Islamophiles / Regressive Left - Liberal non-Muslims who are desperate to protect the Religion of Peace

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
vertexwindi said:
Damn Commie Nazis!
Click to expand...

qNsKZ.png
 
David Pakman commenters are at it again:

In today's latest video, a caller asks David Pakman a question about if the alt right is correct about putting stricter immigration law towards Muslim immigrants who want Sharia Law in western countries, David takes a neutral stance on not allowing any forms of religious law on western countries in general and tries to find a common ground on letting people of any religious background in as long as they don't bring any form of religious law with them. Meanwhile in the comment section, any form of conversation about Islamic immigration and their potential impact on western society and criticism towards Islam is met with your usual "what about" argument towards Christianity and the Conservative boogeyman on taking their rights always, and like always any form of critical conversation about Islam is shut down.

2540076.png
5616510.png
45160065.png
5454507.png
 
Is this their way of retroactively sticking it to the semi-white Spaniards who conquered them in the 1500's? By aligning with the faith of the black and brown people that conquered the Iberian peninsula for a couple centuries?
 
I suppose there's no need to guess how the regressive left will react if and when they see some videos of Muslims converting to Christianity.
 
Why the media needs to be more responsible for how it links Islam and Islamist terrorism

How the media legitimises the aims of terrorists

Islamist groups like al Qaida and the Islamic State use violence against non-Muslims with the aim of establishing a political institution (“caliphate”) based on shariah law – neither of which have a basis in the Quran or hadith (Islamic prophetic traditions).

Part of the appeal of the Islamic State comes from its insidious ability to selectively use Islamic teachings and repackage them as legitimate religious obligations.

In particular, Islamists have appropriated the concept of jihad to legitimise an offensive “holy war” against non-Muslims. This interpretation, however, has been rejected by studies that have examined the Quran’s principles concerning war and peace.

Islamic teachings, for instance, prohibit terrorism and the use of violence against civilians. Further, Muslim leaders and scholars around the world have repeatedly condemned terrorism, issuing fatwas (Islamic legal rulings).

By reporting on this misleading interpretation of jihad and under-reporting Muslim condemnations, the Western news media reinforce the perceived connection between Islam and terrorism.

In some cases, media pundits explicitly make this link, pointing to the fact terrorists specifically refer to “Islam” as the basis for their actions.

This uncritical acceptance of terrorists’ claims and misrepresenting of Islam legitimises and unwittingly promotes the Islamist agenda.

In other words, the media plays into the hands of terrorists by allowing them to become the representatives for Islam and Muslims in general.
Click to expand...
 
The Valeyard said:
Why the media needs to be more responsible for how it links Islam and Islamist terrorism
Click to expand...

Islamic fundamentalists want to live as Muhammad did. Muhammad obviously didn't blow himself up, so he wasn't a terrorist in the modern sense, but he led armies and conquered his enemies, laying the foundations of the Rashidun Caliphate, which would later become one of history's largest empires. He also took slaves, and allegedly married and fucked a 9 year old girl. He was no worse than Vikings or other conquerors and slave traders of his time, but the difference is that millions of people don't view early mediaeval Norse kings as prophets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom