Review: Dutch Moroccan and Dutch Turkish players who choose country of heritage over the Dutch NT. Analyses.

You baited

It was part of a straw man from S. There are multiple claims of what others have said in this bit alone to question if he has actually read the thread at all:

Citation Needed (open) Citation Needed (close)

Having said that I think the religion in itself is getting a bit of unnecessary flak over here with a holier than thou attitude. I am reading about the Free West, tolerant Christianity and the peaceful nature of the Dutch. All this 1 Find very ironical because Christianity had a history of bloody conquest too. As peace-loving as the Netherlands is, it also has a history of colonization. Everyone had blood on their hands at some point. So let's not play the angel over here.

 

What scenario?

Too bad there never really is something like that in your posts.

What do you mean with this.?

I have used dozens of sources, you found 1 that has more opposition, for what claim of mine was it used that you are arguing here? In general it is much easier if you quote me or others. The thread has already multiple pages, so it is easier for everybody if you just show against what point you are arguing.

 

Why did 3000 Muslims leave that well informed Europe to join the psycho club ISIS while being inundated with the practices of those butchers? Why are there actually so many high educated people under them?

 

The problem here is that Qu'ran is full of absolutes. You are trying to overlay it here with modern Western sensibilities. Philosophies that began with the Greeks already 2500 years ago or even the Phoenicians. By that you commit one of the worst crimes possible. You try to violate the unchanging world of Allah and every Muslim giving in will burn on hell for that, or so they think.

So what do you exactly propose what should happen? Wait until those countries become richer so they can develop more and get in touch with science and education? Saudi Arabia is stacked with oil money and can buy all the science and education they need. How does that work out?

So what do you exactly propose?

 

So to me the answer of this scholar is not about Jeans. I take an example something silly to see how far one is wiling to go. To show how strong this believe is. Not with you yet, but with people that are more consistent in their reasoning. This jeans example is a manifestation of an idea. An idea that centers around division. Muslims and not Muslims. People that believe and not believe. Then one can still love the other group, but this advice clearly showed that the Kuffar should be hated. I have highlighted that part, look back for yourself. This division is made on many levels, jeans driving my point home the most. I have even heard that there are also prayers in Islam that reference to Kuffar in a negative way, making the idea of division stronger as it is part of recitation. Division leads to superiority thinking. It leads to dehumanizing the other. There are 2 stages. First dehumanizing the people in the pictures one carries of the people around him that are different, then when that process is fulfilled, acts that are according to this new view will follow and will truly start a process to treat other groups as less. There are still multiple steps needed, but at the end of this road we will find genocide like ISIS is doing.

We also see great inequality treatment in the Muslim world. There is no great tolerance of other people's religions. You name a Muslim majority country and I have probably a report ready with all the laws that put the Muslim faith over others . I will probably be able to post the freedom reports of that country that will contain paragraphs of blasphemy laws and ways to suppress people to speak their mind. I will come up with apostasy laws that criminalize people that ever want to leave the faith, apart from all the social pressure that goes with taking such a step. What about discrimination in the workforce? Are people in Muslim majority countries less likely to get a job as an atheist? This idea of division leads to treating others as less. It moves away from equality.

On a side note, what country do you live in?

I understand the answer, but even using the text itself, many people reach a different conclusion about the peacefulness of Mohammed. Actually before all the apologists started to sugar coat a lot of stuff we see books that take another angle than today:

• Recommended book to me

It was written in the 1930s. Maybe you like it. It was suggested to me, though I have not been able to read it yet. I do know that it also tells the not so flattering side of Mohammed, written by a Muslim.

Alright, we will just park this one. It serves little to debate somebody that you hold dear as it will only disrupt the debate if we go dive into all the stories. It might create anger. You think he is a good example, I think he is not and have a lot of sources that this self defense narrative is just not true. I mean how does a religion end up in Spain if everything is about self defense? At what point does self defense become a word game for finding some kind of grievances to go on and attack as that was the plan all along?

What is important is that your idea about him is rooted in the notion of self defense. It is important for you that he did. From that point on we can still wonder about how elegant Muhammed was in his dealing.

Are these ones for people before entering the religion or after adopting Islam? Can somebody leave the faith freely? What is freedom to choose a faith, if you can not leave a faith easily? Many Muslims are born into the religion. How is there freedom for them?

If only there were more Muslims like you. I have read posts from a number of Muslims saying it is impossible to have secularism in a Muslim country. Here is what I hear Muslims saying:

Example 1 (open) Example 1 (close)

Islam believes sovereignty belongs to Allah, and secularism says it belongs to man. We believe we live in the era of oppression the Messenger of Allah (SAW) mentioned, the only era of the 5 (Prophethood, Rashidun Caliphate, Kingship Caliphates, Oppression, Prophetic Caliphate) that the rule of Islam is absent in. May Allah hasten its return.

On the authority of Hudhayfa (RA) in the Musnan of Imam Ahmad (RH)

"There will be Prophethood for as long as Allah wills it to be, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be Khilafah on the Prophetic method and it will be for as long as Allah wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be biting Kingship for as long as Allah Wills, then He will remove it when He wills, then there will be oppressive kingship for as long as Allah wills, then he will remove it when He wills, and then there will be Khilafah upon the Prophetic method" and then he remained silent."

Example 2 (open) Example 2 (close)

If you're talking Western countries, you can run your states however you like. It's not our business.

Bu8t if you're talking about an Islamic state, then there is no room for secularism, because God and the prophet gave commands and guidelines to be applied not just by individuals and communities, but by the Islamic state as well. By ignoring them and relying on man-made laws, this is blasphemous, and it's the equivalent of rejecting Islam.

Islam is a whole system. We don't pick the parts we like and ignore the others that the international community frowns upon. A Muslim ruler can't pray and at the same time decide not to execute murderers. He must do both. And so on.

Example 3 from a former Muslim (open) Example 3 from a former Muslim (close)

As far as I know, Islam can never create separation between mosque and state. This is because Sharia, is in itself the other words for Law- and the laws in Islam are not just metaphorical, mere cautionary laws or simply spiritual guidance - it is a necessary, functional mechanism in the society. Sure hudud may seem like just a mechanism for creating fear- not for the punishment itself as it is a very tedious law, but taa'zir, qisas, not so much. Then there's the popular idea that the laws stay relevant across time and place.

I think what would be a clear obstacle to achieving separation between religion and state in Muslim countries is that Islam is not a personal religion . There's no freedom and rights in so and so unless the Quran, Hadith and/or the ruling of the scholars say so. Humans begin with nothing, there's no freedom or rights inherent just because you're born as a human, since technically, human are just slaves to God.The rights given to Muslims and non-Muslims in a Muslim state is just what God intended because of the his mercy and does not run contrary to the Islamic law. So, yeah, there's nothing wrong with freedom of media, speech- as long as the limits are observed.

I can never believe in that, since I don't believe in God and I believe humans have arrived to the point where we don't need God to ascertain our values, but I won't deny that the reality is that for many Muslim people I know, they would just ask, why would we follow a bunch of people ,who are mostly non-Muslims on how we should live our lives and manage individuals in our country, when God and his Rules are enough? Why should we separate Church and State in a country where most of us are Muslims? We are talking about Power here- nobody's that crazy to admonish power when they are clearly holding it- Muslims included.

Separation of religion and state would be needed if one wants to adopt a Western Democracy, frankly. Do Muslims countries want to? Nah. Not without modifications, at least.

As a response on that one I liked this:

Response to example 3 (open) Response to example 3 (close)

The problem is this:

What if non-muslims don't agree with the rights muslims have given them? Non-muslims are not obliged to follow the recommendation of the Quran. Why can't the non-muslims live the way they want to? Will they be allowed to form homosexual relationships? Worship the hindu idols?

Are non-muslims second class citizens in an islamic state because they have no say in the rights they get, and have to follow what the muslims say?

In a secular society, this problem would not arise. Every individual / community will be considered equal.

In fact we do not have to look at what Muslims say, we can just look at simply see that basically no Muslim majority country is truly free and secular. Turkey neither. This describes beautifully how a country that becomes more Islamic slips:

Malaysia slipping (open) Malaysia slipping (close)

over here in Malaysia we're officially secular; although we have a duel legal system with both secular and sharia courts. The sharia courts constitutionally only have jurisdiction over Muslims and cases of family law and inheritance. But there's really no denying that the secular Government has been caving in more and more over the last few years to the imaginary threat of the Islamist PAS party. Consequently, we're looking and feeling decidedly less secular as time goes by. And although the sharia courts don't have the power to hear many of the emerging "Islamic" cases being brought up, there's increasing political pressure to have some of these bogus cases brought before the secular courts (e.g. the issue with the word "Allah" being used in Bibles).

 

What is anecdotal about pointing out that Algeria has criminalized homosexuality? To bring the discussion forward, we have to characterize each others arguments in a good way. If I come up with concerns that stem from rapports from Freedomhouse or international law institutions, then that is the definition of not being anecdotal. The story of the Algerian student is not so much anecdotal, but an illustration of what criminalizing results in. What it means in the real world.

Because 10% of France is Muslim. I see this being a repeating question for you and I already answered it before. Not 10% of France is Russian or from Montenegro (also keep in mind those are countries, not doctrines that bind the people) and people do not feel their countries values threatened by it. There are 50 million Muslims in Europe and looking at demographics they will become an increasingly more important group. That demands attention and taking them serious as in a democracy every vote is equal. I don't understand why you wonder about the attention as some pages ago you asked how Europe would react if the demographics would play out as projected by many. Well then, you are full aware of why the spotlight is on Islam and Muslims. They come to Europe, want to live with us, then we have to look at the ideas they bring with them and more importantly, what their end game is. Again, there are no millions and millions of Russians in Europe. Their population is even shrinking and will become less powerful. Why the amazement? It's obvious.

I think in the Netherlands there is Maroc.nl, Magreb.nl and I am sure the Turks have something as well. I think you have to separate video's that are illustrations of what Islam brings to the table and what you do here, conflate it with nationalities or races. Posted this before, but here it is:




This is also a principle difference between me and for example like Wilders who wanted less Moroccans in the Netherlands. I look at the software, not at the people that carry the ideas. Religion is software for me. A set of ideas that I often just don't agree with and that I think are dangerous.

Citation needed. This is a crazy claim for me. It is Islam that hates Kuffars, not the universal principles of equality and freedom that reign in Europe. Jews control nothing. That is a fabrication from the Muslims to not have to look at themselves. I mean where is the outrage in the Muslim world about Saudi Arabia attacking Muslims in Yemen? What would have happened if Israel did that? Of course, it is all oke when Muslims kill Muslims. Or no it is not oke, as I do not think along these group lines and am effected by all human and animal suffering. However Muslims think not so universal. Where is their outrage over Tibet? However when Muslim suffer as a result of attacks from outside the group, then that is used to boost the religion and do some jihad. In that way, Islam is a grievance seeking outrage machine that does not think in universal suffering.

The medias in Europe are controlled by the social justice warriors. That would be much more accurate, though also a generalization. SJW's are always at the side of Muslims, as they see them as their pet project. My biggest beef with them (apart from throwing away our freedom and equality while claiming to protect them) is that they do that at the cost of the minorities that live in this minority. It also results in them sharing the bed with an ideology that stands for everything they do not stand for. It is one of the most remarkable political marriages I have seen. It's funny when they collide, look at how Sweden got into a fight with Saudi Arabia. Sweden, that cuts all heads off in own country, if somebody even points at Islam and corners them as Islamophobes, bigots and more.

The Jew protection is something you understand very well. It stems from guilt and has a clear history. I would have to see quote for quote what he was brought to trial for. This is too general. I do think that if an immigrant group wants to prove lack of perfection of the free word by denying one of the most horrible chapters of European history (as now happens in Dutch classrooms where Muslims don't want to hear about the Holocaust), then that indicates a sad path people are on. That is history when Muslims were not even in Europe yet, that happened without question (facts, something that their religion can not even provide while demanding respect for it all the time) and was a key point in European history to create a Union with each other. A lot of what we have become can be traced back to WO II.

However I am not sure what he does, so I will wait for your response and see what the issue is with what he says.

I don't think so. There was an equal case with EgyptAir Flight 990 in 1999 and SilkAir Flight 185 in 1997 I think as well, not sure. That is also labeled in it's own way, not as Muslim terrorism or something. Also this:

• The surprising frequency of pilot suicides

It happens and has it's own discourse.

So I have answered this above. This Islam discussion is as much as a number game as it is a discussion about the content. The more people live here in Europe who are Muslim, the more relevant. We are on the Dutch sub of Bigsoccer, there are 1 million Muslims in the Netherlands, many now also enter the Dutch NT (or actually not ), so this focus on Islam is a result of that.

I see you pointing a lot to Russia, so I could ask you a reverse question. Why pointing to Russia? We have fought Russia and the commies for more than 50 years in a Cold War. A war between ideologies. It was freedom vs another totalitarian collective philosophy in communism. Where the common interests where defined by a few, while in the Free West the common interest is defined by upholding the individual rights for all people to define their own interests.




You see, Stalin, Hitler and Khomeini . It's all down under for me. Russians are molded for decades in a system that taught far less respect for individual rights. You can find me up there with the 2 upper quadrants. Russia got a lot of flak before the winter games by the way. They are also constantly in the news with their Ukraine invasion. How come you think they are absolved from criticism? They are not.

 

That's funny, as I remember you making fun of his views (or even him) when it suited you some time ago.

If you think you are not taken as serious as you deserve then don't create the suspicion that you make dishonest fabrications of people's stance and run away with it. Of course that triggers reactions. You can't act insulted and surprised after designing them. You lost that privilege. I will try it again as maybe you really don't know what this is about.

Who in this thread presented these claims in this context like you do? :

Where can I find these claims and what was the context (open) Where can I find these claims and what was the context (close)

Having said that I think the religion in itself is getting a bit of unnecessary flak over here with a holier than thou attitude. I am reading about the Free West, tolerant Christianity and the peaceful nature of the Dutch. All this 1 Find very ironical because Christianity had a history of bloody conquest too. As peace-loving as the Netherlands is, it also has a history of colonization. Everyone had blood on their hands at some point. So let's not play the angel over here.

Saudi Arabia is the exception? There are more oil rich Islamic nations. Do I have to name them too? Do you think we would see a different picture as with SA? To me you are implying that what we have seen in the West can also be projected on the Islamic world (you are free to step in here). How do you know that? How do you know that next rich and developed Islamic countries will not follow Saudi Arabia?

Yes exactly and why do they choose for this kind of education? They have all this money and look at what they do with it? They do not turn to enlightened western philosophy to sprinkle over their word of God, but actually pump 2 billion a year into spreading the Wahhabi fascism. I was led to believe by you that science and education would help a lot. Why does it not work? If your theory would be right, we would see something much better than what Saudi Arabia is now. After oil, their main export product seems to be an ideology that radicalizes people. Why would this same direction not be possible for other Islamic nations despite more education and science?

Oke, well this clearly needs a citation. I like to see it. What is your source to back this claim up? Yes it is needed as for the European ISIS fighters I have sources that point into a different direction.

Sure and we agree on the fact that these are 2 factors should be taken care off. However we still have these 3000 people living in wealthy Western Europe where they were provided with good education. Not only that, but in a recent research from Forum/Motivation, 80% of the young Dutch Turks considered using violence in name of jihad by ISIS against infidels and non believers not wrong. Let that number sink in for a bit. How is this possible according to you? Netherlands is at the top of many development lists. Education, science, welfare, jobs and a lot of entertainment. All the right conditions, yet these astounding figures. How is that possible?

You might consider it becoming obsolete, but Sweden just got bruised in calling out Saudi Arabia out for the subjugation of women in their country and they considered it an attack on Islam. All Islam nations backed Saudi Arabia up, while Sweden was left alone. Pew research has calculated that Islam will become the biggest religion in some decades to come. We see Islamic fundamentalism rising in countries around the world. ISIS is one of the many Islamo fascist groups. Arabic Wahhabi teachings are gaining ground. Pakistan had thousands of people killed in attacks the past decade. In Bangladesh we see atheist bloggers being tracked down and killed. I can go on an on (about freedom, equality and violence). You might consider it obsolete, but so what? Facts say otherwise. Not only in countries far away (by the way, you never told us what country you live/come from), but also in Europe. 50 million are living here now and 1 million in the Netherlands. No way it is obsolete. It is more relevant than ever from where I am standing.

But European societies are actually quite feminine already. Certainly compared to many other places in the world. Awareness, empathy and understanding (Netherlands prides itself for third road politics, namely consulting all relevant parties in decision making, making sure everybody feels involved and heard) is exactly what this country is all about. Dozens have left for ISIS. Kid in Limburg blew himself up in Iraq, killing many people. Had a perfect life and could be a perfect Muslim here if he wanted. Your model still not explains him and all the others. It does not get much better than the Netherlands looking at the 3 terms (Awareness, empathy and understanding) you put forward, yet 80% of the young Turks think ISIS is not wrong using violence in name of jihad against the non believers.

Or look at this report:

• Fundamentalism and out-group hostility Muslim immigrants and Christian natives in Western Europe

Yeah but it shows us it doesn't. I don’t say we should stop educating people, of course it is a factor and should be optimized where we can, but it shows that it is not enough. That is my point.

Eh to fight communism. An ideology that did not work out. I for one am very grateful for the USA standing up to it, otherwise Netherlands might have been occupied by the Russians as well. From where I am standing they actually protected freedom. At least the freedom of the Netherlands and more European countries. That deserves respect.

Are you by the way saying the USA started Islamo fascism? ISIS is just one of the many faces of a this broader movement.

Well USA does a better job with Muslim integration than Europe. I will give them that. It helps that they do not import the lower class from Morocco and Turkey like the Netherlands has done, but I believe their mentality of “do not ask what your country can do for you, but ask yourself what you can do for your country” has helped to create Muslim immigrants that actually seem to like where they live a bit more:

• Link

1 (open) 1 (close)

Indeed, according to various studies, education and income levels among Muslim immigrants of Pakistani and Iranian descent are higher than those of American-born whites. These groups count among their members many business executives, scientists, engineers, and medical doctors, and quite a few millionaires and even billionaires. Some 45 percent of Muslim immigrants report annual household income levels of $50,000 or higher, slightly above the national average.

2 (open) 2 (close)

At the same time, while 65 percent of Muslim Americans feel that they are Americans first, only 45 percent of Muslims in Europe feel that they are Germans, French or British and not Muslims first, according to an opinion poll conducted by the Pew Research Center.

3 (open) 3 (close)

The same poll also suggests that the majority of Muslim-Americans, unlike their co-religionists in Europe, share the Western values of the non-Muslim majority. Hence, more than 60 percent of Muslim-Americans – compared to 50 percent of Muslims in Europe -- think that life is worse for women in Muslim countries. The majority of Muslim-Americans are very concerned with Islamic extremism; only around 30 percent of Muslim-Europeans are. And only two percent of Muslim-Americans believe that suicide bombings of civilians can be justified, compared to 25 percent of Muslims in Europe.

Yes you copy pasted the controversy bit that everybody could read in the wiki link I posted. Now can you answer my question? You talked about a scenario. I need to see the context that you read to determine if it is even a relevant intervention.

You need to work this out as you don't back up your points with facts. As you lose yourself here with placings and colors within the model and not with the model, your comments are noted and the picture will be maintained, as it perfectly continues to make the point I wanted to make.

After reading this paragraph I am still not perfectly clear about your position. I think the next one makes it more clear though. It seems to me that your opening sentence contradicts with what follows. However I will take it as that you think that Islamophobia is a very real thing and people should respect Islam and Muslims?

You literally called their holy book increasingly obsolete. That is the eternal word of god you are talking about and you want people to move away from it? Not only that you also said this:

Quote from S (open) Quote from S (close)

In addition I don't like the idea that Communists are branded as more totalitarian than Hitler or a Fundamental Islamist.

If you go to the fundamentals of something, you go to the literal form of something. Let's say we go back to fundamental Jainism. How would that look like? Walking over street looking down to the ground with a magnifying glass in order to not step on any tiny insect? To drink thee with a filter on top of it, so that no fly can get into it and be swallowed in?

Yet here you are objecting Islam going to it's fundamentals not being held equal to Stalin's communism an Hitlers fascism. How can you at the one hand legitimize Islamophobia being a real thing and at the other hand equate pure Islam with the worst regimes we have ever seen? Now you even make me more afraid of Islam.

I am not. Why? You presume things from how they look and having a beard? What thoughts cross your mind if I may ask?

So, empathy. There has been a lot of empathy in the Netherlands. Did not work. Look at the findings in the report on the young Turks in the Netherlands.

 

To speak with Sam Harris here. Calling everything religion is like calling everything sports. What has MMA to do with badminton, except breathing?

Is it right to just assume that because Jews and Christians could become more moderate, that Muslims can become that as well? Why? Is all there is to it that one book contains violent verses and so does the other? Or is there a whole dynamic going on here that is excluded from such a presumption? Anyway, here we are again, discussing violence. What about freedom and equality?

Anyway the first step to really reform Islam is looking at secularism. We can talk all day long about this and that interpretation, but reformation would really lift off with a separation between state and religion. The first problem with Islam is political Islam. Not the spiritual stuff. If Islam is brought back to behind people's door, then we are on the right course.

Is this currently happening? No. Look at Turkey. Erdogan is aligning his country with Islam while that country could have joined Free Europe. If you want a good example from a country we do not know a lot of, read this little post from a Malaysian:

Less secularism (open) Less secularism (close)

over here in Malaysia we're officially secular; although we have a duel legal system with both secular and sharia courts. The sharia courts constitutionally only have jurisdiction over Muslims and cases of family law and inheritance. But there's really no denying that the secular Government has been caving in more and more over the last few years to the imaginary threat of the Islamist PAS party. Consequently, we're looking and feeling decidedly less secular as time goes by. And although the sharia courts don't have the power to hear many of the emerging "Islamic" cases being brought up, there's increasing political pressure to have some of these bogus cases brought before the secular courts (e.g. the issue with the word "Allah" being used in Bibles).

Try to taste what this poster is saying. Look at another good example where Islam is making a country more radical:

• Apostasy rule in Morocco
• Morocco does not impose the death penalty against apostates under the provisions of its Penal Code. However, in April 2013, the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars issued a religious decree (fatwa) that Moroccan Muslims who leave Islam must be sentenced to death. Religious decrees are significant because Islam is the official state religion under article 3 of the Moroccan Constitution of 2011. Additionally, under article 41 of the Constitution, the Supreme Council of Religious Scholars “is the sole instance enabled [habilitée] to comment [prononcer] on religious consultations (Fatwas).
  
• You see how not culture but religion is pushing things in the wrong direction?

Just 3 examples of how Islam tries to impose itself on a country and aims to gain a special status. Why do you hang on what other religions did and do not look at the facts on the ground? What does reality tells you?

 

Well, there you go.

Thanks for the suggestions. I am especially interested in book 2. I would love a (short) summery of that one added to the thread if you are up to it. Might provide interesting insight.

 

This is an interesting comment from an ex Muslim I found on the internet regarding reformation of Islam:

Comment from an Ex Muslim (open) Comment from an Ex Muslim (close)

So, full disclosure - I don't believe that "inherently evil" is a thing; nothing, as far as I can tell, is objectively good or evil or anything else, for lack of an objective standard. That said:

It's a combination of lots of things. The unbending nature of the belief is a big part. It's a religion centered on obedience and a belief that the text is literally perfect. There can't really be a "reformation" for various reasons - there's no central Islamic authority to reform, the text can't be modified or updated, and no one could possibly agree on what changes would need to be made even if the previous two weren't true. The "proofs" work against reform as well. How often have you heard someone insist the Qur'an is perfect and that no other book as good could be written? That idea keeps change from being a possibility. If one were to suggest that the Qur'an could be improved simply by removing the virulent sexism, that would be tantamount to blasphemy and the conversation would end.

Christians, with the exception of the absolute hard-line fundamentalists, believe relatively little of what the Bible says. They realize that in order for it to even have a chance of being true, vast swaths of the text have to be understood as allegory rather than verbatim divine revelation. Islam doesn't have that luxury. Either the Qur'an is perfect revelation straight from God, or the whole thing is a giant sham. There's no middle ground of "ok, the mystical stuff mostly didn't happen, it's just a story to help you think about life." That view helps a religion survive in a society that's advancing in how it thinks about ethics and the world around it.

Islam is stuck. It can't change. Muslims in AD 2200 will believe the same things as Muslims in AD 2014 or AD 1200. Christianity by comparison looks essentially nothing like it did in medieval Europe. Hell, Christianity today is significantly different than Christianity in 1955. That's not to say that all those problems you listed are solely the fault of Islam; they aren't. Some are geopolitical, some are cultural. The problem with Islam is that it reinforces the worst, most anti-progress parts of various cultures and societies. It teaches children to memorize and obey, not examine and think. It teaches patriarchal societies that they're right, that women are more or less property. It teaches that nothing in this life compares to paradise, and that nothing happens outside of the will of Allah, so just accept things as best you can. Islam by itself isn't the problem, as shown by the centuries of Islamic success relative to other cultures. Unfortunately, it's simply not a system that works in the modern world, and you're seeing the results on the news every day.

 

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on if a player possess the ability to think critically.

At the start of the threat we came to this conclusion:

Now look at above clip. Could a Jew feel part of Egyptian society? Could a Kopt feel part of their society with all the attacks on them? How many hate crimes have there been vs Muslims in the Netherlands where we speak about physical assault? I can not come up with many or any, but I eager to know. Kopts in Egypt have experienced many.

So if Muslims can not feel part of Dutch society (where we have nothing like the hate crimes we see in Egypt), then how do they expect other minorities in a country like Egypt to feel accepted over there? So how can they not feel angry about the same mechanism of intolerance they are bothered with here, that they also see operating in their own countries of heritage towards minorities over there? How can they not empathize with that situation and feel injustice?

So how is that not a reason to attack the mechanism of intolerance, rather than resisting any adoptive country? And if we extend that reasoning, how can Muslims accept that the mechanism of intolerance also operates in their religion, by condemning homosexuals and apostates? Their doctrine contains the same intolerance that makes them not feel loved by their own new adoptive country. They don't like it when they are at the receiving end, but dish it out if it is accordance to what they believe?

Do you see all the double standards and hypocrisy that is going on here?

Could you give an example, I don't exactly understand this point.