Stoning to death and Sharia law

BuffyBot

Yeah, I think thats what causes alot of problems in Islam.

The same could be said of the various branches of Christianity from Irish part-time Catholics to wacky cults holed up in farms in Missouri. I don't think it's an Islam-specific issue.

wes

DinoBot wrote:

Thanks,

Yeah, I think thats what causes alot of problems in Islam. Some Hadith's are there which seem to go against the nature of Islam. So , as you said in your reply, it really comes down to the type of person you are and your upbring that enables you to reject such hadiths.
It would be nice if there was some uniformity on such matters.

Pluarism in Islam (and every major religion) is the way of things these days. Even if we had a pope of sorts there would still be schisms and splits. It leads to widely different interpretations. In the end, there is little that can be done about it. One can only hope as time goes along everyone will abandon, what I would consider some of the more archaic traditions.

Peanut

What biases westerners looking at this is that the majority of reports on honour killings of women etc. come from largely Islamic regions.

Now that's not necessarily to say that their interpretation of Islam dictates their behaviour, but it could be used as a justification in some cases, and for people reading the news hundreds of miles away it's quite difficult to make the distinction between religious beliefs and cultural beliefs.

It doesn't really help the perception then if there are interpretations that say it is acceptable in some circumstances, it reinforces the opinions of people that it is a religiously mandated punishment whenever they hear it reported.

DinoBot

Peanut wrote:

.............. it reinforces the opinions of people that it is a religiously mandated punishment whenever they hear it reported.

I think the main problem is that it IS religiously mandated punishment.

The question then arises if its really part of Islam or not.
But it is carried out under the banner of Islam in alot of countries

maitri

It is interesting to see that the only times stoning is mentioned in the Qur’an it is described as exercised by unjust people - oppressors, tyrants and persecutors:


26:116
They said: "If you do not cease, O Noah, you will be among those who are stoned."

44:20
"And I seek refuge in my Lord and your Lord, should you stone me." (A messenger to the Pharaoh)

19:46
He said: "Have you abandoned my gods O Abraham? If you do not stop this, I will stone you. Leave me alone." (Abraham’s father)

18:20
"If they discover you, they will stone you or return you to their creed. Then you will never be successful." (Warning to youths who had fled from their people after having rejected their gods.)

11:91
They said: "O Shu'ayb, we do not understand most of what you say, and we see you as weak amongst us; and if it were not for who your family is, we would have stoned you, and you would not be proud against us."


The four witnesses-rule is not about stoning, but about flogging - 100 lashes prescribed for adultery, (as stoning is never mentioned in the Qur'an as legal punishment for any crime). (24:02-04)


Of course one could say that 100 lashes is a very inhumane punishment too. Flogging is certainly torture and 100 lashes can lead to death. Yet the four witnesses-rule at least doesn’t make it happen all that often?

BTW, while stoning is only mentioned in the verses quoted above, there is a verse that allows (but does not command) crucifixion of enemies in war (if the translation is right) :

005.033
YUSUFALI: The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

Yet I have never ever heard about Muslims crucifying their enemies, so I don't know how this verse is generally understood by Muslims. (Maybe all the verses asking Muslims to "repel evil with good" have the precedence here? Crucifixion is really a horrible way of torturing another human being.)

Schuhart

maitri wrote:

It is interesting to see that the only times stoning is mentioned in the Qur’an it is described as exercised by unjust people - oppressors, tyrants and persecutors:

On that point, I came across some quite puzzling material on islamonline.net, claiming that there was an ‘abrogated’ verse in the Quran calling for stoning.

The second point that should be borne in mind on this issue is that, as previously refuted, the statement that the Qur’an is silent on this punishment is not genuine. Actually, according to renowned Muslim jurists, there was a verse (Ayah) in the Qur’an that talked about this matter. Though the verse was abrogated, but the abrogation here is in wording; the ruling is still kept in force.

One may ask “What is abrogation?” Abrogation means removal. It may involve the text or the ruling or both. There is a great Divine wisdom behind every incident of abrogation, part of which is to assert that the Islamic legislation, unlike man-made ones, was not established at once; rather, all its teachings and rulings were set gradually. In addition, when abrogating the words of a verse but not its ruling, this serves as a reminder that not all the Divine messages are to be through one channel, i.e. a direct revelation. Rather, part of these messages is to be clarified through the practice and tradition of the Prophet sent to deliver the message.

So the point here is: the practice of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is itself a part of revelation. Almighty Allah explains this saying: (And whatsoever the messenger giveth you, take it. And whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain (from it). And keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is stern in reprisal.) (Al-Hashr 59: 7) Also Allah says: (…then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, lest some trial befall them, or a grievous penalty be inflicted on them) (An-Nur 24: 63).

According to eminent Qur’an exegetes, this verse serves as a strong warning against deviating from the Tradition of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Imam Ibn Kathir says: “The words ‘the messenger’s order’ refer to his Path, teachings, laws and tradition. Thus, all words and deeds should be weighed according to the words and deeds of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the sense that whatever correspond with his words and deeds are accepted and whatever contradicts that should be rejected.”

The abrogated verse stated that “A married man and woman, if they commit adultery, stone them to death.”

I haven’t come across this concept of an ‘abrogated’ verse before. I know that the Quran was revealed over a period, and that a later vision might alter an existing practice (as in changing the Qibla). But this scholar seems to be suggesting that words should be added to the text that are not actually there (unless I misunderstand what he is saying). I thought that, whatever doubt might be had about this or that Hadith, the text of the Quran as we see it today is taken to be complete and totally reliable.

the_new_mr

That's interesting there maitri. Thanks for that. The translation of the word crucification of verse 33 of Surat Al-Ma'ida is correct. But, as you say, perhaps the Quran's teachings on repelling evil with good and how this is better all round is better. At the same time, the command seems very clear.

As for the idea of the abrogated verse, I've also heard this before. Although some verses were abrogated (and left in) such as in the case of alcohol (an earlier revelation saying not to pray whilst drunk with a later one saying not to drink), I think that regardless of whether or not the verse was there in the first place, it's not there now and if it was removed then it must have been removed for a reason. If anything, I think it's a stronger argument against stoning in Islam than for, since the angel Gabriel used to revise the Quran revealed up to that point each year with the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) and revised it twice in the Prophet's final year of life.

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

If anything, I think it's a stronger argument against stoning in Islam than for since the Gabriel used to revise the Quran revealed up that point each year with the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) and revised it twice in the Prophet's final year of life.

Just clarifying for my own knowledge - is the 'abrogation' then an amendment made by the Prophet before he died? Indeed, if the text was revised by the person having the visions, it would seem strange for a scholar to come along later and say that the words should be left in.

the_new_mr

Any abrogation made had to be made by God via the angel Gabriel. There is no way the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) would have been allowed (or would have wanted) to abrogate things by his own accord. Muslims believe that the Quran is now as God intended it to be. Nothing more and nothing less.

That's why I think that if there ever were any verses concerning stoning in the Quran (and I'm not saying there were... just if there were) then the fact that they're not there now would be a stronger argument against stoning being part of Islam.

Just realised I had left out a few words in my last post which makes it weird to read. That's what happens when you post without getting enough sleep Must change it.

hivizman

the_new_mr wrote:

Any abrogation made had to be made by God via the angel Gabriel. There is no way the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) would have been allowed (or would have wanted) to abrogate things by his own accord. Muslims believe that the Quran is now as God intended it to be. Nothing more and nothing less.

That's why I think that if there ever were any verses concerning stoning in the Quran (and I'm not saying there were... just if there were) then the fact that they're not there now would be a stronger argument against stoning being part of Islam.

Bukhari reports the following tradition:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 816:
Narrated Ibn 'Abbas:

'Umar said, "I am afraid that after a long time has passed, people may say, "We do not find the Verses of the Rajam (stoning to death) in the Holy Book," and consequently they may go astray by leaving an obligation that Allah has revealed. Lo! I confirm that the penalty of Rajam be inflicted on him who commits illegal sexual intercourse, if he is already married and the crime is proved by witnesses or pregnancy or confession." Sufyan added, "I have memorized this narration in this way." 'Umar added, "Surely Allah's Apostle carried out the penalty of Rajam, and so did we after him."

But the verse in the Qur'an (Surah al Nur 24:2) imposes the punishment of 100 lashes for adultery and fornication, not stoning. Yes, there are various traditions of Muhammad imposing stoning as a punishment for adultery, but in some of them he seems to be bending over backwards to avoid having to do so (suggesting that stoning was a traditional punishment that he didn't like). By the way, this story is in The_New_Mr's first post (Post Number 2) on this thread (sorry, don't know how to do links!).

There's another hadith in Bukhari:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 824:
Narrated Ash-Shaibani:

I asked 'Abdullah bin Abi 'Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, "The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam," I asked, "Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?" He replied, "I do not know."

I think that a case could be made that the actual verse in the Qur'an overruled both any traditional punishment of stoning (for example, the Jewish punishment in Deuteronomy 22:22, which arguably Muhammad was enforcing in one of the hadith stories) and any alleged "verse of stoning". So my problem is: why did the jurists subsequently endorse stoning for adultery?

Schuhart

the_new_mr wrote:

There is no way the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) would have been allowed (or would have wanted) to abrogate things by his own accord. Muslims believe that the Quran is now as God intended it to be. Nothing more and nothing less.

That's a very clear answer, and makes sense to me given all I've read about the certainty within Islam about the perfection of the Quran.

the_new_mr

Yet another good post there hivizman which is once again dense with information

I've heard the first hadith before of Omar Ibn Al Khattab. I guess it depends on the hadith of the Prophet himself. i.e. if the Prophet's hadith are authentic (and there were verses pertaining to stoning in the Quran before but were taken out by God) then there is the possibility that the Omar Ibn Al Khattab hadith could also be authentic. On the other hand, the Omar Ibn Al Khattab hadith may also be unauthentic. Only God knows for sure. May God forgive me for anything I may say incorrectly.

The second hadith there is new to me and very interesting with the "I do not know" at the end of it indicating that the same question we are wondering about now was being wondered about then.

As you say hivizman, if the hadith of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) are correct, it is definitely clear that he was extremely reluctant to carry it out at all. And there is the possibility that these events happened before the revelation of the relevant verses in the Quran. Only God knows and may He guide us to what is right.

Anyway, I don't plan to put myself in such a situation any time soon (or ever )

HelterSkelter

Morlar wrote:

I am still curious if the people (boards moderators and such) who support stoning women - have actually seen photographs or video footage of this ?

I saw the full unedited video of this incident last night: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811

Firstly I want to make clear I am against stoning anyone to death and I think anyone who takes part in a stoning is an animal. That was my view before I watched the video. The video was sickening though, basically a large group of men kicked this 17 year old girl and smashed large blocks over her head until she was dead. You can read the full story in the article above. Now I know she was not a muslim, she was a Yezidi, and she was killed by a group of Yezidi men because she was having some kind of relationship with a Sunni Muslim. But it does give an insite into what actually happens and I agree with Morlar that if someone is going to support something as barbaric as stoning a person to death, they should at least know what is involved in it and not just blindly support the act.

Morlar

HelterSkelter wrote:

I saw the full unedited video of this incident last night: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=452288&in_page_id=1811

Firstly I want to make clear I am against stoning anyone to death and I think anyone who takes part in a stoning is an animal. That was my view before I watched the video. The video was sickening though, basically a large group of men kicked this 17 year old girl and smashed large blocks over her head until she was dead. You can read the full story in the article above. Now I know she was not a muslim, she was a Yezidi, and she was killed by a group of Yezidi men because she was having some kind of relationship with a Sunni Muslim. But it does give an insite into what actually happens and I agree with Morlar that if someone is going to support something as barbaric as stoning a person to death, they should at least know what is involved in it and not just blindly support the act.

The one I saw was (I believe) more in line with the sharia way of doing it.

The people being stoned (2 women) were wrapped in a sheet and buried to their knees or just above.

There was a large group of people (all men) and the stones that they used were of a specific size, they used stones that were not big enough to kill outright but were big enough to do damage. They were roughly the size of a golf ball or a bit smaller, (ie no pebbles or no cavity blocks allowed).

This (choice of stones) had the effect of prolonging the suffering of the women being stoned. To be honest if you saw a dog get ran over and put down like that you would probably call the dspca for unnecessary cruelty. Barbaric would be one word that springs to mind, 'animal pack behaviour' is another way I would describe it too. Seeing intelligent people on here use well articulated, calm and reasoned ways of trying to justify this behaviour is disturbing.

Hobbes

Let me stress again for those coming in late into the thread and didn't read the thread or the related feedback thread. It is not discussing the moral implications, You have other forums for that. It is for discussing it in relation to Islam. I will start ejecting people if you continue on this line.

irish_bob

The one I saw was (I believe) more in line with the sharia way of doing it.

The people being stoned (2 women) were wrapped in a sheet and buried to their knees or just above.

There was a large group of people (all men) and the stones that they used were of a specific size, they used stones that were not big enough to kill outright but were big enough to do damage. They were roughly the size of a golf ball or a bit smaller, (ie no pebbles or no cavity blocks allowed).

This (choice of stones) had the effect of prolonging the suffering of the women being stoned. To be honest if you saw a dog get ran over and put down like that you would probably call the dspca for unnecessary cruelty. Barbaric would be one word that springs to mind, 'animal pack behaviour' is another way I would describe it too. Seeing intelligent people on here use well articulated, calm and reasoned ways of trying to justify this behaviour is disturbing.


you hit the nail on the head when you say that seeing intelligent articulate people justifying stoning to death is seriously disturbing

the whole thing makes me realise that thier is no such thing as a moderate muslim and that islam is completely incompatible with 21st centrury secular liberal democrocy
i will pull no punches , we the irish people need to tell our goverment representitives that something needs to be done urgently as regards our immigration policy towards muslims, its not too late for us like it is for the uk
dont get me wrong ive nothing against immigration , i am happy to see poles and other eastern europans coming her , im also happy to see black people to come here , it not an issue of race with me , while you cannot help what skin colour you were born in , i cant help that im white , religon is man made and therefore you can leave it behind you

that the people in here making theese grotesque comments are irish and live in this country makes it all the more chilling

p.s , an interesting question to further the debate might be is salman rushdie deserving of being stoned to death , quite relevant i think and contempory

wes

irish_bob wrote:

the whole thing makes me realise that thier is no such thing as a moderate muslim and that islam is completely incompatible with 21st centrury secular liberal democrocy
i will pull no punches , we the irish people need to tell our goverment representitives that something needs to be done urgently as regards our immigration policy towards muslims, its not too late for us like it is for the uk

So the opinions (or your interpretation of them) of the few, should damn the many. There is a word for that. Its called bigotry. Despite the many opinions stated here from several Muslims disagreeing with stoning, you spew this ignorant bile. Yes, we are all the same and have no minds of our own :rolleyes: .

[sarcasm]If one Muslim someplace says something, clearly he represents us all. If Osama says blow people up he represents us all.[/sarcasm]

I think judging an entire group of people based on what a few are saying is incompatible with secular democracy. One of the features of secular democracy is judging each person on there own individual merits regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, gender etc. Perhaps you should learn more about secular democracy before trying to school others. Maybe you will learn something.

Apologies for going off topic, but I had to say something here about this crap.

InFront

islam is completely incompatible with 21st centrury secular liberal democrocy

Islam is not a secular movement, nor is the embrace of Islam a democracy really, it's a way of life surrounding a set of dearly held beliefs. It doesn't mean that Muslims can't live in a liberal/ secular democracy while engaging with his or her beliefs. Sorry, I just can't understand the suggestion otherwise. The overwhelming majority - almost every singly Muslim in the west - obviously does live pecefully and contentedly in Western Society.

something needs to be done urgently as regards our immigration policy towards muslims... religon is man made and therefore you can leave it behind you

You mean ban Muslims from entering the country? I'm not sure why you're suggesting this, in any event while it might relate to Muslims it's not really about Islam. It's more of a political issue and probably doesn't belong here. Certainly not in this thread, anyway. Please stick to the topic at hand.

the_new_mr

Yes, stick to the topic at hand. Consider that a warning. This forum is not for you to suggest your anti-Muslim immigration laws.

As InFront has pointed out, there are plenty of Muslims living in secular societies all over the world. Strictly speaking, the true ideals of a Christian, Jew, Hindu don't exactly blend with those of a secular society either. Despite this, there are plenty of Christians, Jews, Hindus and Muslims living happily and peacefully in such societies.

irish_bob

this suggestion of sticking to the thread in question is nothing but a cynical ploy to prevent free speech being expressed fullsomely

wes

irish_bob wrote:

this suggestion of sticking to the thread in question is nothing but a cynical ploy to prevent free speech being expressed fullsomely

Is fullsomely even a word? You must have meant fully, there is no such word as fullsomely, there is a word fulsomely, but then what you said would make no sense then.

Your last post was plain inaccurate and didn't make much sense. Did you read the thread or read the bits you wanted to or something?

Do you know what a straw man argument is, this post and your last is a perfect example of exactly that. To reiterate again, several Muslims in this thread are against stoning, I personally was very clear on that, so this makes the straw man you trying to present in your posts, even more ridiculous. Your directly proven wrong in this thread.

So why come and say you being prevented to exercise free speech? Do you not want to admit what you said was incorrect? Why a new straw man? There is nothing wrong with admitting you wrong in an argument.

InFront

Irish_bob, it's not up for debate. Your immigration point ends here for this thread, if you want to continue it open a thread in humanities or politics. This thread is strictly about Shari'ah and stoning. Further posts about immigration in this thread will result in a ban and the post being deleted.

HelterSkelter

irish_bob wrote:

the whole thing makes me realise that thier is no such thing as a moderate muslim and that islam is completely incompatible with 21st centrury secular liberal democrocy

Biggest load of cráp I've heard in my life. There are 30,000 muslims in ireland living quite happily under democracy. There are 2 million muslims living in the UK.

irish_bob wrote:

we the irish people need to tell our goverment representitives that something needs to be done urgently as regards our immigration policy towards muslims

And what about Irish or British born muslims? Or Irish or British people who comvert to Islam? Do you suggest kicking them out of the country.

irish_bob wrote:

that the people in here making theese grotesque comments are irish and live in this country makes it all the more chilling

You neglect to mention that there are Muslims in this thread who oppose stoning to death. I know a lot of Muslims and they oppose it also. If you read the after hours forum often enough you will find pleanty of Irish who believe in the death penalty and believe it should be carried out for fairly trivial crimes.

Medin

irish_bob wrote:

The one I saw was (I believe) more in line with the sharia way of doing it.

The people being stoned (2 women) were wrapped in a sheet and buried to their knees or just above.

There was a large group of people (all men) and the stones that they used were of a specific size, they used stones that were not big enough to kill outright but were big enough to do damage. They were roughly the size of a golf ball or a bit smaller, (ie no pebbles or no cavity blocks allowed).

This (choice of stones) had the effect of prolonging the suffering of the women being stoned. To be honest if you saw a dog get ran over and put down like that you would probably call the dspca for unnecessary cruelty. Barbaric would be one word that springs to mind, 'animal pack behaviour' is another way I would describe it too. Seeing intelligent people on here use well articulated, calm and reasoned ways of trying to justify this behaviour is disturbing.


you hit the nail on the head when you say that seeing intelligent articulate people justifying stoning to death is seriously disturbing

the whole thing makes me realise that thier is no such thing as a moderate muslim and that islam is completely incompatible with 21st centrury secular liberal democrocy
i will pull no punches , we the irish people need to tell our goverment representitives that something needs to be done urgently as regards our immigration policy towards muslims, its not too late for us like it is for the uk
dont get me wrong ive nothing against immigration , i am happy to see poles and other eastern europans coming her , im also happy to see black people to come here , it not an issue of race with me , while you cannot help what skin colour you were born in , i cant help that im white , religon is man made and therefore you can leave it behind you

that the people in here making theese grotesque comments are irish and live in this country makes it all the more chilling

p.s , an interesting question to further the debate might be is salman rushdie deserving of being stoned to death , quite relevant i think and contempory

hey irish bobby, don't just talk, pls go run to the immigration office and unload your hitleroic idea onto them, they might even listen to you.
u might become a new irish president and then apply the same policy to every non-irish - ul prob end up with 10,000 pure irishmen

i wonder what ur gonna do with all this land then... :rolleyes: i suppose the sheep will move to the city and other towns from the villages, what you say?

MooseJam

I'd be curious to know if any of the muslim readers would wish to see Shari'ah law implemented here ? I know it's never going to happen but would you like to see it happen ?

unkel

MooseJam wrote:

Shari'ah law implemented here ?
?

*shivers*

I'm disgusted posting this, but it's a matter of demographics. The silent revolution. The most popular name for a newborn boy in the big cities in the Netherlands already is Mohammed.

I'd love to see any radical blow-thy-up muslim to feck themselves right out of my continent tbh

the_new_mr

Drawing some sort of parallel between people who call their children Mohamed and suicide bombers isn't fair now, is it? That's an official warning to anyone here to intends to make the "obvious" link between Islam and terrorism. Next person who does this will leave the mods in here no choice but to ban them.

It's not difficult for Mohamed to be the most popular name in any country really. If there are even a small percentage of Muslims then it's quite easy as a majority of Muslims call their children Mohamed. There's nothing like this with any other name in the world.

As for the question on shariah law. I think it's pretty obvious that any Muslim would like to see what they believe to be God's law implemented just like a Christian would like to see the law of the Bible implemented etc. But it would have to be done correctly. Which puts Saudi Arabia's interpretation out of the question along with all other current Muslim countries.

Anyway, don't think it's going to happen too soon. Thought I'd better repeat that before people start coming on here and saying "We don't want shariah law in Ireland!! Write to your MP!!"

Hobbes

MooseJam wrote:

I'd be curious to know if any of the muslim readers would wish to see Shari'ah law implemented here ? I know it's never going to happen but would you like to see it happen ?

TBH I wonder why you even comment in this forum. You have asked this before and it has been answered before.

In case you missed it, there is already Shari'ah law. The thing is that the law cannot supercede the law of the land. In the UK for example they have lawyers who are also trained in Shari'ah law who will settle issues for Muslims within UK law and to their beliefs.

Also there is a thread which covers the statistics. As I recall the minority want it like say Irans laws (majority of that minority being youths). But even if there were a majority who believed it would require major changes to the Irish constitution which requires a referendum. That is never going to happen unless a major majority of the Irish population are both Muslim and want Shari'ah laws.

Unkel any more crap like that and your out of here.

PDN

the_new_mr wrote:

As for the question on shariah law. I think it's pretty obvious that any Muslim would like to see what they believe to be God's law implemented just like a Christian would like to see the law of the Bible implemented etc. But it would have to be done correctly. Which puts Saudi Arabia's interpretation out of the question along with all other current Muslim countries.

Anyway, don't think it's going to happen too soon. Thought I'd better repeat that before people start coming on here and saying "We don't want shariah law in Ireland!! Write to your MP!!"

Not quite sure what you mean by that. Many Christians, for example, believe idolatry to be sinful but would oppose any attempt to enshrine that in secular law.

InFront

As for Moosejam's question; yes I'd be in favour of more Shariah legislation here. As Hobbes pointed out, Shariah already exists in Europe both as a method available privately between Muslims and also the fact that many European laws are already compatible with Sharia anyway.
Just to reiterate, this isn't the same thing as saying that we should do things the Iranian or the Saudi ways, as has been said they're not yet operating true Shariah unfortunately.

unkel wrote:

I'm disgusted posting this, but it's a matter of demographics. The silent revolution. The most popular name for a newborn boy in the big cities in the Netherlands already is Mohammed.

I don't know if that's sarcasm or actually intended seriously. Presumably that's a reference to immigration, which as you probably know dosnt belong here.

I'd love to see any radical blow-thy-up muslim to feck themselves right out of my continent tbh

I'm not making any excuses for terrorists, nor do I believe in seperatism, but if you're going to make statements like that then it should at least be pointed out that there are a lot of Muslims in South Asia and the Middle East saying the same thing, except they are saying it about "blow-thy-up" Europeans and Americans.

Anyway, it might be worth considering the topic of the thread and sticking to it.