Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

OI both of you, leave the discussion for a few hours, calm down a few notches and come back. The thread is supposed to be friendly and polite EU News Thread not "people ripping out each others throats over semantics thread."

Plus otherwise it gets locked again, which i find annoying since i get most of the european news here, because you folsk dig up stuff from all sides.
So thanks for the news bits, please calm down a bit...and i think Yazidis are not Zoroastrians...weren't Yazidis the guys with the peacock demon who was Satan and was supposed to be good? Or am i mashing up several other faiths now.

Peacock demon? That sounds more like a Chinese thing (or maybe Indian or Iranian). AFAIK, the Yazidis are a Islamic sect/branchoff (like how Christianity has it's various denominations) which many muslims view as being heretical.

edit: Some politicians have claimed that they were christians, so, I'm not sure on their religion other than that they are viewed by some muslims as being heretical infidels.

[Bouchart]

Merkel is hardcore Stasi.

[RedKing]

The peacock angel is Melek Taus. Yazidism is sort of Islam's version of Christian Gnosticism. IIRC, they believe Allah created the world, then withdrew, leaving it in the care of Melek Taus. They consider themselves part of the Ummah, in the same way that Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves Christians. And just like those sects, everyone else is saying, "Uhh...no you're not."

And it's not just Muslims that brand them as devil-worshippers. Europeans also equated Melek Taus with Satan and happily looked the other way when the Ottomans would periodically crack down on them.

[Reelya]

I haven't found the post with the pew statistics, but I'm guessing it referred to this.

I'll point out that you get similar things looking at Westerners:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/25/57-republicans-dismantle-constitution-christianity-national-religion.html

57% of US Republicans want to abolish the constitution and implement theocratic rule. But we have to of course take that with a grain of salt. That's over 1 quarter of the entire country, and they've infiltrated every level of government, but I don't think we should be exactly freaking out about the imminent creation of a theocracy in the USA.

[Loud Whispers]

There's plenty of Christian bible verses about just war and the like, and taking up the sword, usually in defense of Christianity. Islam goes into a bit more detail on the subject, and is currently primarily based in rather poor, strife-torn regions, which leads unsurprisingly to violent interpretations.

What are you talking about m8 Islam goes into detail because the first interaction it had with outsiders was invasion, followed by another invasion, then a reconquest after rebellion

Plus the whole 'very traditional culture focused on one's history and family' which easily leads to resentment for things from several hundred years ago or more, and means any change introduced by outsiders (or insiders, for that matter) is liable to be viewed with extreme hostility.

Follow the Sunnah

As for settlement of America....Gold, God, and Glory. Spain had plenty of religious reasons riding alongside those socio-economic reasons. (and I would be disappointed if you said you thought Mid-Eastern Islam's current behavior/stance was purely because of the nature of the religion and had nothing to do with similar socio-economic stuff(and no, that doesn't justify it, which I always end up having to say))

I would be disappointed if you said so

Buddha was prince, Loud Whisper you sayin Buddha was more violent than Jesus? Do we need to have a peace-off here? Gandhi will wreck you shit scrub he's so peaceful get nukd m8

The Buddha could have been a great Emperor, a conqueror for the ages to remember - he gave up being a Prince the moment he became an ascetic. Sadly the Buddha never did get to lead armies, or kill people, or even have a crown :(

Oh and Christianity is ideologically violent against other ideologies even if it isn't inherently physically violent. Missionaries and 'God is the One True God, and there is no God but He' is an act of war, ideologically speaking. Wouldn't have gotten so popular/stayed mostly the same, otherwise, really.

I don't defend Christianity because it's indefensible for being so weak, the core principle of Christianity is self-sacrifice, but Islam understands that if all the virtuous self-sacrifice you end up with a world where the virtuous are dead and the immoral are left behind to rule it. The meek do not inherit the Earth then; the strongest do, and if the strongest are immoral than immorality will be King. If someone is a threat to you there is no turning the other cheek; when the Byzantines and Persians threatened the Caliphate the Byzantines and Persians were crushed. Islam wouldn't have gotten so popular otherwise, and there's a reason why Christianity's birthplace is Muslim and shall soon be devoid of Christianity altogether. The future of Christianity is central Africa and China, European Christianity is very much too weak to fight the ideological wars it once waged upon itself, let alone the world.

Something more relevant to the thread: Facebook going to monitor and censor "hate speech" in Germany from now on.
I wonder what hate speech means in this particular case. I wonder if criticising Merkel is going to be counted as hatespeech.

I wonder how much of this thread would have made it through the censors.
But yeah, censoring speech in Germany. On an entirely, entirely unrelated topic... didn't Merkel used to be an informant for the Stasi?

She gettin too checkbireki

[Reelya]

I haven't found the post with the pew statistics, but I'll point out that you get similar things looking at Westerners:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/25/57-republicans-dismantle-constitution-christianity-national-religion.html

57% of US Republicans want to abolish the constitution and implement theocratic rule. But we have to of course take that with a grain of salt. That's over 1 quarter of the entire country, and they've infiltrated every level of government, but I don't think we should be exactly freaking out about the imminent creation of a theocracy in the USA.

I don't think 316 Republican primary voters is a very representative sample, to be honest.

By comparison, the PEW ones I linked that nullBolt is referring to involved over 38,000 face-to-face interviews in more than 80 languages and dialects.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/07/1428407/-Halfway-to-theocracy-44-percent-of-Republicans-want-to-make-Christianity-our-official-religion
Yup, it drops to 44% of republicans (and 28% of democrats) in a follow-up national poll the same organization did. But that's still more than some Muslim populations say they want sharia law. Here's the raw data in case you don't trust DailyKos:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/ReligionPollingResults.pdf

Interesting (pew), that 12% of turks want sharia, vs 28% of US Democrats wanting theocracy. Also, less Republicans (39%) oppose theocracy than support it (44%).

Erdogan isn't credible. He's the leader of by far the most liberal/secular muslim nation on the planet, yet he's pushing a radicalized us/them dichotomy (he really hates atheists) and wants to dismantle everything Attaturk did to create a modern nation. When he says all muslims are the same, he's actually trying to undermine the modernized muslim majority of his own country, and push them back into the "islamist" fold by force.

[Loud Whispers]

I haven't found the post with the pew statistics, but I'll point out that you get similar things looking at Westerners:
http://www.politicususa.com/2015/02/25/57-republicans-dismantle-constitution-christianity-national-religion.html
57% of US Republicans want to abolish the constitution and implement theocratic rule. But we have to of course take that with a grain of salt. That's over 1 quarter of the entire country, and they've infiltrated every level of government, but I don't think we should be exactly freaking out about the imminent creation of a theocracy in the USA.

I don't think 316 Republican primary voters is a very representative sample, to be honest.
By comparison, the PEW ones I linked that nullBolt is referring to involved over 38,000 face-to-face interviews in more than 80 languages and dialects.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/10/07/1428407/-Halfway-to-theocracy-44-percent-of-Republicans-want-to-make-Christianity-our-official-religion
Yup, it drops to 44% of republicans (and 28% of democrats) in a follow-up national poll the same organization did. But that's still more than some Muslim populations say they want sharia law. Here's the raw data in case you don't trust DailyKos:
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/ReligionPollingResults.pdf

Why the hell would you trust DailyKos lol? They're completely high off of their ebin progresivatheist bernie sanders reblogs, they don't even know what the hell a theocracy looks like - having an official religion is not there, otherwise the entire world outside the Americas is a theocracy. I've found something even lower quality b8 than DailyMail.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/

Versus your cuckservatives

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

FFS you have more commies who want to abolish FOR than cons, that's pathetic

[Vilanat]

So, i took the data by Pew, extracted the number of people who wants Sharia in each country based on the polled percentage out of wikipedia's recorded muslim population in each country and formed a global average based on that.

Out of the polled data that represents countries with a total muslim population of 1,116,854,700, 763,390,497 muslims wants sharia which makes for 68.351%

If we apply this percentage to the rest of the world (1,600,000,000 - 1,116,854,700) we get an additional 330,234,644 muslims who wants sharia and in total, 1,093,629,095 muslims wants Sharia. Note that European muslims would probably lower the percentage, but their numbers pales in comparison to India's, Iran's and Saudi Arabia's Muslim population who would most probably raise it so the global average percentage is probably even higher than 68.351%

These figures are troubling, to say the least.

Messy table

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

country   % wants sharia   # muslim   # wants sharia
afghanistan   99   29,047,100   28,756,629
albania   12   2,601,000   312,120
azerbaijan   8   8,795,000   703,600
bangladesh   82   145,607,000   119,397,740
bosnia   15   1,564,000   234,600
cameron   53   3,598,000   1,906,940
chad   47   64,040,000   30,098,800
djibouti   82   853,000   699,460
dr congo   74   969,000   717,060
egypt   74   80,024,000   59,217,760
ethiopia   65   28,271,000   18,376,150
ghana   58   3,906,600   2,265,828
guinea bissau   47   705,000   331,350
indonesia   72   204,847,000   147,489,840
iraq   91   31,108,000   28,308,280
jordan   71   6,397,000   4,541,870
kazakhstan   10   8,887,000   888,700
kenya   63   2,868,000   1,806,840
kosovo   20   2,011,000   402,200
kyrgyzstan   35   4,927,000   1,724,450
lebanon   29   2,542,000   737,180
liberia   52   523,000   271,960
malaysia   86   17,139,000   14,739,540
mali   63   12,316,000   7,759,080
morocco   83   32,381,000   26,876,230
mozambique   64   5,349,000   3,423,360
niger   86   15,627,000   13,439,220
nigeria   71   75,728,000   53,766,880
pakistan   84   178,097,000   149,601,480
palestinian   89   4,298,000   3,825,220
russia   42   16,379,000   6,879,180
senegal   55   12,333,000   6,783,150
tajikistan   27   7,006,000   1,891,620
tanzania   37   13,450,000   4,976,500
thailand   77   3,952,000   3,043,040
tunisia   56   10,349,000   5,795,440
turkey   12   74,660,000   8,959,200
uganda   66   3,700,000   2,442,000
Total polled data   68.351   1,116,854,700   763,390,497
         
Rest of world   68.351   483,145,300   330,234,644
World Total   68.35181846    1,600,000,000    1,093,629,095

[nullBolt]

<snip>

Come on, guys, it's $currentYear! 31% means that they're basically friendly, right?

[Loud Whispers]

So, i took the data by Pew, extracted the number of people who wants Sharia in each country based on the polled percentage out of wikipedia's recorded muslim population in each country and formed a global average based on that.

D:<

Out of the polled data that represents countries with a total muslim population of 1,116,854,700, 763,390,497 muslims wants sharia which makes for 68.351%
If we apply this percentage to the rest of the world (1,600,000,000 - 1,116,854,700) we get an additional 330,234,644 muslims who wants sharia and in total, 1,093,629,095 muslims wants Sharia. Note that European muslims would probably lower the percentage, but their numbers pales in comparison to India's, Iran's and Saudi Arabia's Muslim population who would most probably raise it so the global average percentage is probably even higher than 68.351%
These figures are troubling, to say the least.

I will concur not conquer, but I will confer there are caveats and points to make

Points I must make later sadly

[nullBolt]

Though if that's the case, it's 40000 people to represent the opinions of over a billion. I can't imagine that they could do much of a local polling since 40000 people implies that it's more like 10 to 100 people per any particular region of a country. That's not particularly representative.

Dude, studies of 5,000 people are huge. Nevermind 40,000.

[nullBolt]

It's not just about numbers here.

Yes... Yes, it is.

[nullBolt]

No it isn't. I can poll 40000 people in Iran and call that the "general Muslim opinion" and anyone with half a brain would call me out on that bullshit. Opinions vastly differ not just between countries, but within them based on centers of population; i.e. cities tend to cater to more liberal opinions versus rural areas, etc. If we assume that the poll, based on what they've said, tried to be representative of every particular region of the countries that they were in, then we're talking 10-100 people per region at most.

They've not broken into it representative regions, though, they're representing the opinion of the country as a whole. Taking around a 1k sample from each country distributed across as many regions as possible is perfectly valid and acceptable as long as random choice is the choice.

But that doesn't matter because if it'd've been 1000 per region, you'd be complaining that it wasn't enough. Because it's not the amount that matters, it's the result of the numbers that you dislike.

[martinuzz]

Could you maybe take this discussion to the religion thread? Or the Science thread, since the debate seems to mostly involve statistical methods

[nullBolt]

Here's a quote from the same study.

"At the same time, the survey finds that even in many countries where there is strong backing
for sharia, most Muslims favor religious freedom for people of other faiths. In Pakistan, for
example, three-quarters of Muslims say that non-Muslims are very free to practice their
religion, and fully 96% of those who share this assessment say it is “a good thing.” Yet 84% of
Pakistani Muslims favor enshrining sharia as official law. These seemingly divergent views are
possible partly because most supporters of sharia in Pakistan – as in many other countries –
think Islamic law should apply only to Muslims. Moreover, Muslims around the globe have
differing understandings of what sharia means in practice.

"The survey – which involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages
with Muslims across Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Africa – shows that Muslims tend to be
most comfortable with using sharia in the domestic sphere, to settle family or property
disputes. In most countries surveyed, there is considerably less support for severe
punishments, such as cutting off the hands of thieves or executing people who convert from
Islam to another faith. And even in the domestic sphere, Muslims differ widely on such
questions as whether polygamy, divorce and family planning are morally acceptable and
whether daughters should be able to receive the same inheritance as sons. "

And nullBolt, the reason I bring up distribution is that taking "random polling of opinions from across the country" is inherently biased; large cities tend to be more liberal in their views over more rural areas, but rural areas tend to take up more land, so geographical randomness doesn't work. Same goes for population. It'd be like trying to get a general opinion about what the US thinks by picking random people from across the country. It doesn't work if you just pick randomly amongst population numbers or geographical location.

Man, Pew is one of the best research centres. They undoubtedly have all the possible methodology problems you can think of completely covered, and a lot of the ones that you can't think of covered too.

My question is: What do these people think should happen when a Muslim and a non-Muslim get into a dispute? Should Sharia law be the one applied?

You also seemed to miss this graph which pretty much directly contradicts what you're saying: