Islamic Rape Gangs and Islamic Terrorism

hetuzozaho

[Deleted User] wrote: »

. The rest of us will move on to identify the problem and perhaps offer some realistic means to address it.

And how are ye getting along with it?

Do ye meet, or you find the threads sufficient?

alastair

Gynoid wrote: »

If you stole sweeties, Alastair, and got 25 years, 10 for corrupting innocent confectionary, 10 for publicly secreting sweeties in your pockets, and 5 for entering the sweeties emporium, are you going to deny you got 25 years for stealing sweeties?
The main charge on the scarf is prostitution. The other activist charges are all related to the one offense of not wearing a scarf. You are playing the lawyer game.

The Iranian thing is tangentially related because some on here claim we have encultured misogyny to the same degree as in some Islamic countries where a woman will be imprisoned for decades for not wearing a scarf. Which is a lie, according to Alastair.

Yes - it’s a lie. You can roll out your sweeties all you like, but the reality is that the Iranian hijab law has a sentence set at a maximum of ten years. The norm for hijab offences in Iran is a couple of months sentence and a fine. The big combined sentences you’re highlighting are for activists who are seen as posing a threat above and beyond the hijab issue. And again - multiple sentences in Iran are served concurrently.

hetuzozaho

hetuzozaho wrote: »

And how are ye getting along with it?

Judging from the level of denial in this thread, not far at all.

If anything, something has been achieved -- namely, that my OP was proved correct, that those in denial will continue to deflect from what is a serious and legitimate question.

They care nothing for the victims.

If they did, they would acknowledge the problem exists at the very least. It's the equivalent of those who say that terrorist attacks have nothing to do with Islam; a quite absurd conclusion that is the intellectual equivalent of saying Santa Clause has nothing to do with Christmas. He's acting as individual and not responding to its environment.

WrenBoy

alastair wrote: »

Both missives written long after the players were long gone, both subject to theological dispute and varied interpretations, the apocrypha are official scriptural canon according to the Catholic Church. That’s not really fringe - it’s just as central.

Yea, no! The apocrypha has and is still in dispute some of the passages in the collection have crossover with the bible so those specifically are "accepted" but to say the entirety is canon is an outright lie. Sahih literally means authentic as in they are fully accepted as truth and in one of these sahih hadiths narrated by Aisha herself, her age is given.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Indeed, culture is a large factor in this. Not exactly many Syrian, Jordanian, Indonesian Muslims are showing up involved in this sorta thing. Further, not exactly too many Indian Hindu's and Sheikhs either, or Pakistani Christians for that matter. It appears to be a particular cultural mix involved, outside of religion or background. We see similar with Catholic Church abuse. The particular strain of Irish Catholicism seems to be more likely than say Italian, French or Spanish.

Plenty of abuse in France, Germany etc
https://www.dw.com/en/france-catholic-church-to-compensate-abuse-victims/a-51184169

Same in the U.S. and Australia.

Not a particular Irish thing unless of course it's Irish priests all over the world.

hetuzozaho

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Judging from the level of denial in this thread, not far at all.
.

Well don't be so hard on yourself. Apart from the thread you've had some progress? Maybe share that with us

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Both missives written long after the players were long gone, both subject to theological dispute and varied interpretations, the apocrypha are official scriptural canon according to the Catholic Church. That’s not really fringe - it’s just as central.

Oh for god's sake now you're just being ridiculous in defence of your complete bloody ignorance on this.

You do realise the Greek word "apocrypha" means hidden and came to mean "non canon"? They've been considered that since the 400's. While the various Hadith(stories, or accounts) are considered reliable or non reliable the reading and following of those considered reliable(Bukhari for example) is a fundamental part of following Islam and the life and example of the Prophet and of Islamic culture and jurisprudence. Unless someone is a Quran only Muslim(and they are a tiny minority), Hadith impacts a faithful Muslim's way of life on a daily basis, from specifics on prayer through to ritual washing and many other specifics not in the Quran.

There is zero practical or theological comparison to be made between non canonical Apocrypha and the reliable Hadith. To do so is beyond moronic.

LostinBlanch

alastair wrote: »

Both missives written long after the players were long gone, both subject to theological dispute and varied interpretations, the apocrypha are official scriptural canon according to the Catholic Church. That’s not really fringe - it’s just as central.

On a point of information, I'm going to make one reply to this post. I think you're over egging the pudding there.

a group of 14 books, not considered canonical, included in the Septuagint and the Vulgate as part of the Old Testament, but usually omitted from Protestant editions of the Bible.

various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.

writings, statements, etc., of doubtful authorship or authenticity.Compare canon1(defs 6, 7, 9)

Hardly as central as you claim.

I think any further discussion of this should either be in another thread or forum as it could go off on a tangent and derail this thread; and nobody on here wants that surely.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

I've answered this question three times now.

Fourth and final time: 15/16 -- or 93.75% -- of those implicated in the rape gang were of Islamic background.

That theme replicates itself throughout the UK, whether it's Rotherham or other less well known cases.

That's the core problem. Yes, that other rapist is equally as abhorrent an individual, but what we musn't lose sight of is the much wider question of why these 90+% Islamic rape gangs exist and what can be done to stop it.

What doesn't help is to deny this problem exists.

If you believe 94% -- or 90% in the case of Rotherham convictions -- is a coincidence, you are perfectly welcome to bury your head in the proverbial sand. The rest of us will move on to identify the problem and perhaps offer some realistic means to address it.

It’s not an Islamic rape gang. The lad you conveniently whitewashed out is removed so you could portray the offenders as exclusively Muslim (assuming those with Asian names are actually all Muslim). The rape gang down in limerick are likely to be all notionally Catholic - but nobody is daft enough to claim that it’s a Christian rape gang, and if one of them turned out to be a Sikh, removing him from the equation wouldn’t make that claim any more credible.

Cordell

Does it really matters? Do you think these lads are islamic scholars?

alastair

LostinBlanch wrote: »

On a point of information, I'm going to make one reply to this post. I think you're over egging the pudding there.



Hardly as central as you claim.

I think any further discussion of this should either be in another thread or forum as it could go off on a tangent and derail this thread; and nobody on here wants that surely.

Most Catholic teaching is rejected by most Christian authorities. That’s the reformation for you. And yet these books are official canon scripture within Catholicism.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

There is zero practical or theological comparison to be made between non canonical Apocrypha and the reliable Hadith. To do so is beyond moronic.

Completely right; the Hadith forms much of the theological backbone of Islam as it refers to utterances from Mohammed about how a Muslim should lead their life.

That cannot be compared to Biblical apocrypha which, as you say, are non-canonical.

I do hope that Alistair took the time to read the profound nugget of wisdom sequestered in your signature.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh for god's sake now you're just being ridiculous in defence of your complete bloody ignorance on this.

You do realise the Greek word "apocrypha" means hidden and came to mean "non canon"? They've been considered that since the 400's. While the various Hadith(stories, or accounts) are considered reliable or non reliable the reading and following of those considered reliable(Bukhari for example) is a fundamental part of following Islam and the life and example of the Prophet and of Islamic culture and jurisprudence. Unless someone is a Quran only Muslim(and they are a tiny minority), Hadith impacts a faithful Muslim's way of life on a daily basis, from specifics on prayer through to ritual washing and many other specifics not in the Quran.

There is zero practical or theological comparison to be made between non canonical Apocrypha and the reliable Hadith. To do so is beyond moronic.

Except they are canon scripture in the largest Christian denomination.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Completely right; the Hadith forms much of the theological backbone of Islam as it refers to utterances from Mohammed about how a Muslim should lead their life.

That cannot be compared to Biblical apocrypha which, as you say, are non-canonical.

I do hope that Alistair took the time to read the profound nugget of wisdom sequestered in your signature.

They’ve been canon scripture since 1545.

Annasopra

Deleted User wrote: »

Interestingly, that poster has not once condemned the rape and sexual destruction of children -- but rather has spent their time spreading ire against those who wish to talk about it.

That demonstrates where priorities really do lie.

Its not like you actually care about children though.

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Most Catholic teaching is rejected by most Christian authorities. That’s the reformation for you. And yet these books are official canon scripture within Catholicism.

Oh for fcuk's sake. Why do you keep banging this completely ridiculous and completely bloody inaccurate drum? You made me go to wiki.

Some of these writings have been cited as scripture by early Christians, but since the fifth century a widespread consensus has emerged limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.[1][2] Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches generally do not view these New Testament apocrypha as part of the Bible.

Hadith have been referred to as the "backbone of Islam". Huge bloody difference.

You. Are. Wrong. End of. Jesus Christ, it's like arguing with a bot with a memory leak.

Annasopra

Boggles wrote: »

Nah. The thread is about highlighting crimes by dark skinned people (fordiners) - why do you think Christy was left out of the OPs list?

The only white in the village?

Some sort of white supremacist conspiracy maybe?

Tasfasdf

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Some sort of white supremacist conspiracy maybe?

How did you ever become a mod:rolleyes:

Wibbs

alastair wrote: »

Except they are canon scripture in the largest Christian denomination.

OK, here's a question even you can comprehend: How many practising Christians, including fundamentalists have read or have any knowledge of any of the Apocrypha? How many practising Muslims, including a la carte Muslims have read and have knowledge of the Hadith?

The answers, so no braincells get strained in the process are respectively: Fcuk all, and Damn near every one of them.

Wibbs

Tasfasdf wrote: »

How did you ever become a mod:rolleyes:

Well I'm one too T, so fcuk knows.

Tasfasdf

Wibbs wrote: »

Well I'm one too T, so fcuk knows.

Well at least your posts are coherent.;)

Lefty Bicek

The Church of Ireland considers the Apocrypha as worthy of reading by the Church ‘for example of life and instruction of manners’ (Articles of Religion; 6), but not for establishing doctrine.

https://www.ireland.anglican.org/our-faith/apck/the-bible

Other books, and portions of books in the so called “Apocrypha” are recognised as being suitable for reading and study, but are not regarded as having the same authority as the books of the Old and New Testaments.

https://www.irishmethodist.org/sites/default/files/pdf/news/methodism_as_part_of_the_protestant_tradition.pdf

Seems clearcut, no ?

Marcos

Wibbs wrote: »

Some of these writings have been cited as scripture by early Christians, but since the fifth century a widespread consensus has emerged limiting the New Testament to the 27 books of the modern canon.[1][2] Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches generally do not view these New Testament apocrypha as part of the Bible.

I don't know but maybe the Westboro Baptist Church do. Could Alastair possibly be a member? :eek:

If so, that would show an impressive openness to other ideas such as being a canonical lawyer, and Islamic scholar with a particular expertise in Iranian hijab law.

Hmmm.

Marcos

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh for fcuk's sake. Why do you keep banging this completely ridiculous and completely bloody inaccurate drum? You made me go to wiki.

Now if I was of a cynical bent, I might see something like this as a way of derailing the thread.

If only there was a way of getting it back on track. *strokes chin*

alastair

alastair wrote: »

They’ve been canon scripture since 1545.

And I'll tell you something else that's in Islamic scripture; Aisha -- Mohammad's other half -- bethrothed when she was 6 years old and whose marriage was consummated when she was 9/10 years old.

Perhaps that has something, just something, to do with how women are treated as third-class citizens under the iron umbrella of their male superiors.

Marcos wrote: »

Now if I was of a cynical bent, I might see something like this as a way of derailing the thread.

If only there was a way of getting it back on track. *strokes chin*

My thoughts exactly.

It's a standard deflection tactic from those unwilling to bend their mind to the inconvenient truth -- that rape gangs from India/Pakistan are rampant.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

The headline, if it cared to identify the hard truth of the matter, would read:

"Islamic rape gang of 16 members charged with sexually abusing three girls in Halifax"

So you want to identify them as an ‘Islamic rape gang’ before they’ve even been found guilty of anything?

You care so much about the children that you would jeapordise their trial.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

So you want to identify them as an ‘Islamic rape gang’ before they’ve even been found guilty of anything?

You care so much about the children that you would jeapordise their trial.

There is precendent here, and Rotherham and a vast swathe of other similar events have plagued the UK over the past few decades.

You can put your head inside a paper bag, but at some point you have to take the paper bag off. And that's precisely what's needed.

Under my governance, we would see swift and merciless action on this question.

Faugheen

Deleted User wrote: »

There is precendent here, and Rotherham and a vast swathe of other similar events have plagued the UK over the past few decades.

You can put your head inside a paper bag, but at some point you have to take the paper bag off. And that's precisely what's needed.

Under my governance, we would see swift and merciless action on this question.

No no, you don’t get it.

You want the media find them all guilty before a trial has even begun.

If you demanded a headline like that, then the trial would collapse. It’s that simple but like most of the ‘concerned citizens’ here, you have little knowledge of how the law works.

So yeah, let the children get their justice instead of demanding the media f*ck the trial up for them.

Also, you conveniently left one person out of your OP by the name of Christopher Eastwood. Why is that?

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

No no, you don’t get it.

You want the media find them all guilty before a trial has even begun.

If you demanded a headline like that, then the trial would collapse. It’s that simple but like most of the ‘concerned citizens’ here, you have little knowledge of how the law works.

So yeah, let the children get their justice instead of demanding the media f*ck the trial up for them.

Also, you conveniently left one person out of your OP by the name of Christopher Eastwood. Why is that?

This is now the fifth time I've answered that truly awful question.

As for not getting the law, I understand perfectly well. Even if 50% of them were found innocent (which I seriously doubt), then that is still a shocking rape gang situation -- and replicates an oft-encountered problem in the UK.

Keep your head inside the paper bag if you wish.

Deleted User wrote: »

I've answered this question three times now.

Fourth and final time: 15/16 -- or 93.75% -- of those implicated in the rape gang were of Islamic background.

That theme replicates itself throughout the UK, whether it's Rotherham or other less well known cases.

That's the core problem. Yes, that other rapist is equally as abhorrent an individual, but what we musn't lose sight of is the much wider question of why these 90+% Islamic rape gangs exist and what can be done to stop it.

What doesn't help is to deny this problem exists.

If you believe 94% -- or 90% in the case of Rotherham convictions -- is a coincidence, you are perfectly welcome to bury your head in the proverbial sand. The rest of us will move on to identify the problem and perhaps offer some realistic means to address it.

enricoh

Faugheen wrote: »

So you want to identify them as an ‘Islamic rape gang’ before they’ve even been found guilty of anything?

You care so much about the children that you would jeapordise their trial.

Maybe have a look at a few previous rape gang cases in the UK that involve 15 or so participants n look for a common denominator.

Or else don't n continue to bury your head in the sand!