• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Massive Muslim inbreeding over 1,400 years may have ruined gene pool

How enlightening.

Yeah, how dare such an obvious Islamophobe not know Dutch!

He would have learned the details, or the main points, some other way. Very clever these boffins.



And the bigger mystery about Gitmo is why Labour badgered the Americans so hard into releasing 'British' inmates. They were only taken straight into custody when arriving here anyway.

A confused and annoyed public still want to know why the US taxpayer couldn't have continued to pay for the bed and board of such dangermen. We pay for enough Muslim things anyway, though I do believe that Labour preferred the terrorists to enjoy the much softer modern British jail. After all, they got rights, innit?!
 
Last edited:
Oh it's the Jews now, is it? You're leaping about like a flea with a full bladder.

That's your best response? Come on ROP, although very xenophobic, jingoistic and paranoid, you seem pretty smart. If you're going to state the religion of Islam is a threat based on their scriptures that contain "a slew of direct commands from God to kill Jews, brutalise women, subjugate Christians and even commit honour crimes 'if needs be'," then you must explain why Jews aren't a threat if their scriptures reflect the same type of commandments and subject matter, because under those assumptions, should we not be worried about the Jews too? Come on man you're making me paranoid over here, I want to know who to bomb and who not to bomb.
 
....although very xenophobic, jingoistic and paranoid..... I want to know who to bomb and who not to bomb.

Those are supposed to be dog-whistles are they? You'll need to do better than schoolyard name-calling and hyperbole.


Modern Jews have read the chapters in the Talmud, a book of collected works and essays by various contemporary scholars, and took heart from inspiring and uplifting passages. And though the commandments were written to be followed, there is no base reliance on perpetual grotesque punishment and fear of punishment, which Islam uses as foundation. This has allowed Judiasm to soften and become very user-friendly through the centuries.

On top of this, Judiasm was obviously intended to be persuasive and involving, whilst Islam was built on scaring, forcing or bribing people into joining.


The Talmud focusses on Jewish laws and customs, providing homilies to illustrate many of its points. The Koran, however, is a badly written and atrociously compiled appendix volume to the Sunnah and Hadith. The book is full of contradiction, scientific fraud, previous wisdoms passed off as Muhammadean revelation and exhortation to conspiracy, murder and normalised hate crime.
 
Last edited:
This has allowed Judiasm to soften and become very user-friendly through the centuries....On top of this, Judiasm was obviously intended to be persuasive and involving...

Try telling that to the Palestinians.

The Koran, however, is a badly written and atrociously compiled appendix volume to the Sunnah and Hadith. The book is full of contradiction, scientific fraud, previous wisdoms passed off as Muhammadean revelation and exhortation to conspiracy, murder and normalised hate crime.

Funny, a lot of modern scholars feel the same way about the Bible. I'm still waiting for a convincing argument.

Hey, FYI, I'm not sticking up for those fundamentalist Islamic regimes that govern countries who make their women second class citizens, still believe in stoning people death and who have never even heard of the separation of church of state. I fully agree that its about time for them to modernize and get with the program (although I in no way believe that its the United States responsibility to bomb these countries and enforce this modernization. In my opinion, that's international wellfare, I want my tax dollars used to make my own country better). However so many of your statements are overly-assumptive or just outright false, dogmatic, apply equally to western religions and are laced with genocidal implications. Lord knows if anyone seriously wants war with me or my country me and my Bushmaster are happy to oblige them. As for random bombings and threats laced so thickly in an Arabic accents I can hardly understand them, I'll leave it up to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security to deal with that. I'm certainly not going to get up and go out hacking Tutsis, gasing Hebrews or chopping down Bosnians with an AK47. Statistics show I should be much more concerned about the crackhead on the other side of the tracks who wants to jack me for my car. Ethnic hate and genocide is pretty unoriginal, its just been done soooo many times before. We need to come up with something new to shake up the history books.
 
Try telling that to the Palestinians.

Try telling anything to the Palestinians....



However so many of your statements are overly-assumptive or just outright false, dogmatic, apply equally to western religions and are laced with genocidal implications.

Yep, more hyperbole. And it's funny how my 'lies' aren't refuted, though I suppose that's not necessary when smear is so readily available.

Though I do agree that trouble at home (crime, etc.) can be a more pressing concern. Yet the ethnic and religious trouble has been coming to find us of late, as even the riots in Europe show.

And as far as the Muslim world is concerned, unless I'm not noticing something, I wouldn't mind the West leaving it to its own devices. Iraq and Afghanistan, already kicked-in and its terrorist regimes deposed, can be abandoned as they're not worth a single further drop of Allied blood. And if they play up again, there's no reason why they can't be zapped by remote control. (It's either that or help the peaceful Muslims to flourish by having a proper go at fighting the terrorists, with a full-blown army group to do the pest control. But that would never be allowed, would it?!)

If we leave them alone they can leave us alone. And if we send back Western-based jihadists and extremists to Dar Al Islam in the process, there should be a lot more peace. (Or more justification to spotlight them if they fail to live up to their side of the bargain.)



....apply equally to western religions....

There's your leftist moral equivilence again. Have the countless Islamic atrocities since September 11 taught you nothing?!


And I've not seen a Christian or Jewish equivilent of this either:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/gener...n-away-damning-government-research-paper.html
 
Last edited:
There's your leftist moral equivilence again. Have the countless Islamic atrocities since September 11 taught you nothing?!

I was talking about the scriptures in the Quran vs the scriptures in the Bible. As for September 11th, I'm sure the British and the Northern Irish can tell you how violent Christians can be. Just ask them about the IRA. Or what about the Oklahoma city bombings? Or the Atlanta olympic bombings?

Oh yeah, and as for Iraq's "terrorist regimes", the 9/11 commission report found no connections between Saddam and Alqaeda. Alqaeda didn't come to Iraq until after we invaded it, to assist the insurgents. We actually took a non-terrorist country and made it a terrorist country. I brought this up in a homeland security class I'm taking right now online and one of the guys in the class has done tours over there, his response was "Having been there. I agree with you on that. No way to spin it, we should have dealt with Al-Qaeda in Afganistan first. Still proud to have served with some great men and women. Patriots all."
 
Just ask them about the IRA...

..Blowing up civilians to have the United Kingdom divest itself of Northern Ireland against the express wishes of its population. Not God-motivated.



Or what about the Oklahoma city bombings?

Two nuts inspired by the Turner Diaries. Motivated by psychotic paranoia rather than by the examples of Jesus Christ and sympathised with only by a few other deranged lunatics.



Or the Atlanta olympic bombings?

Only one bomb, detonated in the belief that the Olympic Games were a symptom of socialism. Not God-related.



And as for terrorism in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime was enough. If we had to go in, we had to. I just take exception to the fact that Tony Blair lied when he wielded his now infamous dodgy dossier.
 
I hate the Nazi comparisons that get flung around, but when you start claiming that a group has inferior genetics, you are crossing the damn line. Seriously, anyone who supports this bull**** needs to be ostracized for their behavior. Don't like Muslims, whatever, but getting into eugenics is simply unacceptable. Some assholes already went down that route with terrible consequences, and there is no excuse for bringing it back.
 
..Blowing up civilians to have the United Kingdom divest itself of Northern Ireland against the express wishes of its population. Not God-motivated.





Two nuts inspired by the Turner Diaries. Motivated by psychotic paranoia rather than by the examples of Jesus Christ and sympathised with only by a few other deranged lunatics.





Only one bomb, detonated in the belief that the Olympic Games were a symptom of socialism. Not God-related.



And as for terrorism in Iraq, Saddam Hussein's regime was enough. If we had to go in, we had to. I just take exception to the fact that Tony Blair lied when he wielded his now infamous dodgy dossier.


And this here is exactly what I'm talking about, differentiating between these "Christian" terrorist and the Christian population as a whole but refusing to do that with the Muslim terrorist and the Muslim population as a whole. The Irish "troubles" started out politically oriented but developed equally potent religious overtones between Catholics and Protestants. Alqaeda attacks, in the same way, can be viewed equally from a political standpoint as they can a religious. Stating that the 9/11 highjackers can't be differentiated from the Muslim population as a whole but the Atlanta bomber, the Unibomber and the IRA can be differentiated from the Christian population, is just simply illogical.
 
Last edited:
I hate the Nazi comparisons that get flung around, but when you start claiming that a group has inferior genetics, you are crossing the damn line.

I don't think abnybody's claiming that but it's certainly true that it's claimed they're handicapping themselves.

We're often told by Liberals (in a claim which debunks their 'institutionally racist Britain holding ethnics back' line) that even in inner city schools, Pakistanis often come top of the class.

Now they couldn't do that if they're genetically inferior. Even the Bell Curve theory apparently holds Asians in high intellectual esteem!




And this here is exactly what I'm talking about, differentiating between these "Christian" terrorist and the Christian population as a whole but refusing to do that with the Muslim terrorist and the Muslim population as a whole.

I don't call all Muslims terrorists and extremists. But considering that Islam was built for conquest whist Christianity is operated for peace, the resultant rise in mass fanaticism and supremacism again in the Islamic world and communities makes the religion ripe for scrutiny.
 
I don't call all Muslims terrorists and extremists. But considering that Islam was built for conquest whist Christianity is operated for peace, the resultant rise in mass fanaticism and supremacism again in the Islamic world and communities makes the religion ripe for scrutiny.

Two questions: Please show evidence that "Islam was built for conquest" and that "mass fanticism" exist in the Muslim world. Secondly, what do you suggest we do?
 
The history of Islam itself is its own evidence. The very concepts of Dar Al Harb, Dar Al Islam and Koran verse 9:29, which exhorts Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and force them to pay an inferiority tax, are just some totems to prove it.


In brief, Muhammad was once one of the community leaders in Mecca, who abused his position by trying to convert people to a new religion he'd invented and was banished for it.

Feeling very sore, he took a gang of faithful followers with him and settled in agricultural Medina, where, in the tradition of all good tyrannical cult leaders, he settled his camp and filled out his religion. Unsurprisingly, this is how Islam laid its bedrock of false victimhood and vengeance against the rest of the scornful world.

After building up a personality cult based on divine punishment for disobedience, he and his gang tested their new bloodlust by raiding the caravans of Meccan traders and abusing the occupants. To Muhammad, they were the people giving provision to those who had spurned him, so they had to pay. Well, obviously.


And once Muhammad's vicious thug army was large enough, he went back to Mecca and sacked it in revenge. The religion he had founded, with many peaceful verses to lure in the decent, had proved itself the tool of Muhammad's dictatorship and he gradually took over what is now Saudi Arabia and turned it into a death-worshipping military dictatorship.


When he became the new boss of Mecca he back-wrote the Koran, justifying his bloody coup by writing things like 'slaughter the unbelievers wherever you find them', and using 'abrogation' to cancel out previous peaceful verses which clashed. And as an old man looking back on his life, Muhammad said "I was made victorious through terror!"

________________

Muhammad, the Jews and usurption of power and control: Prophet of Doom - Islam and Muhammad

No wonder Hitler's book Mein Kampf is only outsold by the Koran in some parts of the Muslim world!



Even the Muslims recognise Islam as a war creed, though they try and find ways to dodge saying it means war in all cases (which it does): Jihad: The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in The Quran

Muhammad so hated women that one female community leader was pulled apart between two camels: Terrorism and brutality in Muhammad?s thoughts and actions



Secondly, what do you suggest we do?

Not much that can be done. You either force a reform of Islam and get the joint jumping even more than it is or leave them alone, which has seen terror mosques and madrassahs exposed on television and 'community leaders' threaten riots if not bought off with 'development grants' and the like.

Islam is founded on unreconstituted supremacy and dictatorship. You can't order them to reform Islam as Westerners did with Christianity because that would tear up the religion itself.
 
Last edited:
Except for the places where exactly that has happened.
 
I support Islamic reformers. So much so that I think people should hold their tongues when they claim that Islam is a religion of peace and so therefore are going back to it.

But their movements are only small rumps in the Islamic world. There's no shared mainstream outlook of peace between the branches as with Christianity. There's no comparison. Nevertheless, I think these people should be used to help reform Islam in the West.



The most liberal Muslim intellectuals who focused on religious reform include Sayyid al-Qimni, Nasr Abu Zayd, Abdolkarim Soroush, Mohammed Arkoun, Mohammed Shahrour, Ahmed Subhy Mansour, Edip Yuksel, Gamal al-Banna, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Ahmed Al-Gubbanchi, Mahmoud Mohammed Taha, and Faraj Foda, the last two were killed after apostasy claims which most of them have been accused of by traditional islamic scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_movements_within_Islam
 
Interesting thread, but what Muslims may be doing is an idea stolen from Christians. In Medieval England, there was a practice known as "Prima Nocte", which was designed to breed out the "Irishness" and "Scottishness" of Ireland and Scotland.
 
More accurately, from the English if such an allegation is true.

Though Gaddafi made a famous statement that Europe can be conquered by Muslims on the third attempt, not through war but through the womb. The Muslim demographic threat is absolutely horrific.

__________________________________

And now a bit of fun.


DO THEY THINK THEY'RE IN VIETNAM OR SOMETHING...?!



Mind, that'd be an intersting question for a Muslim - religiously speaking, would it be a good or bad thingto enlist as a chopper-bound porker shooter?!
 
'Course, even people in Labour noticed something up: MUSLIM INBREEDING in Great Britain causing massive surge in birth defects « Bare Naked Islam's Weblog

And considering that Labour's one of the most politically-correct bunch of treasonous quasi-Marxists about, that really does say an awful lot.



And what's really frightening is that the religion of choice (by order) is best suited to be followed by retards in order to work to its best....

Wow I never did the good job and listed all of this. But of course this had to happen with only the fringe of Muslim as it is not a dysfunctional religion.
 
Interesting thread, but what Muslims may be doing is an idea stolen from Christians. In Medieval England, there was a practice known as "Prima Nocte", which was designed to breed out the "Irishness" and "Scottishness" of Ireland and Scotland.

That's historical myth, not historical fact. There is no historical evidence or documents that ever report this actually taking place.
 
as it is not a dysfunctional religion.

Aah, so violent supremacism, profiling of Jews as 'brothers of apes', exhortation to murder, conspiracy and genocide are perfectly normal.

And of course the scores of atrocities from Beslan to New York to Madrid to Beslan, with fires buring in Athens and Paris were all just mirages were they?

Funny people on the Liberal-left!






Religion of Peace: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...astor-plans-burn-quran-10.html#post1058978145

Paedophile love: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...argeting-europe-foiled-45.html#post1059028811

Kill the Jews, my beautiful, peaceful followers: http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...astor-plans-burn-quran-13.html#post1058978205



Muhammad's deranged revenge and penchant for murder and brutality: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...argeting-europe-foiled-19.html#post1059018867

So many Muslims backing terrorists: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europ...argeting-europe-foiled-33.html#post1059022248
One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists - Telegraph
 
That's historical myth, not historical fact. There is no historical evidence or documents that ever report this actually taking place.

Actually there is, and it began under Edward I.
 
The history of Islam itself is its own evidence. The very concepts of Dar Al Harb, Dar Al Islam and Koran verse 9:29, which exhorts Muslims to subjugate non-Muslims and force them to pay an inferiority tax, are just some totems to prove it.


In brief, Muhammad was once one of the community leaders in Mecca, who abused his position by trying to convert people to a new religion he'd invented and was banished for it.

Feeling very sore, he took a gang of faithful followers with him and settled in agricultural Medina, where, in the tradition of all good tyrannical cult leaders, he settled his camp and filled out his religion. Unsurprisingly, this is how Islam laid its bedrock of false victimhood and vengeance against the rest of the scornful world.

After building up a personality cult based on divine punishment for disobedience, he and his gang tested their new bloodlust by raiding the caravans of Meccan traders and abusing the occupants. To Muhammad, they were the people giving provision to those who had spurned him, so they had to pay. Well, obviously.


And once Muhammad's vicious thug army was large enough, he went back to Mecca and sacked it in revenge. The religion he had founded, with many peaceful verses to lure in the decent, had proved itself the tool of Muhammad's dictatorship and he gradually took over what is now Saudi Arabia and turned it into a death-worshipping military dictatorship.


When he became the new boss of Mecca he back-wrote the Koran, justifying his bloody coup by writing things like 'slaughter the unbelievers wherever you find them', and using 'abrogation' to cancel out previous peaceful verses which clashed. And as an old man looking back on his life, Muhammad said "I was made victorious through terror!"

________________

Muhammad, the Jews and usurption of power and control: Prophet of Doom - Islam and Muhammad

No wonder Hitler's book Mein Kampf is only outsold by the Koran in some parts of the Muslim world!



Even the Muslims recognise Islam as a war creed, though they try and find ways to dodge saying it means war in all cases (which it does): Jihad: The Holy War of Islam and Its Legitimacy in The Quran

Muhammad so hated women that one female community leader was pulled apart between two camels: Terrorism and brutality in Muhammad?s thoughts and actions





Not much that can be done. You either force a reform of Islam and get the joint jumping even more than it is or leave them alone, which has seen terror mosques and madrassahs exposed on television and 'community leaders' threaten riots if not bought off with 'development grants' and the like.

Islam is founded on unreconstituted supremacy and dictatorship. You can't order them to reform Islam as Westerners did with Christianity because that would tear up the religion itself.

Haha, wow, you really need to take a college level class on Islam. I did my freshman year and I can tell you a lot of your information is incredibly false and deep within the spin zone. If we are going to talk religions based on conquest, take a look at the Hebrew conquest of Canaan. Your response that Judaism has had a "user friendly" makeover wasn't to convincing, and I'm sure the Palestinians who are getting their houses plowed over would agree.

We could debate points back and forth all day but it wouldn't get anywhere. You couldn't convince me that the entire Muslim world is forming one large hostile campaign to take over the west and establish Sharia law, nor that this is ingrained deeply in their scriptures, and I could never convince you that the real threat to Americans is financial mismanagement in Washington and the gang-bangers and stick up boys who keep increasing our crime rates. I just like conversating with people like you because I want to better understand the roots of genocide. I took a class on genocide in college and the one thing I noticed the professor couldn't explain was how the genocidal mind actually works. For example Hitler, did he really believe the things he was saying about the Jews or did he know they were blatant over-exaggerations and falsehoods but preached them to the people to push an agenda? In other words, was he incredibly evil or just incredibly stupid?

Now I'm not saying you are genocidal, but these type of sentiments are certainly the roots of genocidal movements. The holocaust didn't happen over night. Decades before there were increasingly anti-semitic sentiments expressed in the form of pamphlets, magazines and town hall meetings. All it took was one extremist with enough political clout to start secretly murdering all the Jews. It seems however that your agenda, at least for now, is to "force a reform of Islam" which is a very neo-conservative, Cheney-like stance that pretty much is already taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan. Turning these countries into 1st world nations with developed economies that we can trade with and who can join the U.N. sounds great if we could avoid any civilian deaths and if my tax dollars don't have to pay for it.
 
You couldn't convince me that the entire Muslim world is forming one large hostile campaign to take over the west and establish Sharia law, nor that this is ingrained deeply in their scriptures, and I could never convince you that the real threat to Americans is financial mismanagement in Washington and the gang-bangers and stick up boys who keep increasing our crime rates.

Fair enough, though I see the dual threat to America as both. But as I live in England, I can't really comment on American domestic politics with any depth.


Now I'm not saying you are genocidal, but these type of sentiments are certainly the roots of genocidal movements.

Not enough to agree to differ is it, without some kind of insinuation that the heretic has disturbing views which are boneheaded or sinister. (No counter-links though, just to be safe.) Liberals just can't help themselves.



Running examples: http://www.debatepolitics.com/europe/67405-fallaci-write-europe.html#post1058599183
 
Last edited:
Not enough to agree to differ is it, without some kind of insinuation that the heretic has disturbing views which are boneheaded or sinister. (No counter-links though, just to be safe.) Liberals just can't help themselves.

You seriously don't see any comparisons between the modern Islamaphobia movement and anti-semitism in the early 1900s? I'm just pointing out how these ideas can lead to bad things without removing such things as over-generalizations, stereotypes, over-religiousizing the issue instead of keeping it in its political context, and most of all, dehumanizing an entire ethnic group. Like I said, I agree with you, Sharia governed countries need to evolve. Any true "liberal" would agree that women shouldn't be second class citizens and democratic governments that ensure equal rights and freedom of religion through a comprehensive secular constitution is best. However, the disagreement comes when you talk about how this should get done. Diplomacy? Funding and supporting moderate movements like the Green Party in Iran? Forcibly removing regimes with military force? Focusing on Homeland Security to protect ourselves and letting the chips in the Muslim world fall where they may? As for military force, like I said, too many civilians die in the process and its too expensive. There is no way a government can have a balanced budget and low taxes while waging wars. For this reason, wars shouldn't be a foreign policy, they should be a last resort tactic motivated by self-defense. To my knowledge, history shows that countries with non-interventionist foreign policies don't have higher rates of attacks by terrorist, in fact, they seem to have lower rates, so I'm finding it hard to believe that aggressive foreign policies will keep my country safer.

BTW, you're from England? Really? Wow, we have this notion over here that the English tend to be more civilized, tolerant and more educated than us. I thought Islamaphobia could only develop in ultra-conservative societies like rural American states. I guess, now that I think about it, it makes sense. You are a little more reasonable and rational than most American Islamaphobes I've come across. I was kind of surprised by this. Usually a debate like this would have already melted into "I hate muslims and I want them all dead!" So yea, I can see that you are from England, lol.
 
Back
Top Bottom