Considering that there are only 22 countries that *haven't* been invaded by the British, I think the rest of the world would have a thing or two to say about whether British nationalists are a problem or not.
The few people that *genuinely* want to enact a global Islamic caliphate can go be sent back to the Middle East if they want Sharia law so bad, though.
I mean yeah we all agree that extremism is wrong but it’s still textbook persecution fetish.
Accuse every one of X minority group of being extremists that want to kill you, say “the only way to defend ourselves is for us to kill them first,” advocate for extremism, then cry “persecution!” when rational, sane people call out your violent or oppressive opinions.
We also have stereotypical black gangster. The message of this meme isn’t “extreme Islamism is wrong,” it’s “the UK needs to rid itself of dark skinned people.” Their reasoning with the black dude is literally “he wants to kill us cuz he’s black.” It’s not like there’s some extremist religious views playing a factor with him, the thought process is “they’re dark skinned so they *must* want to kill me.”
Sharia law mainly only applies to Muslims. Well it is true that certain Muslim countries have applied Sharia law just to the country itself, many Muslims who want to live under Sharia law or doing it right now.
They don't do things like eat pork, drink wine, have copious amounts of sex, etc. The idea that Sharia law is something that applies to everyone is more of a relatively modern creation more in an attempt to actually legally codify Sharia law.
https://muslimsunrise.com/2018/11/14/islams-response-to-misconceptions-about-sharia-law/
Here are a bunch of misconceptions about Sharia law and one of them is that every Muslim one Sharia law in the country they reside in which isn't true. Sharia law is meant to be something that exists alongside the laws of the country and even in Muslim country is there is a difference between secular courts and religious courts.
Not only that but women actually were given a bunch of cool rights that they did not have before the adoption of Islam among the masses within the Arab peninsula.
1. **Prohibition of Female Infanticide**: Before the advent of Islam, female infanticide was practiced in some Arab societies. Islam strictly prohibited this practice, significantly improving the survival and rights of newborn girls.
2. **Recognition of Full Personhood**: Islam recognized women as full persons, which was a significant shift from earlier practices where women might be considered property or severely undervalued.
3. **Property Rights in Marriage**: Islamic law transformed the concept of the dowry from being a price paid to the bride's father into a nuptial gift that the wife retained as part of her personal property. This allowed women to own and manage their property independently of their husbands.
4. **Marriage as a Contract**: Marriage under Islamic law is viewed as a contract rather than a status. This change emphasized the importance of a woman's consent to marriage, rather than treating it as a transaction between men.
5. **Inheritance Rights**: Islam granted women inheritance rights in a patriarchal society that had previously restricted inheritance to male relatives only. This allowed women to legally receive a portion of the family estate.
6. **Personal Administration of Wealth**: Islamic law recognizes the rights of women to administer the wealth they bring into a family or earn on their own. This contrasted sharply with some contemporary legal systems, such as English Common Law, which often transferred a wife’s property to her husband upon marriage.
These reforms collectively marked a significant advancement in the legal and social status of women within Islamic societies compared to their status in pre-Islamic times and in other contemporary societies.
[1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_rights_of_women_in_history)
Not only that but the idea of a single Muslim man marrying a bunch of women, often has not quite the full story. So while it is true that Muslim men are able to take on multiple wives, in accordance with Islam, a Muslim man must be able to provide fully for all his wives meaning that it's pretty much only the rich that tend to take on multiple wives cuz they're the only ones that can afford it. The poor men are not the ones doing that. And in fact a lot of things that we associate with Islam have to do with class differences. For example face coverings such among women were not signs of oppression but actually signs of upper class and therefore the women that would wear them were wearing them not because of patriarchal oppression, but because of class. They were wealthier.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dharr_al-Ghifari
Not only that but the first caliph was also a socialist.
> So while it is true that Muslim men are able to take on multiple wives, in accordance with Islam, a Muslim man must be able to provide fully for all his wives meaning that it's pretty much only the rich that tend to take on multiple wives cuz they're the only ones that can afford it.
this isn't the defense you think it is. Making enough money to financially provide for multiple partners is *far and away* not the only thing required to have multiple partners ethically. Further, rich people are *more likely* to get away with things like rape and abuse because they can pay off authorities to get it ignored.
Except that I wasn't arguing that their system is completely ethical. I am saying that that system is not something that it is as widely practiced as people stereotypically say it is. Not only that but I'm referring to "in accordance with Islam" which by the way not even all Muslims actually live their lives by. Many of them do things that are actually against Islam, such as preventing women from getting education which is not allowed, and doing forced conversions which is not allowed.
[1](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/24/what-the-taliban-may-be-getting-wrong-about-islamic-governance)
I am not arguing for Islamic style polygamy. But what I am saying is that if you are going to criticize or argue against a religion you better know what you are talking about.
You should probably use more words then. The way you phrase things reads as the financial support being the only key to it being done ethically as you mention absolutely Fuck-all else.
And either way it's largely irrelevant because what *proof* do you have that this website's interpretation is the Real Islam and anyone who disagrees "doesn't know what they're talking about"?
> There is no single and absolute reading of Islamic law that can guide an Islamic state. It is all open to debate.
The website does not claim that they are the ultimate authority. It's also a news website. It is not one that is meant for scholarly debates about Islam. Not every Muslim who speaks about Islam is an Islamic scholar. Just like how not every person on the internet who speaks about US law is actually a lawyer.
Try to think of it like this. Let's say you have a fictional TV series that you have been watching for a while. They release episodes every week and you've been watching it very regularly. You love the show and you love the characters and it's really cool and it feels like the show has a very well thought out universe.
Eventually the show ends and you start seeing that the crew members are tweeting about different things and you think that's really cool. You love creators that engage with fans and talk like they are normal people. But then you start noticing that some of them start making weird declarations such as the names of parents and children who were never confirmed in the show, or the name of a person's hometown that they were born in. You think this is a little strange but you don't think too much of it because you find that the additions are relatively harmless. Nothing really contradicts what you have already known about the show and so you feel like it's harmless editions. But then you start noticing that they're really saying some big things such as backstories of characters and actual big lore dumps that are really hard to ignore now.
You are feeling really uncomfortable about the whole thing because now you and all of your friends and all of the communities on the internet are talking about what stuff is valid and which is not. None of these tweets come from the actual creator of the show but she is actually "❤️"ing a lot of tweets. What does that mean? What's going on? She's not denying it, but she's clearly acknowledging these tweets. Some people start pointing out how a lot of the tweets are actually contradicting themselves and then you point out how of course that's the case because these tweets aren't canon but then other people say that the tweets that have hearts on them by the creator, do not contradict themselves thus proving that the tweets are canon.
And now you've noticed that there are three main groups within the fandom, the people who accept all of the tweets, the people who accept none of them, and the people who accept some of them.
Anyway now alliances have informed and there's like cutest battles and people are making YouTube videos about the whole thing and everything and then someone who is not part of the fandom is telling you that this is pointless and you stare at them with the fire in your eyes and tell them
> No, it's important. I need to know the canonicity of the tweets because if I don't then my ship is ruined.
Eventually the creator says that none of the tweets are canon and realized that they should have said something before but didn't really know how to address it properly. Part of the fandom erupts into a shout of excitement realizing that they were correct while the others are quite upset.
Then the creator releases a supplementary book and you realize that the reason why she said that in the first place was to clear the air for her new book. Every fan reads it and it upsets you because you see that Damien and Clarissa who you shipped are actually brother and sister.
In case you're wondering, many of the different schools of thought of Islam don't really have much to do with which parts of the Quran people accept and which parts they don't because you have to accept it all. Unlike the Bible, the Quran is supposed to be the literal word of God. The Bible is considered the inspired word of God but the Quran is the actual word of God as dictated by God to his trusty dictation device called the Prophet Muhammad.
Instead a lot of the schools of thought have to do with things like a lineages and like which leaders should have been this or that or which caliphs are legitimate and which ones are not and things like that.
It's kind of like how sovereign citizens just decide to completely ignore parts of history or even works of legal documents because it's inconvenient for them.
Middle class men cannot afford four wives.
As I said, in accordance with Islam, a man must be able to provide fully and completely for each of his wives.
Do you know how expensive it is to be able to provide for a full grown adult who isn't working?
Women in Islam are not expected to work although they are allowed to. This means that if a woman in Islam decides they just want to yeet out of The workforce, then she is allowed to and she must be provided with what she needs to be able to live.
Women in Islam are not expected to provide the base necessities for a family. Only the man is required by Islam to provide necessities including things like rent, food, clothes, school, stuff, etc.
Women are not expected to provide for any of these things even if they are working, and even if they are wealthy, and even if they are wealthier than the man.
Islam does advise women provide for those things and to share the load but they are not obligated to.
I'm not going to let the if you do make more money than your partner and are not supplying base needs for the people in the house, I do think that's a little weird.
How much do you think the middle class in the Middle East is?
Iran’s middle class – those earning $11-110 a day
1,343.4$ per month is how much for a family of four without rent
348.7€ per month is how much for a single person without rent.
Yeah, that's not enough to be able to provide for four women.
If you can provide for four women on a single income, you are not middle class.
Stop reporting this comment, y’all. If we were going to remove this it would be long gone by now.
Disagree, yes, downvote, yes, reporting as bigotry has been done to death already so STAAAAHHHPPPP!
"Here is a strawman portrayal of multiple demographics, compared to a sanitized portrayal of an ideology. Why can't you see that this vilification is so much worse than this idealization? Who are you going to believe: me, or your lying senses?"
If this guy wants to be like Garrison he needs more labels. How am I supposed to understand his nuanced takes on the world if every single thing isn't labeled?!?!
Ah yes, British Media are famous to saying the problems society is currently facing are entirely the fault of ~~minorities~~ Britons...? In Bizarro World, maybe. Ours, not so much.
Considering that there are only 22 countries that *haven't* been invaded by the British, I think the rest of the world would have a thing or two to say about whether British nationalists are a problem or not.
The few people that *genuinely* want to enact a global Islamic caliphate can go be sent back to the Middle East if they want Sharia law so bad, though.
'Sent back'? 3/4 of the 7/7 bombers were born in the UK; the last one was born in Jamaica.
I mean yeah we all agree that extremism is wrong but it’s still textbook persecution fetish. Accuse every one of X minority group of being extremists that want to kill you, say “the only way to defend ourselves is for us to kill them first,” advocate for extremism, then cry “persecution!” when rational, sane people call out your violent or oppressive opinions. We also have stereotypical black gangster. The message of this meme isn’t “extreme Islamism is wrong,” it’s “the UK needs to rid itself of dark skinned people.” Their reasoning with the black dude is literally “he wants to kill us cuz he’s black.” It’s not like there’s some extremist religious views playing a factor with him, the thought process is “they’re dark skinned so they *must* want to kill me.”
Sharia law mainly only applies to Muslims. Well it is true that certain Muslim countries have applied Sharia law just to the country itself, many Muslims who want to live under Sharia law or doing it right now. They don't do things like eat pork, drink wine, have copious amounts of sex, etc. The idea that Sharia law is something that applies to everyone is more of a relatively modern creation more in an attempt to actually legally codify Sharia law. https://muslimsunrise.com/2018/11/14/islams-response-to-misconceptions-about-sharia-law/ Here are a bunch of misconceptions about Sharia law and one of them is that every Muslim one Sharia law in the country they reside in which isn't true. Sharia law is meant to be something that exists alongside the laws of the country and even in Muslim country is there is a difference between secular courts and religious courts. Not only that but women actually were given a bunch of cool rights that they did not have before the adoption of Islam among the masses within the Arab peninsula. 1. **Prohibition of Female Infanticide**: Before the advent of Islam, female infanticide was practiced in some Arab societies. Islam strictly prohibited this practice, significantly improving the survival and rights of newborn girls. 2. **Recognition of Full Personhood**: Islam recognized women as full persons, which was a significant shift from earlier practices where women might be considered property or severely undervalued. 3. **Property Rights in Marriage**: Islamic law transformed the concept of the dowry from being a price paid to the bride's father into a nuptial gift that the wife retained as part of her personal property. This allowed women to own and manage their property independently of their husbands. 4. **Marriage as a Contract**: Marriage under Islamic law is viewed as a contract rather than a status. This change emphasized the importance of a woman's consent to marriage, rather than treating it as a transaction between men. 5. **Inheritance Rights**: Islam granted women inheritance rights in a patriarchal society that had previously restricted inheritance to male relatives only. This allowed women to legally receive a portion of the family estate. 6. **Personal Administration of Wealth**: Islamic law recognizes the rights of women to administer the wealth they bring into a family or earn on their own. This contrasted sharply with some contemporary legal systems, such as English Common Law, which often transferred a wife’s property to her husband upon marriage. These reforms collectively marked a significant advancement in the legal and social status of women within Islamic societies compared to their status in pre-Islamic times and in other contemporary societies. [1](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_rights_of_women_in_history) Not only that but the idea of a single Muslim man marrying a bunch of women, often has not quite the full story. So while it is true that Muslim men are able to take on multiple wives, in accordance with Islam, a Muslim man must be able to provide fully for all his wives meaning that it's pretty much only the rich that tend to take on multiple wives cuz they're the only ones that can afford it. The poor men are not the ones doing that. And in fact a lot of things that we associate with Islam have to do with class differences. For example face coverings such among women were not signs of oppression but actually signs of upper class and therefore the women that would wear them were wearing them not because of patriarchal oppression, but because of class. They were wealthier. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Dharr_al-Ghifari Not only that but the first caliph was also a socialist.
> So while it is true that Muslim men are able to take on multiple wives, in accordance with Islam, a Muslim man must be able to provide fully for all his wives meaning that it's pretty much only the rich that tend to take on multiple wives cuz they're the only ones that can afford it. this isn't the defense you think it is. Making enough money to financially provide for multiple partners is *far and away* not the only thing required to have multiple partners ethically. Further, rich people are *more likely* to get away with things like rape and abuse because they can pay off authorities to get it ignored.
Except that I wasn't arguing that their system is completely ethical. I am saying that that system is not something that it is as widely practiced as people stereotypically say it is. Not only that but I'm referring to "in accordance with Islam" which by the way not even all Muslims actually live their lives by. Many of them do things that are actually against Islam, such as preventing women from getting education which is not allowed, and doing forced conversions which is not allowed. [1](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2021/8/24/what-the-taliban-may-be-getting-wrong-about-islamic-governance) I am not arguing for Islamic style polygamy. But what I am saying is that if you are going to criticize or argue against a religion you better know what you are talking about.
You should probably use more words then. The way you phrase things reads as the financial support being the only key to it being done ethically as you mention absolutely Fuck-all else. And either way it's largely irrelevant because what *proof* do you have that this website's interpretation is the Real Islam and anyone who disagrees "doesn't know what they're talking about"?
> There is no single and absolute reading of Islamic law that can guide an Islamic state. It is all open to debate. The website does not claim that they are the ultimate authority. It's also a news website. It is not one that is meant for scholarly debates about Islam. Not every Muslim who speaks about Islam is an Islamic scholar. Just like how not every person on the internet who speaks about US law is actually a lawyer. Try to think of it like this. Let's say you have a fictional TV series that you have been watching for a while. They release episodes every week and you've been watching it very regularly. You love the show and you love the characters and it's really cool and it feels like the show has a very well thought out universe. Eventually the show ends and you start seeing that the crew members are tweeting about different things and you think that's really cool. You love creators that engage with fans and talk like they are normal people. But then you start noticing that some of them start making weird declarations such as the names of parents and children who were never confirmed in the show, or the name of a person's hometown that they were born in. You think this is a little strange but you don't think too much of it because you find that the additions are relatively harmless. Nothing really contradicts what you have already known about the show and so you feel like it's harmless editions. But then you start noticing that they're really saying some big things such as backstories of characters and actual big lore dumps that are really hard to ignore now. You are feeling really uncomfortable about the whole thing because now you and all of your friends and all of the communities on the internet are talking about what stuff is valid and which is not. None of these tweets come from the actual creator of the show but she is actually "❤️"ing a lot of tweets. What does that mean? What's going on? She's not denying it, but she's clearly acknowledging these tweets. Some people start pointing out how a lot of the tweets are actually contradicting themselves and then you point out how of course that's the case because these tweets aren't canon but then other people say that the tweets that have hearts on them by the creator, do not contradict themselves thus proving that the tweets are canon. And now you've noticed that there are three main groups within the fandom, the people who accept all of the tweets, the people who accept none of them, and the people who accept some of them. Anyway now alliances have informed and there's like cutest battles and people are making YouTube videos about the whole thing and everything and then someone who is not part of the fandom is telling you that this is pointless and you stare at them with the fire in your eyes and tell them > No, it's important. I need to know the canonicity of the tweets because if I don't then my ship is ruined. Eventually the creator says that none of the tweets are canon and realized that they should have said something before but didn't really know how to address it properly. Part of the fandom erupts into a shout of excitement realizing that they were correct while the others are quite upset. Then the creator releases a supplementary book and you realize that the reason why she said that in the first place was to clear the air for her new book. Every fan reads it and it upsets you because you see that Damien and Clarissa who you shipped are actually brother and sister. In case you're wondering, many of the different schools of thought of Islam don't really have much to do with which parts of the Quran people accept and which parts they don't because you have to accept it all. Unlike the Bible, the Quran is supposed to be the literal word of God. The Bible is considered the inspired word of God but the Quran is the actual word of God as dictated by God to his trusty dictation device called the Prophet Muhammad. Instead a lot of the schools of thought have to do with things like a lineages and like which leaders should have been this or that or which caliphs are legitimate and which ones are not and things like that. It's kind of like how sovereign citizens just decide to completely ignore parts of history or even works of legal documents because it's inconvenient for them.
The poor men might have zero wives if the middle class men took four each.
Middle class men cannot afford four wives. As I said, in accordance with Islam, a man must be able to provide fully and completely for each of his wives. Do you know how expensive it is to be able to provide for a full grown adult who isn't working? Women in Islam are not expected to work although they are allowed to. This means that if a woman in Islam decides they just want to yeet out of The workforce, then she is allowed to and she must be provided with what she needs to be able to live. Women in Islam are not expected to provide the base necessities for a family. Only the man is required by Islam to provide necessities including things like rent, food, clothes, school, stuff, etc. Women are not expected to provide for any of these things even if they are working, and even if they are wealthy, and even if they are wealthier than the man. Islam does advise women provide for those things and to share the load but they are not obligated to. I'm not going to let the if you do make more money than your partner and are not supplying base needs for the people in the house, I do think that's a little weird.
You think someone making a few hundred thousand per cent year can't afford that?
How much do you think the middle class in the Middle East is? Iran’s middle class – those earning $11-110 a day 1,343.4$ per month is how much for a family of four without rent 348.7€ per month is how much for a single person without rent. Yeah, that's not enough to be able to provide for four women. If you can provide for four women on a single income, you are not middle class.
Is Iran the only country in the Muslim world? Don't tell me that labourers getting paid $11 per day are middle class.
Stop reporting this comment, y’all. If we were going to remove this it would be long gone by now. Disagree, yes, downvote, yes, reporting as bigotry has been done to death already so STAAAAHHHPPPP!
"Here is a strawman portrayal of multiple demographics, compared to a sanitized portrayal of an ideology. Why can't you see that this vilification is so much worse than this idealization? Who are you going to believe: me, or your lying senses?"
You think these cowards will ever evolve past “brown skin want hurt white skin” or are we just waiting for them to drop out of the gene pool?
I'm pretty those mfs don't even reproduce, they just grow on a lab
They are the prototypes to agent 47 which is why they're so underdeveloped
Yeah, right. The Sun, Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph, and The Spectator are all woke British media, folks.
The Guardian doesn't even support LGBT people or the only socialist party leader in decades.
And yet it's the closest thing to an objective major media outlet the UK has... Which says a lot.
The Byline Times and Novara like ableists and eugenicists
The British media is so hilariously skewed to the right. I can’t put into words how inaccurate this cartoon is…
Jesus. This is the kind of blatantly racist shit we used to look back on during the 2000s from like the 1950s! How is this just normal again now?
Lower stonks in 2008 combined with the immigrants scaring some folks by existing.
Discount British Ben garrison?
If this guy wants to be like Garrison he needs more labels. How am I supposed to understand his nuanced takes on the world if every single thing isn't labeled?!?!
Anyone know where one can buy those t-shirts that definitely exist?
https://images.app.goo.gl/9FJeZyXtkCmBB52W8
Where can I get an “Honor Killing Rocks” shirt
I think you have to kill some rocks, honorably.
But I like Dwayne...
Well he did just recently say he was thinking about voting for Trump so....
Ok maybe I'll throw a rock, always wanted to stone a politician.
I came to ask about "Kill Whitey".
Ewww Incel comment
Ah yes, British Media are famous to saying the problems society is currently facing are entirely the fault of ~~minorities~~ Britons...? In Bizarro World, maybe. Ours, not so much.
God it’s embarrassing being British sometimes 😞
There's times when it's not?
Remember when people felt a little bit of shame about doing vile racist charicatures?
We can all thank Trump for making some people think it's OK to be openly racist again.
It isn't like Puritans killed witches or anything.
whoever drew this needs re-education
Straight-up education would be a good start.
Ah yes, dealing with the aftermath of the sun setting on the British Empire in a very logical, rational way, I see.
Nobody likes flag shaggers, I agree with the Media on this one.
I'm kind of happy to see that this isn't just a USA problem.