Categorically incorrect:
List of ongoing conflicts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Was referring to only real "jihad"
You're also forgetting Africa, bought and paid for by the Saudis, too. It's clear though that there is a link between certain sects of Islam and terror, yeah? Which would then go further to say that there is evidence that if you remove religion from the situation, the violence would stop(Harris, Sam;
The End of Faith; 2006). If the common goal of the attacks is to promote the particular religious sect then yes it is very much involved.
It is clear that certain sects of "Islam" are linked to terror. The question is whether these sects are actually representative of Islam or not. My answer to that is no.
Irksome semantics and jurisprudence faffery to make a fairly abstract concept fit any interpretation is not an argument.
It also depends on which field of jurisprudence you are talking about and which particular texts you consider to back up your interpretation of sharia. There is no doubt that a swath of western enlightenment philosophers and those who share in enlightenment values owe a debt of gratitude to the Sharia of the 15th and 16th centuries. Unfortunately this is not the state of Sharia today. To argue otherwise is to argue the same nefarious semantics of neo-communists arguing that Russia was not an "true Communist state".
Accept that the implementation would be hijacked by extremists and used to suppress people, particularly in the modern day and age.
I accept in the current corrupt situation in many of the Islamic states in the world, the interpretation of Sharia is more political than religious. I do not accept that it is impossible to implement Sharia in an Muslim dominated state. The definition of "suppression" also needs to come under question. What values do you think Sharia law would suppress? Now after you've lined all of these values up, question the pro's and con's of these values to society.
So then why not respect the sexuality of others? This categorically does not occur in nations that have tried to implement Sharia. Pakistan's tribal areas and Afghanistan in particular. I know the wahhabis are to blame.
Look, I'll be honest, the main reasons I have an issue with Islam is the wahhabis and the histrionics with which people address the Israeli situation.
Three, four months ago there were a series of Wahhabi posters on these forums and they were batshit fucking insane. Beentherdunthat $hiftyicequeen and a bunch of the cunts in the Gaza thread were spouting the most insane bullshit I have ever heard in my entire life. I found the ignorance and bigotry of those people to be completely intolerable.
You've also got to look at who is arguing this particular position, you've got a bunch of undereducated fools that can barely put a sentence together and think 'filthy jew' or 'gay boy' is some masterful insult emblematic of their lightning wit.
khuram in all his guises (bigboyjames) wrxsti, neb on occasion (though he's just a fucking fruitcake, regardless) and all of these little schoolkids that think they have any idea what they're talking about.
We've both got dogs in this fight, that's easy to see. The point is, I honestly don't think Islam should be banned. A better society would be one that tolerated pluralism and freedom of thought. Any opposing argument to that is one made of thought crime and one more unconscionable than any number of human rights abuses.
The primary issue is one of entitlement in this situation. The government in this country cannot in any way, shape, or form legislate towards the provision of an individual religion. It is grossly unconstitutional and therefore incredibly illegal.
The primary method of dealing with this is the provision of multifaith rooms. This is a loophole that Universities use (As they are inherently government owned organisations).
That is the answer. Denoting a particular area as belonging to individuals of a certain belief or biological trait is a very dangerous concept indeed.
As per always these threads have devolved from a combination of out and out trolling and general fucktardery. I'll admit my hand in that freely.
I agree that some idiots may flood forums following an attack on Islam or a muslim state and spout all this rubbish that comes basically from their ass. The illiteracy among these idiotic posters worries me greatly.
In my opinion on the room issue, the muslims I guess want a room for themselves cause of the original complaint. The article says they complained because they were being religiously vilified and jeeredwhen they were forced to pray in the open. IF they encounter the same abuse in a multifaith room, nobody can question their desire for a separate room.
The main point above is IF. If not, a multifaith room can easily be used, and I have no issue with that.
Now in this individual circumstance, the university can easily accomodate them in another room, and, should do so.