Seeing that replaced by a 'democratic republic', if only in name, would have been good for most people.

no, the real problem all started when the UK and US (who else but CIA) overthrew Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in a really shadowy coup, egged on by the two devils Eisenhower and Churchill when all he did was implement progressive policies and try to nationalise Iranian oil. Apparently that was too commie of him.

I think it has less to do with communism and more to do with the oil part, ngl.

Churchill was always pragmatic, seeing oil get put into the hands of the government and not the private sector seemed to Churchill as a means of cutting off oil from the UK, so he responded as he did.

[Turenia]

The Iranian Islamic Revolution forced the Saudis to embrace Wahhabism for a time, an unforgivable stain on the modern history of Islam. I think the Arab Spring has thankfully forced a rethink among regime insiders and especially MBS of all people. Now they just want to be modern like anyone else. I'm not saying they're angels, but focusing on the economy and modernization instead of promoting radical Islam abroad in order to "one-up" the Ayatollahs in the religious department might just be a good thing you know?

yeah well everyone talks about the Iranian Revolution as the main culprit for radicalism and all, but you must remember that it was originally seen by most of the people as an upgrade from the previous regime: the Shah, who was secular, sure, but very corrupt and authoritarian. Seeing that replaced by a 'democratic republic', if only in name, would have been good for most people.

no, the real problem all started when the UK and US (who else but CIA) overthrew Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in a really shadowy coup, egged on by the two devils Eisenhower and Churchill when all he did was implement progressive policies and try to nationalise Iranian oil. Apparently that was too commie of him.

To be fair, it was legal. It was under the Shah's legal remit to be able to dismiss the Prime Minister.

[Western European Khilafat]

yeah well everyone talks about the Iranian Revolution as the main culprit for radicalism and all, but you must remember that it was originally seen by most of the people as an upgrade from the previous regime: the Shah, who was secular, sure, but very corrupt and authoritarian. Seeing that replaced by a 'democratic republic', if only in name, would have been good for most people.

no, the real problem all started when the UK and US (who else but CIA) overthrew Mosaddegh, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran in a really shadowy coup, egged on by the two devils Eisenhower and Churchill when all he did was implement progressive policies and try to nationalise Iranian oil. Apparently that was too commie of him.

I think it has less to do with communism and more to do with the oil part, ngl.

Churchill was always pragmatic, seeing oil get put into the hands of the government and not the private sector seemed to Churchill as a means of cutting off oil from the UK, so he responded as he did.

Ehhh...Churchill was still a devil.
His quotes:

a beastly people with a beastly religion

- My poeple, Bengalis during the famine.
On Palestinians:

barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung

[United Greater Seljuk State]

don't demand a German Caliphate

Ehhhh too late- I'm demanding a British Caliphate.

As long as we (the Non-Muslims and Muslims who have critical thinking and tolerance) exist, that's NOT going to happen.

[Western European Khilafat]

Ehhhh too late- I'm demanding a British Caliphate.

As long as we (the Non-Muslims and Muslims who have critical thinking and tolerance) exist, that's NOT going to happen.

First tolerate that something in history in the 20th century happened, and the tolerate that Armenians exist not as much as they used to.

[United Greater Seljuk State]

As long as we (the Non-Muslims and Muslims who have critical thinking and tolerance) exist, that's NOT going to happen.

First tolerate that something in history in the 20th century happened, and the tolerate that Armenians exist not as much as they used to.

It was their choice to choose being a mandate of Britain/being mere oblasts of a genocidally Russifying Tsardom rather than to live peacefully with the Turks with much obedience until 1878 (they were so loyal to the Ottoman Empire, even Greeks hated them for that). Period. And please stop threadjacking, this is not a 1915 events discussion thread.

[Wolfstruppen]

I'm demanding a global caliphate (joke).

No but seriously my opinion on this subject is highly uneducated and tbh I'm not well-versed in the history of "radical" Islam.

[Nightralia]

Ehhh...Churchill was still a devil.
His quotes:

a beastly people with a beastly religion

- My poeple, Bengalis during the famine.
On Palestinians:

barbaric hordes who ate little but camel dung

ohh, finally something you and I agree on.
and yes, i believe that apart from the usual suspects, hitler, stalin, mao and the rest, Churchill and Kissinger should be recognised as mass murderers and genociders too. through not only gross negligence but willful malice

[Kaumudeen]

I agree. The problem is that the religion itself and the beliefs that it dictates are incompatible with a free western society.

Islam really is no different to other conservative religions like Catholicism or Mormonism. Although those religions are equally reviled in mainstream discourse in the West because they have not become watered down shells like Mainline Protestantism.

In the UK, a local candidate was elected on a platform of "a vote for Gaza".

It was an issue local constituents care about. Go to parts of New York and Florida and you'll find a big influence on how some constituents vote there is a candidates position on Israel a la Ritchie Torres.

This candidate, a Muslim, used his maiden speech to call for an end to "genocide" in Gaza

Wow an MP makes a speech on international events, how scandalous, has never happened before in British politics right?

and was seen on the campaign trail telling a group of Muslims that it was their "duty" to vote for him.

What is this implying?

His supporters also harassed another candidate (who was also a Muslim, but female) because of her non-Islamic first name and also for being a "Zionist".

An act which the MP condemned and ordered those supporters to stop doing.

[Kaumudeen]

I did, typo.

It's hardly shocking at all. There were two other Islamist candidates who were elected on similar platforms.

No worries. But yes, I agree. It's not compatible with a Judeo-Christian society that we uphold.

Tragic how this is happening.

Judeo-Christian society is an oxymoron. Talmudic Judaism is very different from Biblical Judaism.

[Northern Seleucia]

Judeo-Christian society is an oxymoron.

Well, let's see.

Oxymoron: An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines contradictory words with opposing meanings, like “old news,” “deafening silence,” or “organized chaos.” Oxymorons may seem illogical at first, but in context they usually make sense

The term Judeo-Christian is used to group Christianity and Judaism together, either in reference to Christianity's derivation from Judaism, Christianity's recognition of Jewish scripture to constitute the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, or values supposed to be shared by the two religions.

Historic Christianity has deep connections with traditional Judaism. For example, Christians view the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) as the inspired Word of God and share many of the values of ancient Judaism, such as human beings having inherent dignity and moral worth as bearers of the image of God.

---

Talmudic Judaism is very different from Biblical Judaism.

The funny thing is, I never brought up neither Talmudic Judaism or Biblical Judaism, nor frankly do I care about the intricate differences in the sake of this argument. Ultimately the Talmud is composed of the opinions of rabbis throughout history. Ultimately, the Talmud is meant to better explain the Tanakh. Regarding the use of the term "Judeo-Christian", it is completely and utterly irrelevant - especially in the context of a discussion on a sub forum about Radical Islam and the opinion of posters on the compatibility of Islam and Judeo-Christian values.

[Island of Manx]

Judeo-Christian society is an oxymoron.

Well, let's see.

Oxymoron: An oxymoron is a figure of speech that combines contradictory words with opposing meanings, like “old news,” “deafening silence,” or “organized chaos.” Oxymorons may seem illogical at first, but in context they usually make sense

The term Judeo-Christian is used to group Christianity and Judaism together, either in reference to Christianity's derivation from Judaism, Christianity's recognition of Jewish scripture to constitute the Old Testament of the Christian Bible, or values supposed to be shared by the two religions.

Historic Christianity has deep connections with traditional Judaism. For example, Christians view the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible) as the inspired Word of God and share many of the values of ancient Judaism, such as human beings having inherent dignity and moral worth as bearers of the image of God.

---

Talmudic Judaism is very different from Biblical Judaism.

The funny thing is, I never brought up neither Talmudic Judaism or Biblical Judaism, nor frankly do I care about the intricate differences in the sake of this argument. Ultimately the Talmud is composed of the opinions of rabbis throughout history. Ultimately, the Talmud is meant to better explain the Tanakh. Regarding the use of the term "Judeo-Christian", it is completely and utterly irrelevant - especially in the context of a discussion on a sub forum about Radical Islam and the opinion of posters on the compatibility of Islam and Judeo-Christian values.

Even Jews recognize "judeo-christian" isn't a thing.

[El Lazaro]

It’s ok when a 1000 year old church in the Holy Land gets bombed, intentionally killing innocent Christians and recklessly damaging a historical site of cultural heritage (at least it wasn’t a SBC/non-denom McMegachurch), but God forbid a secular state in which part of the population follows a religion that views Christians as heretics reaps the consequences of escalating a 75 year petty ethnic conflict. Peak Christian nationalism.