Based Muslim Mum
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
95 comments displayed.
#44
-
teevee (12/14/2015) [-] >woman
>muslim
>not white
no race or sex cards can be pulled against her; unstumpable.
>muslim
>not white
no race or sex cards can be pulled against her; unstumpable.
#79 to #44
-
yuukaismaiwaifu (12/15/2015) [-] **yuukaismaiwaifu used "*roll picture*"**
**yuukaismaiwaifu rolled image**you could say she is... un-trumpable.
**yuukaismaiwaifu rolled image**you could say she is... un-trumpable.
#6
-
scorpidea (12/14/2015) [-] I am not a radical Muslim... in fact, I do not practice Islam at all, and never have...
But, I kinda DO want to see my cheating ex-wife publicly stoned.....
But, I kinda DO want to see my cheating ex-wife publicly stoned.....
#81 to #6
-
JonathanNowFuckYou (12/15/2015) [-] "wtf is this a joke?"
- Everybody who thumbed you down on a website called 'funnyjunk'
- Everybody who thumbed you down on a website called 'funnyjunk'
#25 to #6
-
toostonedtopost ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
You are the problem bro.
Muslim, Islam, or otherwise.
Muslim, Islam, or otherwise.
#13 to #6
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-]
that reminds me of a conversation i had today with a coworker.
He was a truck driver for a metal appliance company (mainly ventilation, ac and stuff) and he worked like years in the arab world (as a european).
Apparently most public stonings are also viewed by "western" folks and most of the time they demand "more blood"
What i am trying to tell is you don't have to be a muslim (be it radical or not) to be a ******* lunatic and demand such atrocities and somehow i hear a lot of awful stuff from the mouth of "innocent" people and that kinda makes me mad and ashamed.
He was a truck driver for a metal appliance company (mainly ventilation, ac and stuff) and he worked like years in the arab world (as a european).
Apparently most public stonings are also viewed by "western" folks and most of the time they demand "more blood"
What i am trying to tell is you don't have to be a muslim (be it radical or not) to be a ******* lunatic and demand such atrocities and somehow i hear a lot of awful stuff from the mouth of "innocent" people and that kinda makes me mad and ashamed.
#16 to #13
-
scorpidea (12/14/2015) [-] Wow, I am bad at jokes when I don't read what I typed first... It was supposed to be a marijuana joke, implying her getting arrested for being under it's influence in public...
But, now that I have read what I typed... what the **** was I thinking??? That everyone can read my mind???
But, now that I have read what I typed... what the **** was I thinking??? That everyone can read my mind???
#43 to #4
-
killerkost (12/14/2015) [-] actually for a confidence level of 95% only around 350 samples are needed. this means a margin of error of +/- 5% which is rough, but precise enough for this kind of study.
#58 to #43
-
trollmobile ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] 10 000 are required for it to be a legitimate, scienfically accepted study.
#56 to #46
-
killerkost (12/14/2015) [-] oh... well, it's late where I come from and i should probably go to sleep
#7
-
theruinedsage (12/14/2015) [-] This is what happens when a medieval religions gets exposed to the 21st century
#89 to #72
-
naiix (12/15/2015) [-] It is funny how people down thumb a comment and doesn't bother to prove me wrong. I'll make it a bit easier for you who has faith in any religion.
Christianity for an example; praise a God who has killed more than the "evil" guy. The bible, whether new or old testament are all work of primitive souls, sexist, racist, haters, homophobic, drunkards, womanizers, war mongers etc. An ideological bases for power and nothing else.
Religious extremism wouldn't be a problem if the world just stop with their childish superstitions and beliefs.
This may be a bit off the top, but I am certain that the world wont ever have world peace when religion still exist.
tfw no edit button
Christianity for an example; praise a God who has killed more than the "evil" guy. The bible, whether new or old testament are all work of primitive souls, sexist, racist, haters, homophobic, drunkards, womanizers, war mongers etc. An ideological bases for power and nothing else.
Religious extremism wouldn't be a problem if the world just stop with their childish superstitions and beliefs.
This may be a bit off the top, but I am certain that the world wont ever have world peace when religion still exist.
tfw no edit button
#86 to #72
-
gloriousthighs (12/15/2015) [-]
It's so difficult to believe that in this day and age people can honestly say they believe any single religion. Childhood indoctrination, fear tactics and ignorance, it must be. Faith at it's core is irrational, to believe anything without any form of proof is unreasonable and I really don't get it. I of course went through that young teen phase where I would argue with religious people but I long ago gave up on that and even posting this isn't something I'd normally not do.
Can anybody that really believes solidly in a religion explain it to me? Why believe?
I understand both the intentional ignorance due to fear of what comes next (I've been through that myself) and I understand the fear of hell. When I was seven I first questioned the existence of God (likely because earlier in life I learned that Santa was fake) and this questioning terrified me, made me feel I would be burned for eternity. That fear has power, it can surely cause people to believe without question and that is dangerous.
Can anybody that really believes solidly in a religion explain it to me? Why believe?
I understand both the intentional ignorance due to fear of what comes next (I've been through that myself) and I understand the fear of hell. When I was seven I first questioned the existence of God (likely because earlier in life I learned that Santa was fake) and this questioning terrified me, made me feel I would be burned for eternity. That fear has power, it can surely cause people to believe without question and that is dangerous.
#63 to #7
-
ompalomper ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-] This is what happens when a medieval people* gets exposed to the 21st century
#35
-
therealtjthemedic (12/14/2015) [-] Whenever you guys say 'based' you just mean anyone who agrees with your views.
#66 to #35
-
drtrousersnake ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-] people willing to have crosshairs put on themselves by talking about important issues that society wants to kick under the rug
#3
-
blargenflargle ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
Awaiting comments about why this Muslim is lying about Islamic extremists.
#15
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] >Doesnt wear hijab
>Wears makeup
>Doesnt speak Arabic
>Calls herself Sunni yet rejects the most fundamental aspects of Sunnah
>Is a known Feminazi
>Uses statistics with sample sizes that are barely in the thousands yet are projected onto over a billion people
>Only uses statistics in 3rd world countries
This lady is a shill hiding behind her brown skin in order to not get called out for her ******** . Funnyjunk will still side with her because they hate Muslims.
>Wears makeup
>Doesnt speak Arabic
>Calls herself Sunni yet rejects the most fundamental aspects of Sunnah
>Is a known Feminazi
>Uses statistics with sample sizes that are barely in the thousands yet are projected onto over a billion people
>Only uses statistics in 3rd world countries
This lady is a shill hiding behind her brown skin in order to not get called out for her ******** . Funnyjunk will still side with her because they hate Muslims.
#59 to #15
-
trollmobile ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] >using the word "shill" non-ironically
other than that i agree quite a bit with you.
her sample sizes were FAR too small to be called legitimate studies.
other than that i agree quite a bit with you.
her sample sizes were FAR too small to be called legitimate studies.
#77 to #15
-
anon (12/15/2015) [-]
I just read through both of your arguments on this post, and I've got to hand it to you. You're either a very skilled and artful troll, which I would have to admire your subtle tactics, or you're opinionated and border on the edge of barely being able to pretend you're logical and being a complete idiot. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment behind your posts, they're not entirely illogical arguments. However, the way in which you construct these arguments is awful. It seems almost like you don't read the other debater's comments at all, you just skim for buzz words and then pounce. On a scale of 1-10 how much do you sympathize with Trump, because these debates feel very Trump-esque in that their point isn't awful, but their tactics to get there are horrendous.
#92 to #15
-
zekonos (12/15/2015) [-]
To support your argument:
After watching this video and seeing the statistic that 26% of American Muslims think that suicide bombings can be justified (with the cited source being Pew Research), I was taken aback. To be frank, it shocked the **** out of me.
So I checked out the bibliography: www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/By-the-Numbers-Bibliography.pdf
Specifically, I looked under the Pew Research sources. In none of these studies could I find the above statistic. The closest thing to it was that 81% of US Muslims believe that bombings can never be justified. Now, I am aware that the statistic in the video is referring to those between the ages of 18-29, so maybe the data is actually different, but the point stands that if you're going to make claims like this, you need to back it up.
This is just one claim that doesn't have data to support it, and it took me like 15 minutes to discover. I am not of the belief that Islam is beyond criticism but if we're really going to have a discussion about this, then the data needs to be available.
Remember, it's always easier to be told than to find out for yourself. Doubly so when "scientific" data lines up with your biases.
After watching this video and seeing the statistic that 26% of American Muslims think that suicide bombings can be justified (with the cited source being Pew Research), I was taken aback. To be frank, it shocked the **** out of me.
So I checked out the bibliography: www.clarionproject.org/sites/default/files/By-the-Numbers-Bibliography.pdf
Specifically, I looked under the Pew Research sources. In none of these studies could I find the above statistic. The closest thing to it was that 81% of US Muslims believe that bombings can never be justified. Now, I am aware that the statistic in the video is referring to those between the ages of 18-29, so maybe the data is actually different, but the point stands that if you're going to make claims like this, you need to back it up.
This is just one claim that doesn't have data to support it, and it took me like 15 minutes to discover. I am not of the belief that Islam is beyond criticism but if we're really going to have a discussion about this, then the data needs to be available.
Remember, it's always easier to be told than to find out for yourself. Doubly so when "scientific" data lines up with your biases.
#73 to #15
-
anon (12/15/2015) [-]
I used to think like you regarding sample sizes. But the truth is it takes just 1,000 people to have a very reliable poll.
stats.stackexchange.com/questions/166/how-do-you-decide-the-sample-size-when-polling-a-large-population
stats.stackexchange.com/questions/166/how-do-you-decide-the-sample-size-when-polling-a-large-population
#21 to #18
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] Its because theyre just as bad as reddit. Disagree with someone? You dont have to come up with a logical response, just thumb it down!
The lady in this video is ignorant of the religion she claims to follow, even to the most basic concepts.
She calls herself and "Imam" when anyone with a first grade reading level of arabic would know that the word "imam" is a masculine word and can only be applied to a male. One who is not proficient in Arabic cannot be considered a reliable source of Islamic information.
Furthermore ignores the fact that such practices are against both the Quran and the Sunnah. The only time women can lead prayer is when there is no man available.
By rejecting this, through her actions she denies the Quran and the teachings of the prophet.
The lady in this video is ignorant of the religion she claims to follow, even to the most basic concepts.
She calls herself and "Imam" when anyone with a first grade reading level of arabic would know that the word "imam" is a masculine word and can only be applied to a male. One who is not proficient in Arabic cannot be considered a reliable source of Islamic information.
Furthermore ignores the fact that such practices are against both the Quran and the Sunnah. The only time women can lead prayer is when there is no man available.
By rejecting this, through her actions she denies the Quran and the teachings of the prophet.
#24 to #21
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] The christian bible also says women cant be priests, but we have those. Why? Because we dont live in the ******* stone age thats why.
She is an Imam, because her community accepts her as one. Whether that fits with what you want doesnt really factor into it.
She is an Imam, because her community accepts her as one. Whether that fits with what you want doesnt really factor into it.
#26 to #24
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] "Why? Because we dont live in the ******* stone age thats why"
Yeah come on guys, its 2015!
Gtfo SJW. If you dont believe in part of a religion, why would you want to be a part of it? It doesnt make any sense.
The fact is people like you cant come up with a religious reason as to why female priests or imams should be allowed. So instead you rely on "hurr durr its [insert current year] arguement, which holds no water.
!["Why? Because we dont live in the ******* stone age thats why"
Yeah come on guys, its 2015!
Gtfo SJW. If you dont believe in part of a religion, why would you want to be a part of it? It doesnt make any sense.
The fact is people like you cant come up with a religious reason as to why female priests or imams should be allowed. So instead you rely on "hurr durr its [insert current year] arguement, which holds no water.](http://2static2.fjcdn.com/comments/Quot+why+because+we+dont+live+in+the+stone+age+_5d15eacd497a71b2dc645715ea45ef1f.jpg)
Yeah come on guys, its 2015!
Gtfo SJW. If you dont believe in part of a religion, why would you want to be a part of it? It doesnt make any sense.
The fact is people like you cant come up with a religious reason as to why female priests or imams should be allowed. So instead you rely on "hurr durr its [insert current year] arguement, which holds no water.
#28 to #26
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] Well, I dont subscribe to any religion myself, all I know is, you dont see this **** from any other religion. Atleast not at a volume where it even registers compared to muslims.
Religions are no different than animals. You either evolve with your environment or you go extinct, and I am watching this **** with popcorn.
I dont want **** to spiral out of control, not really. But a part of me really wants to see what happens if it does.
I like how you call me an SJW when im opposed to muslim pandering though.
Religions are no different than animals. You either evolve with your environment or you go extinct, and I am watching this **** with popcorn.
I dont want **** to spiral out of control, not really. But a part of me really wants to see what happens if it does.
I like how you call me an SJW when im opposed to muslim pandering though.
#30 to #28
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] Your rhetoric is that of a SJWs. Youre not being opposed to Muslim pandering, youre being opposed to basic logic, and rationalize your opinions through irrational arguments.
Islam itself does not evolve, the specifics of its laws, and various debates over sunnah, do. Things are taken into account such as technology and the constantly changing nature of the average humans life.
The fact that you dont subscribe to the religion itself, is irrelevant to the matter. If you want to discuss a topic, you discuss it within the confines of the topic. If you want to prove wether or not something is Islamic, you dont refer to the Vedas or the Bible, you refer to the Quran and the sunnah.
By the way, I dont mean to come across as angry or confrontational, the way I talk over text may seem a little agressive.
Islam itself does not evolve, the specifics of its laws, and various debates over sunnah, do. Things are taken into account such as technology and the constantly changing nature of the average humans life.
The fact that you dont subscribe to the religion itself, is irrelevant to the matter. If you want to discuss a topic, you discuss it within the confines of the topic. If you want to prove wether or not something is Islamic, you dont refer to the Vedas or the Bible, you refer to the Quran and the sunnah.
By the way, I dont mean to come across as angry or confrontational, the way I talk over text may seem a little agressive.
#32 to #30
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] Plenty of devout people from various religions, practice their religion without following everything in it, because alot of stuff in there is outdated and not in line with modern life.
Really though, whether she is a legitimate practitioner of the religion in your eyes or not shouldnt really have any bearing on what is being said.
As an example, do you think an expert on Islam should not be listened to on matters of Islam, just because they arent themselves from an islamic background?
Really though, whether she is a legitimate practitioner of the religion in your eyes or not shouldnt really have any bearing on what is being said.
As an example, do you think an expert on Islam should not be listened to on matters of Islam, just because they arent themselves from an islamic background?
#33 to #32
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] "outdated and not in line with modern life"
You're still using the same argument. Youre not proving anything, youre just saying "its the present year therefore people shouldnt have to do x and y"
"Really though, whether she is a legitimate practitioner of the religion in your eyes or not shouldnt really have any bearing on what is being said. "
I agree, its not what I am saying that matters, its what Islam says on the topic.
"do you think an expert on Islam should not be listened to on matters of Islam, just because they arent themselves from an islamic background?"
An expert on Islam would know Arabic, Islamic history, Islamic law, etc. etc. If this woman doesnt know even a basic elementary grammatical rule, and the most basic Islamic practices, how exactly is she supposed to be a reliable source of Islamic knowledge?
You're still using the same argument. Youre not proving anything, youre just saying "its the present year therefore people shouldnt have to do x and y"
"Really though, whether she is a legitimate practitioner of the religion in your eyes or not shouldnt really have any bearing on what is being said. "
I agree, its not what I am saying that matters, its what Islam says on the topic.
"do you think an expert on Islam should not be listened to on matters of Islam, just because they arent themselves from an islamic background?"
An expert on Islam would know Arabic, Islamic history, Islamic law, etc. etc. If this woman doesnt know even a basic elementary grammatical rule, and the most basic Islamic practices, how exactly is she supposed to be a reliable source of Islamic knowledge?
#36 to #33
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] Not sure what im supposed to prove exactly. The world mentality is constantly changing, and refusing to change with it will only put the islamic world at odds with it, as evidenced by the rise in pushback from terrorists.
She isnt supposed to be a source of islamic knowledge, shes laying out statistics. Just because she doesnt uphold certain practices does not make her ignorant of them. It just means she makes her own choices instead of letting a book decide everything for her.
Or who knows, maybe shes a poser and doesnt know **** , I dunno.
She isnt supposed to be a source of islamic knowledge, shes laying out statistics. Just because she doesnt uphold certain practices does not make her ignorant of them. It just means she makes her own choices instead of letting a book decide everything for her.
Or who knows, maybe shes a poser and doesnt know **** , I dunno.
#37 to #36
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] Now youre using a bandwagon argument. Still not logical.
The pushback from terrorists isnt just because people disagree with them. It goes all the way back to the colonial rule in the middle east, the dictators that were propped in place once colonial powers left, the subsequent rise of fascism, communism, and secularism, the exploitation of natural resources, the indiscriminate killing of millions, and the constant unjustified invasions by other countries.
Its not like terrorists just woke up one day and said "These people across the atlantic disagree with me, I guess I better kill a bunch of Muslims!"
Perhaps youre unfamiliar with her background. It is true in this video she is pointing out some statistics, but even those statistics are skewed and wouldn't be taken seriously by any credible scholar on the matter. Her audience is the groups of people who are ignorant to much of whats going on, that is why she thinks she can get away with it.
If she wants to make her own choices instead of letting a book decide everything for her, why does she claim to follow the book? The sole requirement of being a Muslim is to believe in one God and in the Messenger of God. If you reject Gods words, and the words of the Messenger of God, why would she still claim to be a Muslim?
The pushback from terrorists isnt just because people disagree with them. It goes all the way back to the colonial rule in the middle east, the dictators that were propped in place once colonial powers left, the subsequent rise of fascism, communism, and secularism, the exploitation of natural resources, the indiscriminate killing of millions, and the constant unjustified invasions by other countries.
Its not like terrorists just woke up one day and said "These people across the atlantic disagree with me, I guess I better kill a bunch of Muslims!"
Perhaps youre unfamiliar with her background. It is true in this video she is pointing out some statistics, but even those statistics are skewed and wouldn't be taken seriously by any credible scholar on the matter. Her audience is the groups of people who are ignorant to much of whats going on, that is why she thinks she can get away with it.
If she wants to make her own choices instead of letting a book decide everything for her, why does she claim to follow the book? The sole requirement of being a Muslim is to believe in one God and in the Messenger of God. If you reject Gods words, and the words of the Messenger of God, why would she still claim to be a Muslim?
#41 to #37
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] Blindly following something and never questioning it is pretty much universally viewed as bad. Why should it be any different with religion?
I personally cant wrap my head around the concept of believing in big daddy in the sky though. All I know is, the catholic church has been getting more progressive over the years, and you dont see fundamentalist catholics ******** themselves and taking up arms over it. Then again, they have a centralized authority (Dat Pope) who can say "Listen up you little ***** , this is how we do now." Which is again, in my opinion, the wrong way to do things, just listening and eating up what you are told. But atleast its arguably good change coming from it in this instance.
I personally cant wrap my head around the concept of believing in big daddy in the sky though. All I know is, the catholic church has been getting more progressive over the years, and you dont see fundamentalist catholics ******** themselves and taking up arms over it. Then again, they have a centralized authority (Dat Pope) who can say "Listen up you little ***** , this is how we do now." Which is again, in my opinion, the wrong way to do things, just listening and eating up what you are told. But atleast its arguably good change coming from it in this instance.
#42 to #41
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] Not all religious adherents just blindly follow the religion.
I used to be an atheist, I always need a rational and logical reason behind believing or justifying something. It was for that reason I rejected all religion. It wasnt until I started researching the logic behind various religions, buddhism (my second favorite religion), Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, you name it.
The only religion which never failed to give me a logical and rational explanation behind its various beliefs and rulings, was Islam.
Some people may blindly follow a religion, but that doesnt mean there isnt a logical explanation behind the religious teachings. To say otherwise is a false equivocal argument
I used to be an atheist, I always need a rational and logical reason behind believing or justifying something. It was for that reason I rejected all religion. It wasnt until I started researching the logic behind various religions, buddhism (my second favorite religion), Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, you name it.
The only religion which never failed to give me a logical and rational explanation behind its various beliefs and rulings, was Islam.
Some people may blindly follow a religion, but that doesnt mean there isnt a logical explanation behind the religious teachings. To say otherwise is a false equivocal argument
#45 to #42
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] I dont doubt that pretty much anything in most religious texts has a reasoning behind it, but that doesnt make the reason a good one. I have no reason to question your assertion that Islam has a reasoning for all its rules and beliefs. But do they hold up? How many of those reasons are based in old knowledge which has since been found to be wrong?
#47 to #45
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] They hold up for all logical purposes or explain something that cannot otherwise be explained.
Islamic knowledge is kind of a general term. There are a lot of interpretations and theories done by scholars dating back hundreds of years, and a lot of it has been disproved either by other scholars at a later date or by science. Scholarly theories are just theories, they can be disproved and debated.
On the other hand, Quranic knowledge either cant be disproven or has been proven correct.
Islamic knowledge is kind of a general term. There are a lot of interpretations and theories done by scholars dating back hundreds of years, and a lot of it has been disproved either by other scholars at a later date or by science. Scholarly theories are just theories, they can be disproved and debated.
On the other hand, Quranic knowledge either cant be disproven or has been proven correct.
#69 to #26
-
drtrousersnake ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-] I was raised Lutheran but I have eaten pork/shrimp, wore composite material clothing, eaten meat other than fish on a Friday and have gone to work on a Sunday, so I guess that I can't be Christian because I haven't based my life on rules that were made during a simpler time to meet the needs of that time.
#23 to #15
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] Im agreeing with her because what she is against is the perpetuation of barbaric medieval practices. Once muslims stop producing an ever increasing rate of terror, maybe ill start listening to this "not every muslim" talk.
"Not every muslim" is no different than "Dindu nuffin".
"Not every muslim" is no different than "Dindu nuffin".
#27 to #23
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] Barbaric midieval practices eh?
As apposed to what? Throwing stone cold murderers and rapists in jail for a lifetime, costing millions of dollars just for a single criminal, all at the cost of the taxpayers money?
Nah, I dont think so.
As apposed to what? Throwing stone cold murderers and rapists in jail for a lifetime, costing millions of dollars just for a single criminal, all at the cost of the taxpayers money?
Nah, I dont think so.
#29 to #27
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] It only costs so much money because its a **** system which involves privatized jails. No idea why hard forced labor isnt a thing anymore.
Also, you cant have a justice system where a man can go "hurdur kill her, im a man so dont listen to what she has to say, her side of it doesnt matter, dur." and everyone just goes along with it because "hurdur hes right, he man, she not."
That "justice" isnt looking so hot when you take a look at the facts and realize that the bloody pulped remains of a human being you just got done stoning, woops, turns out they were innocent.
Get back to me when the idea of "justice" isnt biased as **** and maybe we can talk death sentence.
Also, you cant have a justice system where a man can go "hurdur kill her, im a man so dont listen to what she has to say, her side of it doesnt matter, dur." and everyone just goes along with it because "hurdur hes right, he man, she not."
That "justice" isnt looking so hot when you take a look at the facts and realize that the bloody pulped remains of a human being you just got done stoning, woops, turns out they were innocent.
Get back to me when the idea of "justice" isnt biased as **** and maybe we can talk death sentence.
#31 to #29
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] >Also, you cant have a justice system where a man can go "hurdur kill her, im a man so dont listen to what she has to say, her side of it doesnt matter, dur." and everyone just goes along with it because "hurdur hes right, he man, she not."
Where did I say that it should? Dont make a strawman.
>That "justice" isnt looking so hot when you take a look at the facts and realize that the bloody pulped remains of a human being you just got done stoning, woops, turns out they were innocent.
Thats why we have things like DNA testing, cameras, and other forensic technology. Huh, who woulda thunk!
The same argument could be used when jailing someone. How many times has it happened where someone was in jail for 20 years or more, then found to be innocent? Can you give those years back?
What is your alternative? Just toss murderers in jail for a couple years on the publics tab, then set them free and hope for the best?
Get real.
Where did I say that it should? Dont make a strawman.
>That "justice" isnt looking so hot when you take a look at the facts and realize that the bloody pulped remains of a human being you just got done stoning, woops, turns out they were innocent.
Thats why we have things like DNA testing, cameras, and other forensic technology. Huh, who woulda thunk!
The same argument could be used when jailing someone. How many times has it happened where someone was in jail for 20 years or more, then found to be innocent? Can you give those years back?
What is your alternative? Just toss murderers in jail for a couple years on the publics tab, then set them free and hope for the best?
Get real.
#48 to #31
-
flufflepuff (12/14/2015) [-]
"Just toss murderers in jail for a couple years on the publics tab, then set them free and hope for the best?
Get real."
Some criminals do change in prison. American prisons are really rapey and actually create worse criminals because of how ****** it is, but it would be possible to reform some of these people. Especially the criminals that are in there for something stupid like downloading music.
Get real."
Some criminals do change in prison. American prisons are really rapey and actually create worse criminals because of how ****** it is, but it would be possible to reform some of these people. Especially the criminals that are in there for something stupid like downloading music.
#51 to #48
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] What about the family or spouse of the victim? Are they not entitled to seeing the person who stole their beloved ones life brought to justice?
It should be up to the victims to decide whether or not to forgive the perpetrator.
It should be up to the victims to decide whether or not to forgive the perpetrator.
#53 to #51
-
flufflepuff (12/14/2015) [-]
"It should be up to the victims to decide whether or not to forgive the perpetrator."
While I do not disagree when we're talking about murderers, but this would make it a legal/public issue rather than a religious one, no?
I think sharia law prescribes death to murderers no matter what, does it not?
While I do not disagree when we're talking about murderers, but this would make it a legal/public issue rather than a religious one, no?
I think sharia law prescribes death to murderers no matter what, does it not?
#54 to #53
-
hatedpanda (12/14/2015) [-] Sharia allows for the victims to either punish, order blood money, or completely forgive the guilty.
#34 to #31
-
iqequalzero ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] I never said you said that, I was saying that the flawed cost intensive system of jails doesnt somehow make the alternative any better.
Its not a strawman when **** like that is actually happening. When a society has a mentality that makes it possible for people to just get riled up on the street and conduct on the spot lynch mob sentencing, something fundamentally wrong with their understanding of justice.
DNA testing? Forensic technology? I very seriously doubt that those tools are well established to a degree where its relied upon at all.
The alternative is to throw murders in jail and force them to work for their stay. Just because it isnt implemented, again, does not make the alternative any better.
People are so quick to be all gungho "just kill them, **** it", but I bet you wouldnt be so hot for it if you ended up in a situation where you were innocent, and died long before any actual evidence could come to light and save you.
Its not a strawman when **** like that is actually happening. When a society has a mentality that makes it possible for people to just get riled up on the street and conduct on the spot lynch mob sentencing, something fundamentally wrong with their understanding of justice.
DNA testing? Forensic technology? I very seriously doubt that those tools are well established to a degree where its relied upon at all.
The alternative is to throw murders in jail and force them to work for their stay. Just because it isnt implemented, again, does not make the alternative any better.
People are so quick to be all gungho "just kill them, **** it", but I bet you wouldnt be so hot for it if you ended up in a situation where you were innocent, and died long before any actual evidence could come to light and save you.
#17
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-]
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Using the numbers she used from that survey is simply ridiculous. Only thousands were polled in each country, and is then projected to represent millions. And how are we supposed to know where and when they were polled? Areas that are known to house more extremists and fundamentalists (i.e. poorer areas, areas with worse education, areas occupied/controlled by jihadists) will obviously have more people responding with radical answers to the survey. The rest of this video is excellent and well thought out, but continually citing a survey like that will only detract from your argument.
#82 to #68
-
nass (12/15/2015) [-] Not which country. But which region, city, district, block matters a lot. Ask a 1000 muslims who live in a gated community, have a family, a well payed job and are well integrated in the society. And then ask muslims who live in shady parts of town, with high crime, high unemployment, overfilled schools and no perspective. You'll get very different results.
I still agree with aspects of her video. Everybody is allowed to be criticised. Even muslims. But I feel there's too much generalization. For example with the "Sharia Law". I don't support it, I like democracy, because it allows me to practice Islam within it's (the democracies) boundaries. But if you ask an uneducated worker in Egypt if he wants Sharia Law, he'll say yes. Why? Not because he likes to throw rocks at women, but because it includes the 5 acts of worship and the basic aspects of Islam like the dietary laws (no pork, no drugs, no blood etc.) and the festivals like Ramadan and the Festival of Sacrifice. So asking muslims if they want the Sharia as a Y/N-Question is basically asking "Do you want Islam to be the religion of state or not?". And of course he'll say yes, he lives in country with the majority of people being muslim. And he won't have sense of Democracy. You can't just say "Y'all democratic now, have fun" It won't work, especially after years of dictatorship and/or monarchy.
Look at the German Revolution, it took over a hundred of years from the first democratical inspired revolution (1848) to build a working democracy. And 2 World Wars. And I fear it'll take a while until the Middle East and with it the Islam become proper democracies. I just hope we can skip the world wars.
Sincerely, a german muslim.
I still agree with aspects of her video. Everybody is allowed to be criticised. Even muslims. But I feel there's too much generalization. For example with the "Sharia Law". I don't support it, I like democracy, because it allows me to practice Islam within it's (the democracies) boundaries. But if you ask an uneducated worker in Egypt if he wants Sharia Law, he'll say yes. Why? Not because he likes to throw rocks at women, but because it includes the 5 acts of worship and the basic aspects of Islam like the dietary laws (no pork, no drugs, no blood etc.) and the festivals like Ramadan and the Festival of Sacrifice. So asking muslims if they want the Sharia as a Y/N-Question is basically asking "Do you want Islam to be the religion of state or not?". And of course he'll say yes, he lives in country with the majority of people being muslim. And he won't have sense of Democracy. You can't just say "Y'all democratic now, have fun" It won't work, especially after years of dictatorship and/or monarchy.
Look at the German Revolution, it took over a hundred of years from the first democratical inspired revolution (1848) to build a working democracy. And 2 World Wars. And I fear it'll take a while until the Middle East and with it the Islam become proper democracies. I just hope we can skip the world wars.
Sincerely, a german muslim.
#83 to #82
-
hudis ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-] "Not which country. But which region, city, district, block matters a lot. Ask a 1000 muslims who live in a gated community, have a family, a well payed job and are well integrated in the society. And then ask muslims who live in shady parts of town, with high crime, high unemployment, overfilled schools and no perspective. You'll get very different results."
Well, that was what I was referring to, but maybe I'm mixing it up with a different study. Been a while since I read it in any detail.
Well, that was what I was referring to, but maybe I'm mixing it up with a different study. Been a while since I read it in any detail.
#76 to #17
-
mylazy ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-] www.surveymonkey.com/blog/2011/09/15/how-many-people-do-i-need-to-take-my-survey/
www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/
It doesn't take near as many people as you think to get an accurate representation of a group. The first stats class you ever take would teach you this.
www.surveymonkey.com/mp/sample-size-calculator/
It doesn't take near as many people as you think to get an accurate representation of a group. The first stats class you ever take would teach you this.
#8
-
Titanasgr (12/14/2015) [-] I say we should take the war to the Muslims, but with psychological violence instead. Fill a few ICBMs with pork bellies and bacon, set them to explode above their toweled heads and watch as you doom millions of people to eternal damnation by serving tactical breakfast.
#5
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-]
In fairness, a lot of what is said about islam by the politicians is more likely an attempt to stop people being rampantly very bigoted in their views. A lot of people will proceed from 'These people are muslim terrorists" to "all muslims are terrorists" far too easily, without treating the individual at all.
#62
-
blackenvy (12/15/2015) [-] I live in a Muslim country and we never had these stonings might be an arab thing.
#75 to #62
-
congorepublic (12/15/2015) [-] Nah. Stoning is almost always in Pakistan/Afghanistan. It's more of a South Asian thing, since Pakis and Afghanis are not Arab.
#91
-
MRfunnyFACE ONLINE (12/15/2015) [-] What needs to happen, if what I heard from this video is absolute truth, is a complete break away between these obviously different groups in the religion.
The modern version of this religion needs to make a conscience official split from the barbaric medieval one
The modern version of this religion needs to make a conscience official split from the barbaric medieval one
#90
-
groulgarigon (12/15/2015) [-] I've read the PEW report. They interviewed more than 38,000 total muslims in the 39 countries selected. My question is this. Is 38,000 a reasonable sample size to apply a statistic to 1,600,000,000? It's certainly a forboding statistic but I'd prefer a larger sample size.
According to my understanding, the sample size needed to come to a 95% confidence level as far the number of people who support the execution of apostates is at least 57,131 people. And as far as the average percentage who believe this from all countries polled goes, at least 47,426 people are needed. For the honor killings statistic for a woman having premarital sex, at least 39,999 people are needed. As far as the statistic for the number of Muslims who believe Sharia Law should be enforced in majority Muslim countries, the sample size needed is 38,415, so that one is pretty close.
Here is a link to the calculator I used.
www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Really that is where most of my problems stem from. Every other conclusion is based off of 0.002375% sample size. If a statistic is going to be placed on an entire group I'd like for that sample size to be at least .1% of the group to which a statistic is being applied. This might be an unreasonable threshold in this case however as sample sizes being appled to larger populations are a bit less relevant. Even so, I would put money towards this study again to include a larger sample size.
Here's a link to the study. www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
I'm not arguing that Sharia Law has a place in modern society. It most certainly has no place in modern society. It is probably the most oppressive form of governing that has ever been introduced. I'm only questioning the quality of the research.
According to my understanding, the sample size needed to come to a 95% confidence level as far the number of people who support the execution of apostates is at least 57,131 people. And as far as the average percentage who believe this from all countries polled goes, at least 47,426 people are needed. For the honor killings statistic for a woman having premarital sex, at least 39,999 people are needed. As far as the statistic for the number of Muslims who believe Sharia Law should be enforced in majority Muslim countries, the sample size needed is 38,415, so that one is pretty close.
Here is a link to the calculator I used.
www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Really that is where most of my problems stem from. Every other conclusion is based off of 0.002375% sample size. If a statistic is going to be placed on an entire group I'd like for that sample size to be at least .1% of the group to which a statistic is being applied. This might be an unreasonable threshold in this case however as sample sizes being appled to larger populations are a bit less relevant. Even so, I would put money towards this study again to include a larger sample size.
Here's a link to the study. www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-overview/
I'm not arguing that Sharia Law has a place in modern society. It most certainly has no place in modern society. It is probably the most oppressive form of governing that has ever been introduced. I'm only questioning the quality of the research.
#64
-
lumpymandude (12/15/2015) [-] Before you people say "omg Glenn Beck", give it a look, well researched and recommended to me by my CO
