Harry's Place

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Billy Graham.

I have recently travelled by road from northern Norway to the UK via western Europe. Not much evidence of this Moslem majority as yet; indeed very little sign until the attractively varied population of the UK.

This is frequently repeated claim. It assumes that there will be no influences on the youngsters born to Moslems living in these societies. But there will be. A Moslem friend told me his children were turned away from a British mosque for wearing jeans. They never went back.

“The demographic assumption upon which Amr Khaled’s thesis rest are dubious. They assume that birthrate trends continue indefinitely, and that cultural religious groups remain homogenous and unchanged over time. Those are very shaky foundations, in my view.”

To put it mildly. So why post a piece entitled “Within 20 Years Muslims Will become the Majority in Europe”, when that claim is complete bollocks?

To put it mildly. So why post a piece entitled “Within 20 Years Muslims Will become the Majority in Europe”, when that claim is complete bollocks?

It is a quote, you berk. The quotation marks are a clue.

Anon: Mr T has put the title within quotation marks. He is citing a quote, not his own opinion. Try to keep up.

I believe in these peoples mind, me and my family are also in that statistics counted as ‘muslims’ because we were born in Iran. I know at least half the so called “muslims” in Sweden are not practicing any religion but still being used in propaganda purpose to create fear among ordinary citizens that their ‘Christianity’ is in danger.

This would be an ecumenical matter.

The broader point that David T is making is surely to question that such nutters – or at the best, obsessives – are given importance by the government.

Devoutly religious Brown and his many believing colleagues seem to have taken it upon themeslves to give religious groups of all kinds privileged positions in policy and welfare delivery responsbility (on consultative committees, and in such as the New Deal for the workless, delivered by the YMCA in many parts of the country, and much wider plans are on the way to expand religious groups’ welfare power). In this vein their response to Islamism is to incorporate moderate (undefined) Muslims through subsidy and the usual raft of pompous consultations.

How spending public money on one set of god-bothering relatively tolerant glazed-eye religious enthusiasts to defeat another set of pop-eyed enthusiasts is going to rid us of the root cause of Islamicism’s intolerance – belief in literal readings of the Qur’an and the Sharia, which both agree upon, is perhaps beyond the wisdom of mere mortals.

That’s the point.

Classic stuff. This is beyond paranoid conspiracy. From the video -

“Therefore, their solution is to continue the provocation against the Muslims, and to continue to do things that would provoke the Muslims, who would make mistakes, such as bombings, and other unusual responses. Then the European people would say, ‘What’s this? What are they doing?’ Then they would have a pretext for what would follow.”

If only it wasn’t so easy to trip those Muslims up into silly little mistakes like bombings!

Its interesting to see how this loon and Geert Wilders agree on so many of the issues. Its lucky that we have Michael Buerk acting as a bulwark of wilful ignorance to protect us.

If the government keeps supporting Islamic clerics that turn out to be raving nutcases of one kind or another, perhaps that a sign that raving nutcases are the rule not any sort of exception.

David T, you don’t understand what moderate means, when used by the government. “moderate” = barking mad, but not murderous

“moderate” = barking mad, but not murderous

Surely you mean “not murderous in this country”? Viz Qaradawi, etc.

The Muslim Brotherhood and Al Quaeda have similar goals. The Islamisation of Europe and of the globe. They just have different tactics. This guy reveals his hard-line totalitarianist Islamism is no different from AQ’s.

Wilders grasps this. The Hamas leader’s son grasps this. When will political leaders wake up to the fact that in today’s world ‘Islam’ is more of a political ideology than a religion for ‘private use’?

I disagree about Brown, BTW. He’s as theologically illiterate as any secular liberal on Islam.

This is also the view of Douglas Murray (a highly unstable individual on the verge of an aneurysm).

This is also the view of Douglas Murray (a highly unstable individual on the verge of an aneurysm).

Cite?

Doulglas Murray? CSC? Would that be what Osama Saeed, the Muslim Brotherhood prospective parliamentary candidate for Glasgow Central, called a ‘right-wing stink tank’?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxAJKfoixhQ

TheIrie believes that gay rights are protected in Dutch Mosques?

Stuart believes incest is obligatory on Tuesdays in Utah?

TheIrie, are you quite mad?

You claimed Murray is highly unstable, which presumably means that you disagree with the statements you flagged. Then you start talking about Utah. In the video Murray makes no mention of Utah that I heard.

It never ceases to amaze me how preachers tend to assume they owe the conscience of their ‘flock’.

‘It never ceases to amaze me how preachers tend to assume they owe the conscience of their ‘flock’.’

Not just preachers, Sarah. How about trade union leaders?

As a member of UCU I find it objectionable that am told what I believe by Sally Hunt! Hunt speaks on behalf of ‘all members’ to give her opinion by dissing CSC’s recent research into Muslim attitudes to sharia (40% in favour) at British universities!

The UCU is a sick totalitarian organisation that doesn’t give a shit what the actual members think. It won’t hold a ballot of members on the proposed Israel boycott. That’s because they know they wouldn’t win.

And in 19 years we will have the BNP and other right-wing Governments in power.

In 21 years Muslims will be a minority in Europe again but the Middle East and Pakistan will have lots of new faces.

‘The University and College Union (UCU), like the majority of people, takes the threat of terrorism seriously. We welcome the recent emphasis the government has put on community cohesion in regards to tackling violent extremism, but we reject the headline-grabbing tactics of groups such as CSC.

Sally Hunt, UCU general secretary’

Interesting that he notes that ‘freedom of speech’ is a key ‘doctrine’ of the secular ‘religion’ of Europe without of course giving it any respect as a ‘religion’.

The strategy outlined by this preacher seems to have become common in Islamist circles.

There simply isn’t any point in committing acts of mass murder against a culture and civilisation that doubles over, spreads its cheeks and enthusiastically allows itself to be conquered.

As for the planned expulsions? Not on yer life!

The arrogance of europeans is such that they actually believe their culture to be immutable and permenant, when in fact it can easily be expropriated.

Native europeans have a very low bithrate. Muslims have a very high birthrate bulked up by mass immigration, a mass immigration which is increasing, and which is aided and abetted by both The Left AND the business community.

Added to this demographic nightmare is that fact that tens of millions of ageing euro-boomers will be popping their clogs over the next two decades.

Currently, over 40% of the children born in France are born to Muslim parents. This figure, obviously, will soon hit top 50%.

Now, any half-fool who can avail himself of basic arithmetic knows where this leads.

“L’empire Éclaté”, that’s where.

What’s more, in a craven gesture of precapitulation, the french have gone the extra mile ( kilometre?) of adding an entire wing to the Louvre to “celebrate the finesse” of islamic art.

No one flies the flag of finesse like The French. Not even Hyacinthe Bucket ( pronounced Boo-kay).

Europeans are like those stunned deer one sees standing on the roads in Ontario’s Algonquin Park in late evening. They’ll remain there mesmerised, staring into the headlights of an oncomming logging truck until it runs them right over.

Its interesting to see how this loon and Geert Wilders agree on so many of the issues.

See what I mean?

If Muslims become a majority in Europe, there is nothing anyone can do about it without following the Nazi route. But Muslims won’t be a majority in Europe, so it’s not even an issue.

Many Muslims are not particularly political. There are large Turkish ethnic groups in Europe, but few take religion seriously and even fewer are political about it. But they will not be the ones represented in delegations to the government – it will be the political few, who are more likely to be the radicals.

Well Amr Khaled is indeed right, the day we will see muslim soccermoms, then muslims will be a success in vestern europe

over 40% of the children born in France are born to Muslim parents

A lie

‘And in 19 years we will have the BNP and other right-wing Governments in power’ – the useful idiots gambit of fellow travelling. You are still Franz Von Papen and etc etc…

Many Muslims are not particularly political. There are large Turkish, Maghrebi and Pakistani ethnic groups in Europe, but few take religion seriously and even fewer are political about it.
But when they feel like expressing themselves aggressively,from driving cars in the street like it is a playground, or making their presence felt in an intimidating way, (I can give specific examples I have been involved in or witnessed in the UK, France, Belgium and Denmark) the old “warrior” Muslim badge becomes their convenient shield and a bad pattern of behaviour persists.

‘As for the planned expulsions? Not on yer life!’

No, Us effete decadent Europeans don’t have the foresight and moral clarity of the sainted Serbian Ultra-nationalists.

Basically this is the exhaltation of Liberal decay and stagnation undated from the fin de Siecle crisis with added demographic. It is hardly surprising that manicheans on both sides are so obsessed by it. It fortifies their notions of them and us, it makes the end of the liberal Kali Yuga seem at hand.

John Palubiski – “Currently, over 40% of the children born in France are born to Muslim parents. This figure, obviously, will soon hit top 50%.”

That’s.Such.Bullshit.

John Palubiski – “What’s more, in a craven gesture of precapitulation, the french have gone the extra mile ( kilometre?) of adding an entire wing to the Louvre to “celebrate the finesse” of islamic art.”

Because anything other than constantly screaming Islam is evil into the face of a Muslim is a form of capitulation, right?

The demographic assumption upon which Amr Khaled’s thesis rest are dubious. They assume that birthrate trends continue indefinitely, and that cultural religious groups remain homogenous and unchanged over time.

Oh, more than that. Whether it’s coming from Amr Khaled or your average wingnut, this prediction can only come true if all Muslims in Europe under-go bodily mitosis on a monthly basis for the next two decades.

Man, you guys are something special? What is this the British Nazi Wannabe Party?

The multicult experiment has turned Frankenstien on us, and we wont be able to handwring our way out of it.

Mike does it scare you that “others” can participate in discussion on internet? What do you suggest a universal firewall to stop non-whites and non-christians to participate :)

Back in the 70s, when I first read “L’empire Éclaté”, a work that argued for the impending collapse of the Soviet Union because of, though not exclusively due to, Muslim demographics, I thought the author had fallen on her fucking head.

Back in the Brechznev years the Soviet Union looked utterly invincible.

And where is it now?

Raggin’ on me for the Serbs and for France’s Muslim birthrate won’t make the probleme go away.

The French vaunt the fact *their* birthrate is the only one in Europe that is higher than the replacement rate.

The fact they’ve also the largest muslim community in Europe is but sheer coincidence, right?

C’est Molièresque!

C’est un cas de voila pourquoi ta fille est malade!

You see, when one subtracts the paltry number of babies born to native french women from that birthrate, it soon becomes clear just who is replacing whom.

And talking about this issue is a bit like trying to convincec hardcore leftists about the murderous nature of Hamas.

Even when a convert emerges and repeats the *islamophobic* pro-pos of the pro-Israel crowd, those leftists still won’t believe it.

An example: Oh, more than that. Whether it’s coming from Amr Khaled or your average wingnut, this prediction can only come true if all Muslims in Europe under-go bodily mitosis on a monthly basis for the next two decades.

What is the true number of Muslims living in France?

France’s elites don’t really want to know, and generally place the number at around 5 million.

However, more realistic figures, the ‘islamophobic’ ones, put the number as high as 8 million.

There are now whole islands of Islam in France where french law, for all practical purposes, is no longer applied, and acres of surburan sprawl where french police no longer dare venture to apply that law.

Every year these islands expand, and people who’ve frequented France, and in particular Paris since the 70s, (as some of my French Canadian workmates have) know this to be true.

The West has just begun the 21st century, but long before it will have elapsed, we could well find ourselves back at the beginning of the 12th.

An important point. Although I agree that Muslims will not be a majority in Europe within 20 years, they will be firmly entrenched in Europe within 10.

If current demographics remain, their numbers will grow steadily. This reality can be dismissed, but the results are suicidal.

When Muslims become too prevalent for comfort are Europeans going to try to convince them to stop breeding, or will they suggest something more exctreme?

I wonder what the responses will be if the current trend does remain as it is now for the next 20 years.

I was thinking that the 40% of all children born in France was close to the truth, but in 10 years time 40% of people below 21 will be Muslim. I will have sold up and left France by then.

The Soviet Union collapsed, in part, because of rising birthrates of Muslims? Is this seriously your argument?

Man, you guys are something special? What is this the British Nazi Wannabe Party?

Didn’t read the post I take it

“Mike does it scare you that “others” can participate in discussion on internet? What do you suggest a universal firewall to stop non-whites and non-christians to participate :)”

No I prefer to leave the hair brained censoring up to repressive regiems like Iran, I find it frankly amazing how recorded stonings get hushed up so well. Besides its individuals like Amr Khaled which seem to think they live in insulated societies after all he is the one forcasting/promoting a cultural revolution in Europe.

“The arrogance of europeans is such that they actually believe their culture to be immutable and permenant, when in fact it can easily be expropriated.” – John Palubiski.

Somewhere in this stew of words is a meaning struggling to get out. Actually, I think it might help if certain people’s expropriated European culture; Americans for example.

Mr Palubiski clearly believes certain things as givens. Firstly, all Moslems are the same and incapable of assimilating by choice as have, to give examples, the Chinese or Jews. Secondly, that the effects of a living culture only work in one direction. But the essential fact in which Mr Palubiski seemingly believes is that democracies are weak, effete, and (inter alia) must be saved from themselves. Now where have I heard that before?

Well, John Palubiski, what do you propose to do about it? Muslims are citizens and unless you are going to forcibly convert them, strip them of citizenship and expel them or liquidate them, you’re going to have to put up with them, aren’t you?

The Soviet Union collapsed, in part, because of rising birthrates of Muslims? Is this seriously your argument?

It isn’t *my* argument. It was the argument of the author of the work cited, and I believe it’s now safe to say she’s been vindicated.

In the Soviet Union Muslim birthrates remained very, very high, whereas those of ethnic Russinas and Ukranians plumeted.

One of the main reasons the USSR imploded was because there were no longer a sufficient number of ethnic Russians to maintain effective contrôle over the Central Asian “Stans”,

In the 60s the Soviet Union was, at best, 20% Muslim. Were it still around today that figure would probably be well over 60%.

But the essential fact in which Mr Palubiski seemingly believes is that democracies are weak, effete, and (inter alia) must be saved from themselves. Now where have I heard that before?

My, my Larkers. I’m bulking up an uncertain and fragile masculinity (flips wrist!) by trashing effete democracy?

Such profound insight.

Bet you hold a Masters Degree.

Newsflash!

It isn’t democracy itself that is effete, but rather some of the slovenly inhabitants of said democracy who feel that all can be maintained without having to think nary a negative thought about anything or anyone.

People like you.

For those of you hoping (rocks self gently back and forth) that Muslim birthrates will decline as assimilation to a western way of life proceeds, need only take a look at the high, and remaining so, muslim birthrates of both Bosnia and Albania and compare them with the birthrates of non-muslims in The Balkans.

Had an interesting experience while on vacation in Québec’s Lac St-Jean a few weeks back.

The region is isolated, has virtually NO immigration and a very low birthrate typical of most western nations.
It presents a portrait of what The West would look like sans immigration.

I didn’t get it at first. Everywhere I went I was served by people with salt ‘n pepper hair. I thought that the young people must have been attending a music festival somewhere, or something cuz, like, I don’t believe in the Pied Piper.

Exasperated, I finally approached a middle-aged waitress and asked her where all the young people were.

She looked at me, cocked her head sideways and asked: “What do you mean?”

My guess-and you might want to disagree-is that most of ‘em were washed down the sinks at local abortion clinics.

At the behest of various, nefarious boyfriends.

Islamists will not need a Muslim majority to take control of Western Europe. They just need to continue to intimidate the majority with violence and threat of violence which is working very well for them untill the majority surrenders to the Islamists for the sake of “peace in our time”.

Amr Khaled would seem to be to the Islamic demographic threat what Al Gore is to the carbon emissions Climate change threat!

“Bet you hold a Masters Degree.”

You loose. Please pay a small sum into a charity.

A gentleman can never be said to have arrived. You will not understand that, but, then, that is the whole point.

when I read john pabusky I feel an urge to convert to islam and have 15 children just to make him happy!

but then again, my mother is not a muslim and she had 12.

now i am a bit confused.

once pabuski reacted to a comment of mine saying that big families were a terrible thing, etc, etc, etc.

now he is implicitely criticizing families of native european origin for their low birth rates.

I am confused.

but I am dumb, so it’s normal that i am confused. My genes are weak, it’s probably because in the middle ages my ancestors all spoke arabic or something like that.

what strikes me is that people who worry about the demographic strategy always refrain from suggesting what should be done to go against it, namely: mass sterilizations, expulsions and God knows what else will cross into their sick minds, plus sending the native european women home to become baby factories like ceausescu wanted to do with romanian women with the fine results that we know.

david all:
it’s not only a matter of intimidation, but also of indifference. I’ve had very bitter disagreaments with women who call themselves progressives for criticizing their multi-culturalist ideals and i have been accused of not respecting other people’s cultures for considering that it is important t defend the rights of women of non-european culture. On their black and white mentalities, I was a racist who was patronizing those ‘cultures’.

many people prefer to defend an abstraction called ‘culture’, that is essentialized and sterotyped versions of non-european cultures, than to stand up for concrete cases of people who are oppresed by their in-group.

in this sense I totally agree with hirsi ali criticisms regarding dutch society.

David T

You state the demographic assumptions are ”dubious”, and that the foundation’s of the argument are ”very shaky”.

Why does that not reassure me, Islam IS changing Europe, The multicultural state was designed to give smaller marginalised groups a disproportionate political voice, But none up to know have had the potential to use it for anything more than getting recognition of their right to be treated like everybody else.

Islam has an entirely different agenda, It doesnt want to be accepted like other social groups, It demands not equality but recognition of it’s difference and special ‘rights’, and no group in europe is more homogenous than muslims

Maybe you are correct and i’m totally wrong, But i think it’s a question of ‘watch this space’…..closely.

I’d love to have 12 children

However

- they’re expensive

- they’re time consuming.

Birthrates go down in Western societies, for people of all cultural origins, once their socioeconomic status alters.

It is possible, though, to choose a life of poverty and child rearing. My guess is that this will work for a generation or two at the most. After that, the temptations of the west will be too great.

Has anybody looked at the demographics of third/fourth generation birthrates

I think you also have to make a distinction between Islamist organisations, and people who are Muslims.

Islamist organisations may well agitate in precisely the way you describe: and will do so in the name of Muslims. They have zero legitimacy. They have no mandate to represent Muslims. And, in any case, a modern state should neither outsource or defer to pressure groups when setting its policies.

I know some Muslims who are active Islamists, but many many more who are hugely opposed to this politics.

david T: whenever you fell like having 12 children you can trow a party for your kids and invite their class mates :-)

it’s much more practical, I am sure my mother would agree.

islamist organizations say that to turn muslims into their hostages and to provoke a hostile reaction on the part of mainstream society so that then the muslims will feel forced to close ranks.

people like john pabuski are doing islamist extremists a favour. they are lending them an appearance of legitimacy that of course they don’t have.

but then again, my mother is not a muslim and she had 12.

now i am a bit confused.

once Palubski reacted to a comment of mine saying that big families were a terrible thing, etc, etc, etc.

now he is implicitely criticizing families of native european origin for their low birth rates: Sarah Franco@ 6:54 PM

Yes, you’re confused.

And a grande coquette!

You look up.

You look down.

You look left.

You look right.

But you never look straight ahead.

Very large families ( my aunt had 11) are wrong because it is an abuse of women and also because there is little quality in the upbringing of the kids, owing to the fact there are so goddamned many of them.

However, to overreact and to then limit family size to…say… a stingey 1.111 children per female, as is now the case all over The West, is just as stupid.

Ever heard of the *just mean*, Sarah?

What sayeth thou to 3 OR 4 kids before crossing legs and encountering menopause?

Islamists will not need a Muslim majority to take control of Western Europe. They just need to continue to intimidate the majority with violence and threat of violence which is working very well for them untill the majority surrenders to the Islamists for the sake of “peace in our time”.

I agree, and here’s an example of how they’re doing it:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121797979078815073.html

Being born in ‘57, I’ve spent my entire life listening to people born in ‘47 speaking-truth-to-power, denouncing The Vatican, the CofE, the Lutherens and the Baptists.

And it is this same shallow, superficial generation that has dominated gov’t and business for the past 20 years.

Not to mention the publishing industry.

Freedom of speech isn’t some passive piece of legislation filed away somewhere in a vault.

It is a work in progress and must be constantly defended by successive generations actively upholding its prinicples.

Failure to uphold those principles vis a vis islam, means we will one day be condemned to embrace it.

It’s just that simple.

And I must say that the denial encountered on this thread has been overwhelming.

That said, I tend to disagree with the timeleine established by this cleric.

It won’t happen in just 20 years.

It could perhaps take 25.

well, in 25 years I hope to be around to check if you are right.

it just happens that if we look into the past we find all kinds of catastrophic predictions for the following 20 to 25 years that never became true.

so allow me some scepticism.

Well, John Palubiski, what do you propose to do about it?

Any proposals I’d put on the table would immediately be pounced upon and declared racist by the likes of Dany-the-red or B. Kouchner.

I’d love to know the identities of those who concoted our current immigration policies (and social ones), if only to charge them with treason.

What individual, in his/her right mind, would ever import 10s of millions of people from a culture that has shown Europe nothing but hostility for the past 14 centuries?

It’s insanity, and it’s an insanity borne of naked greed that defends itself by labelling all those who oppose it as *racist* and *bigot*.

Think about it, if multiculturalism can, as some maintain, suck and blow at the same time, and if it was as peachy-keen and as cutesy-pie as so many in the boardrooms claim, then what the fuck happened to the Austro-Hungarian empire?

And that brings me right back to “L’empire Eclate”

Remember Chamberlain and Daladier, remember the Munich spirit. The présent denial attitude is exactly the same. And yet Amr Khaled is showing exactly what is happening and we bury ou heads in the sand.

David T wrote: And, in any case, a modern state should neither outsource or defer to pressure groups when setting its policies.

In the real world of modern state-dom, all too often, they do!

Sometimes, this is fairly benign, and the social consequences are pretty neutral or even arguably, slightly positive – such as the consequences of the lobbying by the NRA in America in relation to the freedom of civilian Americans to own and discharge firearms.

Sometimes, it is very distinctly malign, such as the excessive deference to the imperatives of superstitious organisations. I have in mind the British state’s funding of superstition centric education in the UK and in the quite notably excessive ‘bending over backwards’ to Islamic ‘proclivities’.

“The broader point that David T is making is surely to question that such nutters – or at the best, obsessives – are given importance by the government.”

However, when an anti-Muslim bigot like Melanie Phillips – who is regularly given a platform by the BBC – repeatedly makes hysterical predictions about the Islamisation of Europe, based on an equally ridiculous demographic analysis, Harry’s Place does not regard that as worthy of mention, still less hostile criticism.

“I’d love to have 12 children

However

- they’re expensive

- they’re time consuming.”

Good for you David. But you are approaching that analysis from a very westernised and modern point of view. You are assuming that you would be expected to pay for the upkeep of 12 children. In fact you would probably feel embarassed at the thought of topping up your income with state handouts. You are also assuming that it would be unfair to impose such a burden of work on your wife.

The adherents of islam hardly care about such things. There is, in the islamic tradition, no shame in taking money from infidels. Islam has always reserved the right to tax infidels. And a steady stream of brides being brought in from the subcontinent means a continuation of the subservient status of islamic women as brood mares and beasts of burden. Illiteracy and innumeracy are great insulators from the influence of western society.

We have come to regard certain human traits as universal. The ambition to be successful, comfortable, to fit in and be respectable and well liked. The feeling that we are all equal, all first class citizens, regardless of colour, creed, gender, disability. Those aspirations are not universal at all. If they were, we would not have seen persecution and mass murder in the former Yugoslavia, the Sudan, Burma, Cambodia, Zimbabwe, Rwanda etc.

It’s about time we stopped viewing the world through beer-goggles. We have no excuse for doing this, it is infantile, and it makes me wonder: Who is really in denial here?

“Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

In other words- pay up sucker.

And the preacher in your article has effectively broken cover, and he is shouting “Guys, guys, pull your horns in- we have overplayed our hand. The filthy kaffirs have rumbled us.”

And I reckon he has a point.

The Prophet Muhammed (May the Peace and Blessings of God Be Upon Him) stated in an authentic narration, that on the Day of Recompense & Ressurection there will be Prophets of God (Peace Be upon them) who will have small groups standing behind them, indeed some will have nobody (ie they called to the Oneness and Worship of the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, but their nations rebuked them), but my Ummah (community) on that Day will be the greatest, as I am the final Messenger to mankind. In other narrations the Prophet (pbuh) encouraged the formation of bigger families with the requisite that children are nurtured upon the Truth, morality, God conciousness and righteousness. So you see Muslims are obliged to have large families where the children are taught that there is much more to existence than this transitory period of 60 years (if your lucky) and that there is an eternal life to come where the only currency will be virtueous deeds and worship. With such emphasis on the Hereafter people who have entered the fold Islam in its totality resent the notions of disrespect towards their parents, drinking till th cows come home with the odd cry of ‘Get yer tits ouuuut’, or living life without a moral compass. Anyway its late now, must go and enjoy some ladies and gentelman with the wife, we have 4 and counting…God Bless You and Britain.

Has anybody looked at the demographics of third/fourth generation birthrates

But the balkans are subject to much the same pressures as other regions of The West, and yet Muslim birthrates there remain as high as ever.

In fact, they may be partly to blame for the events of the 90s.

Also, the fact that second and even third generation Muslims living in western countries can be more radicalised than their parent’s generation bodes very badly for those hoping birthrates will decline.

Why? Because islamic fundamentalism is extremely misogynistic, and as a general rule of thumb, the more women are disempowered, the more children they tend to have.

My guess is that this will work for a generation or two at the most. After that, the temptations of the west will be too great.

You guess?

I once watched a french documentary ( well, several actually) about the problemes of unassimilated Muslims in the ‘hexagone’,

In one segment the journos interviewed a Turkish women who’d arrived in France in ‘79, who still couldn’t speak a word of french, who remained completely apart from french society and who had 9 children after arriving.

At one point she was asked about why she had had so many kids.

She stated that had she remained in Turkey she’d have had fewer ( “only” six) of them, but that seeings France’s welfare systeme was so generous, she decided to avail herself of every publique sous ‘available’ in order to have YET more offspring.

I might even add that for some Muslims The West’s ‘temptations’, far from being desirable, often serve to galvanise and intensify the faith even further.

The website below is a bit over the top, but the story remains true nonetheless.

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/02/12/we-will-outbreed-you-with-the-bellies-of-our-women-update/

Sarah Franco: You have the current mentality of the typical western multi-culturalists right. They are convinced that “western” values are inheritly bad and non-western values are inheritly good. When confronted with evidence to the contrary they inevitably cite past western offences such as colonialism or the crusades etec as the reason a non-white or “people of color” such as Muslims from the Middle East would be intolerant of criticism. These multi-culturalists frequently end up in effect defending values such as killing gays and oppressing women as result of siding with those who are intolerant because they are considered non-western and therefore by definition right.

It is at best dangerous and at worst suicidal for a culture to defend those who are intolerant of differing viewpoints. But that is what happening particularly in Western Europe, but also in the United States as well as Asra Nomani’s column in today’s Wall Street Journal points out. She writes about the suppression of a historical novel based on the life of Aisha, a young wife of the Prophet Mohammed. With editors and publishers giving in to the mere hint of Islamist Terrorism, the road to surrender for the sake of avoiding trouble is well advanced. Thank you, John Palubiski for linking to this disturbing story.

Note: Asra Nomani knows well the price of Islamist Terrorism. She was a close friend and colleague of murdered Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. It was at her house in Karachi, Pakistan in early 2002 that Daniel and his wife Marianne were staying at when he was abducted by Islamist terrorists who latter beheaded him.

Currently, over 40% of the children born in France are born to Muslim parents. This figure, obviously, will soon hit top 50%.

Where’s your evidence for this, John? It’s always been my understanding that the French constitution prohibits the census from any reference to religion; at least it has done since the end of the Third Republic. Demographers are forced to rely on estimation when compiling data on the topic. Yet you appear to have a firm figure for Muslim births – 40%. May I ask where it came from?

A few thoughts on demographics…

In the 60s the Soviet Union was, at best, 20% Muslim. Were it still around today that figure would probably be well over 60%.

As someone paid to keep an eye on such things, this is also strikes me as highly unlikely (even though it’s true that some – but by no means all – of the nominally Muslim peoples of the region do have relatively high birth rates, and also, unlike some of the non-Muslim peoples of the region, tend less to shorten their life expectancies by getting pissed out of their mind less frequently).

I’m quite sure, though, that it isn’t an absolute majority of the population ,or even very close to that (even if you take the word “Muslim” to mean those whose peoples have historically been culturally such, rather than meaning those who actually adhere to any kind of Islamic religious practice)

If I have time I will dig out the latest census figures from all of the ex-USSR republics and do the math as best as the numbers permit.

(Obviously this will be approximate: as some of the censuses, including the most recent one in Russia, are not necessarily well conducted or fully accurate, and, as, in general “natsionalnost” – - more like “ethnicity” than “nationality”, rather than religion, as such, is the identifying factor measured. But as the two things are, approximately – and nominally – equated (and as, eg, Christian Tatars are categorised separately from other Tatars), one should be able to draw some kind of conclusion.

And the idea that the USSR collapsed because of difficulties in controlling the Central Asian republics is…interesting (not least as policies of imposing Russian rulers at the republican level were far from consistent during the Soviet period, and the fact that these were the very places that were most reluctant, and hesitant to break away from the USSR goes some way to indicate this: as does the fact that several of them have had the same leadership, or elements thereof, from the early or mid-1980s to the present day). Sure, there has been large scale Russian outmigration from most of the Stans (not so much Kaz, though), SINCE 1992….

The French vaunt the fact *their* birthrate is the only one in Europe that is higher than the replacement rate.

The UK’s is, too, and (OK it’s a small country…but one that has played an important role historically in defining and shaping European Christian culture) Ireland’s birth rate is still way, way, higher than the death rate (and unlike the birth rates in France and the UK that has very little to do with immigration).

Indeed, as someone who’s spent far too much time (in the past; last time about 5 years ago) trawling through official French statistical publications on demographics, any reference to religion (or ethnicity) has been strictly prohibited: data on the citizenship of foreign citizens resident in the Republic was permitted. So I’m not sure quite where figures on religion would come from – I’d be interested to learn.

They assume that birthrate trends continue indefinitely, and that cultural religious groups remain homogenous and unchanged over time. Those are very shaky foundations, in my view.

Assumptions are shaky by definition, including converse assumptions.

Resting Europe’s future on the assumption that Muslim culture will change over time is also risky.

We are being outbred, by a factor of 3 to 1, by islam, in the UK.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1890354.ece

What do we do, or what do our children do, when this is not our country anymore? Because there is nowhere left to run to.

We are being outbred, by a factor of 3 to 1, by islam, in the UK.
[...]
What do we do, or what do our children do, when this is not our country anymore?

Leaving aside your nasty and slack-brained little implications, if this 3:1 birthrate continues, it won’t be our children, or even our grand-children. At that rate, it would take 180 years to reach parity. That’s six generations.

Given both current birthrates and current levels of immigration, we’re going to lose the country to the Catholics long before we lose it to the Muslims.

French statistics do not give ethnic or religious characteristics. However it might be simple enough to check that the “département” which has the highes natality rate is the Seine Saint Den is (93) – (that’s where cars regularly burns and poilice are injured with firearms) and the first currently give name is Mohammad.

we’re going to lose the country to the Catholics long before we lose it to the Muslims.

And that’s meant to be comforting?

David H,
You are full of shit,
>I was thinking that the 40% of all children born in France was close to
>the truth, but in 10 years time 40% of people below 21 will be Muslim. I
>will have sold up and left France by then.

According to French government statistics, 4% of the countries population is ‘muslim’.
(WiKi is not 100% accurate, but it is much better than the BS you are spreading here).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France

The statistics you are referring to is bogus.

Monty
>We are being outbred, by a factor of 3 to 1, by islam, in the UK.

>What do we do, or what do our children do, when this is not our country
> anymore? Because there is nowhere left to run to.

Maybe because most british men prefer football to sex (search google for it and you will see the statistics).

Dan
>If Muslims become a majority in Europe, there is nothing anyone can do
>about it without following the Nazi route. But Muslims won’t be a
>majority in Europe, so it’s not even an issue.

Dream on brother, Serbs tried to do it in former Yoguslavia, we all know what happened to them :)

we’re going to lose the country to the Catholics long before we lose it to the Muslims.

If only.

(Although presuming the country of which you speak is the UK, what makes you think that one cannot be both British and Catholic, or for that matter British and Muslim? It’s not as if the sect that the monarch is earthly head of has such a bright and shining future, having allowed liberal fools to tear it apart over the last century or more, does it? Quite apart from the fact that the circumstances of its foundation were rather un-holy, too)

If only.

Oh, it’s entirely true. Given current birth and immigration stats, Britain will have a majority Catholic population long before it has a majority Muslim one. Of course it’s a moot point given how long it would take to achieve either – by that time, we’ll all be bisexual atheist Marxists and holidaying on Mars.

Although presuming the country of which you speak is the UK, what makes you think that one cannot be both British and Catholic, or for that matter British and Muslim?

I wasn’t being entirely serious. I just assume those who are outraged by the idea of “losing” Britain to a Muslim “majority” (and think this an impending danger) would be similarly outraged by losing it to a Catholic one.

It’s not as if the sect that the monarch is earthly head of has such a bright and shining future, having allowed liberal fools to tear it apart over the last century or more, does it?

Are you drunk? The influence of these “liberal fools” is what makes Anglicanism the only monotheistic religion on Earth that is even remotely tolerable, and the only one that has any realistic chance of surviving the next century.

Quite apart from the fact that the circumstances of its foundation were rather un-holy, too

Pleasingly so.

‘rather un-holy’ – a common aliment of Sky-pixie jamborees.

I would laugh tho if some nutters on the right started on about the ‘popish’ demographic threat and crowing that Peel and Wellington were merely dupes of Rome. Would add a little colour…

Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non-Muslim one.

So Muslims make up 9% of births, you retard Monty (not outnumbering 3:1)

The tone of this thread is racist. If you fear a minority group having many children, you are a racist. The idea that Europe will become a Muslim continent and then abolish the European secular model is so utterly utterly absurd – there’s no evidence for it, and it feeds popular Islamophobia.

If you fear a minority group having many children, you are a racist.

I fear Catholics having too many children. I also fear Mormons, Scientologists and Hari Krishna having too many children as well. Am I racist?

Anglicanism will be lucky to survive a decade after Prince Charles ascends to the throne, if it lasts that long

bisexual atheist Marxists are SOOOOOOOOOOOO 20th century.

Morgoth, you’re a strange libertarian that supports a family policy of which the authorities of the People’s Republic of China would be proud.

Free market of ideas, the right to change religion and all that.

Well the recent Shannon Matthews scam rather freaked me out. Am I a racist too?

In the 60s the Soviet Union was, at best, 20% Muslim. Were it still around today that figure would probably be well over 60%.

Venichka, the figure of 20% is fair. Were the Soviet Union around today the Muslims would constitute the majority. Demographics can be a candle burning at both ends; one group of people shrinks in number ( as is the case with ethnic Russians and Ukranians) while a competing group grows by leaps and bounds.

Ethnic Russians have abandonned Central Asia, but Central Asia hasn’t abandonned Russia proper which is now 20% MUslim.

It’s not as though the absolute number of ‘Soviet’ muslims has tripled since the 60s-although they HAVE grown a lot- it’s as much a case of the number of Russians actually SHRINKING.

Indeed, as someone who’s spent far too much time (in the past; last time about 5 years ago) trawling through official French statistical publications on demographics, any reference to religion (or ethnicity) has been strictly prohibited: data on the citizenship of foreign citizens resident in the Republic was permitted.

Yes, I know, it is illegal to keep official statistics referencing religion, but that doesn’t mean concerned individuals can’t make informed extrapolations based on what statistics are available.

Births have to be registered, Venichka, and when doing so parents must give the name of the child.

It is quite safe and reasonable to assume that a child registered as ‘Ahmed’ was born to Muslim parents.

“Any proposals I’d put on the table would immediately be pounced upon and declared racist”

Most people think you are a bigot, but unless you state what you want to happen instead of moaning about what is happening, then there is no point in confronting you in debate. So, what would you do with the Muslim population in Europe?

Well put, Dan.

War is not the only way to overcome Europe. Outnumbering is another and is clearly ssaid outloud by Muslims themselves. And no need to check figures; it is easy to compare how many children we have – or have not, with muslim families.

JP – I don’t doubt any of that, just the 60% figure: I will try and add up the figures I have to see what they suggest.

The largest (traditionally) Muslim groups in Russia are Tatar (whose principal territory is bang in the middle of Volga Russia) – they also tend to be rather secular minded, Ataturk is something of a hero for many, and it was the heartland of jadidism too: and there has been a campaign (suppressed by the Putin regime) to reintroduce the Latin (rather than Cyrillic) script for their language (Islamists would surely prefer the Arabic script that it has been written in for most of its history) and Chechen (yes…lots of issues there), not Central Asian. Azeris ,too. There is certainly a conflict between the muslim nations of Russia between Turkish and Arabic influence, I will grant you that.

I guess the fact that Islamic Extremists are busy intimidating people into silence and censorship through threats of violence especially in Western Europe, but also in the USA and Canada as well, is not as interesting as debates about whether or not Muslims will outbred native Europeans and their fellow Third World Immigrants by a large enough margin so as to constitute the majority in Western Europe a century or so from now.

Of all regions outside Europe (excluding the Americas, due to European invasion and migration), Europeans have more in common with the peoples and cultures of the Middle East – religion, shared history, conquering each other, etc – than they do Asia or Africa.

the 40 % was the same 2006 and Muslims are 8 % of French population.
318758 children was born by Muslims mothers
478138 children born by other religious affiliated.

There are about 21 million females in the age of 15-64 in France
That would be 5.2 muslim women in that age per child and 40,4 women of other affiliation per child.

It sounds as huge discrepancy. Those who talk about the Muslim birth-bomb usually don’t have much statistics to show, where are the numbers.

Here is some birth statistics by foreign or French nationality.
http://www.ined.fr/en/pop_figures/france/births_fertility/births_nationality_parents/

One can also put some question about the anxiety about the replacement rate, 1700 there was 21m in France, 1800 29m, 1900 40m and 1999 58.5m and today 61.8m. Is it really something to panic about if there isn’t an ever growing population? The last 60 years have seen a productivity growth of enormous proportions. In the late 19’h century about 75% of the population worked in agriculture to produce the daily bread today it’s just a couple of percent in western Europe. There isn’t really any cause for alarm if there isn’t an ever growing population.

This thinking is not unmoderate. Every Muslim I’ve ever known would think it a divine prophecy being fulfilled should the whole world turn Muslim. Amr may not be too far wrong in predicting the take over, maybe being a bit optimistic about ten years. If the Muslim birth rate decreases it will still remain much higher than the average non-Muslim one, and as long as apostasy, fornication and parental disobedience remain major taboos, the future cultural climate for Muslims will be a stagnant one.

sorry, I meant 20 years

Most people think you are a bigot,

Seeings that’s the case, what would be the point of responding?

And the fact *most* people here think I’m a bigot says more about them than it does about me.

I already have a set of religiously-based moral standards when judging people, a set of standards that is not dependant on the current ephemeral tripe encompassing *bigots* and *Islamophobes*.

I prefer to class people as either smart or stupid, with those embracing PC moral standards as religious substitutes clearly in the latter category.

What would I do?

To begin with, I’d insitute a policy of compulsive relgious instruction in the basics of Judaism and in particular Chrisitianty, with emphasis on why and how the latter has served to create Western civilisation.

And I’d use people such as Magdi Allam in the persuit of this aim.

In addition, I’d stop trying to find *moderate* muslim partners with which to *engage*. All of these community groups are but a means by which fundies of all stripes attempt to fraudulently obtain free public money.

Fuck ‘em and take it directly to the Muslim community. If most muslims are moderate as we claim, then they should have no probleme with the british gov’t eschewing the “aid” of radical preachers.

I’d demonstrate resolve when it came to expelling radical clerics AND their wives and familises, and would even drape these expulsions in maudlin theatrics as a means of firing across radical Islam’s bow, and I’d proceede thus because radical Muslim clerics are all desperate and cowardly gasbags.

I’d end any tax loopholes that accommodated either islamist polygamy OR sharia banking, and I would insititute either expulsions or long prison sentences for those who refused to comply

I’d roll back the islamisation that has already occured, banning headscarves and overt religious symbols in both grade-school and high-school.

I’d forbid Saudi *princes* from vacationing on British soil, and I’d approach other european nations about doing likewise.

And the moment they squawked ( because they will), I’d counter by announcing severe restrictions on the number of muslim immigrants that would be allowed into Britian, and I’d approach other european nations about doing likewise.

They have oil, lots of kids and lots of animosity.

And we? We have everything else.

I’d purge the humanities (islamic “studies” depts) of 9 tenths of the proffs…they’re all T. Ramadan knock-offs… and I’d hire apostates and non-muslim scholars to replace them because they’d have no other agenda apart from teaching the truth to students.

Finally I’d put an end to Sunday shopping, not because I’m anti-business, but because doing so resurrects Sunday as the official ’sacred’ Sabbath. Such a move provides religious *bookends* with which to frame society’s workweek, bookends which would, in the process, reinforce Christianity’s position in England as pre-eminant, paramount and sacrosanct.

In short, I’D DUMP THE 60S and enter the 21st century.

There.

I shall now bare my breast, hand you all a dagger and await my execution.

John P: “In short, I’D DUMP THE 60S and enter the 21st Century.”

Entering the 21st Century by way of returning to the 19th is certainly the strangest trip I ever heard of.

independently of how many children with foreign mothers or muslim mothers are being born, or how many will be born…

what makes people think that the mere fact that they exist will play into the hands of islamist fundamentalists???

why should I fell threatened by children just because they are muslims or black or gipsies, etc?

is it fair that just because of the fact that they share a common ethnic or religious origin with bullies and criminals who engage in terrorism they should be seen as a uniform group?

That is exactly how extremists want average citizens to react !!!

I met a danish muslim of pakistani origin once who was very interested in my work and wanted to know more about ethnic conflicts. I later understood that his interest relied on abusing the authority of science to give legitimacy to claim he was making that muslims in europe feel treatened and humiliated. It was very interesting to listen to the examples of humiliations he was using, because they were a mere exercise of self-victimization, things like ‘the lady in the tax services was unpleasant, it must me because i am muslim…’, or other equally stupid things that happen to everybody. people like this are dangerous, and it only takes a hand full of them.
but it wouldn’t be very hard to go against this line of people, except for the fact that there is a distorted idea of tolerance that gives them credibility. most people don’t want to fight their ideas and discredit them.

When a Muslim like Amr Khalid uses a demographic case about the Islamization of Europe, it’s legal.

When a non-Muslim, like Mark Steyn, uses a demographic argument about the Islamization of Europe in his book, ‘America Alone’, he has a ‘human rights’ court case brought against him in Canada.

“Free speech, eh?”

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/13/f-rfa-macdonald.html

When a Muslim like Amr Khalid uses a demographic case about the Islamization of Europe, it’s legal.

The Muslims might have done serious developments in use of the Indian numerals and maybe even invented algebra in ancient times but that is for sure no knowledge that have been passed on to present days loony mullahs who find everything worth to know in the Quran and on WWW.

Internet must be Allah’s course on mankind when binladen, al-Qaida, Ahmadinejad, and loony mullahs can browse the WWW and can find all kind of extremist nonsense about what the world is like.

Sharia is not for fundamentalists, it is for all Muslims. Who , in the West, wants tolive under sharia law?

OK, and for what it’s worth, I’ve done a “quick and dirty” sum based on the ethnicities of people recorded at the last censuses (or in certain cases, most recent official or semi-official estimate) in each of the ex-USSR states (Most of these are from the early 2000s, but some are more recent, or much more recent, and two, for Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, are estimates from the mid-1990s).

On the basis of those figures, approximately 72% of the population of those 15 states belong to, or identify themselves as being (depending on the census methodology in operation in each state) a national or ethnic group whose principal religion is one form or another of Christianity. In actual fact the proportion will be higher than this, as this is a “quick and dirty” sum based only upon, in most cases, the largest 5 or 6 (more in Russia) ethnic groups in each state.

(And for all their decline, the three principal East Slavic groups – Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian, still constitute approx 65% of the population of the ex-USSR states. The biggest single ethnic group that is principally Muslim, the Uzbeks, are approx 7%, although this might be a slight underestimate)

(My source for all of these figures is the Europa Wolrd Year book/ EuropaWorld On line: in most cases citing the national stats agencies of the relevant countries. )

Even without discussing the degree of religious observance among particular groups, I think this puts JP’s demographic claims about the region into some kind of context.

“And the fact *most* people here think I’m a bigot says more about them than it does about me.”

Well, it says they are rational, normal people.

“I’d insitute a policy of compulsive relgious instruction in the basics of Judaism and in particular Chrisitianty, with emphasis on why and how the latter has served to create Western civilisation.”

I am sure Muslims would be interested, seeing as Islam is an Abrahamical religion. But what of those non-Christians who are Atheists? I don’t want to have Christianity shoved down my throat. And I demand to shop on a Sunday. Christians can do what they want, but I want to buy manure from the local gardening centre after 4pm and I don’t see why a priest should stop me.

The rest of your “advice” is the verbal diarrhoea of a religious fundamentalist and xenophobe. What you essentially want is to make life progressively harder for Muslims, in the same way as the Nazis did to the Jews. First ostracise them, then put up enough restrictions to put them out of business and close their places of worship, then deporting them and in the end seek a Final Solution. You are not really interested in combatting violent extremists, because you are one – or, at least, you are an extremist who seeks to bully and collectively punish an entire people because of their confessional status.

You are a nasty person who probably has a sad, empty life. You’ll deny it here, but I find it hard to believe that a man so filled with hate could have a single friend in the world, unless he managed to find a couple of like-minded and similarly socially inadequate friends.

Dan, abuse was uncalled for – and silly.

“The Nigerian man who has 86 wives”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7547148.stm

Jack R: “The Nigerian man who has 86 wives”.
No wonder he looks so glum!

“abuse was uncalled for – and silly.”

The man is a deranged racist. Abuse is deserved.

Dan. A little harsh.

JP sees secularisation as a bubble, a fad. The 21st century is the century of the faith gemeinschaft, where communities’ central identity is based on a religiously informed nomic canpy that defeats decadence and anomie.

As a partisan to one tradition, that of Catholic Christianity, he is inspired and lifted by its forms, rituals and its unity of purpose and social cohesion. In regards to other faiths, they are either compatible with his wider weltanschuuang or antagonistic. So Prods (reluctantly, Protestatism is a gateway religion to secular hell!), Orthodox and Jews are given the benefit as fellow travellers,

Muslims are not. That division is total and absolute. They are witches, beholden to a pagan and alien creed, they are inspired by original evil and are inherently sinful. Only by completely ridding themselves of Islamic custom, tradition and mostly vitally faith, can now ex-Muslims cross the divide. The media of that change is of course Christianity as a baptising experience, sheeding one total faith and gaining another. This exchange of Sky-Pixies is the meaningful division betwixt good and evil. Nothing good can come from across that divide unless penitant, no understanding is allowed as that is toxic to the whole construct. Angels and Satyrs

More interesting is the contours of JP’s distain for actually existing Liberalism. It is weak willed, it is in terminal and humiliating decline, it manufactures corruption and vice, sloth and amorality. The Islamist threat is a temporal break between a slowly rotting society in the Kali Yuga and the promise of a new reforged society. It is the opportunity for change, the moment where western society either perishes into Islamic Tyranny and moral baseness or it is reborn, purified and invested with the power of collective faith and identity. Thus his fondness for the siege of Vienna (the second one I think) and his ‘revisionist’ opinions on the wars of Yugoslav succession

Kinda similar to Solzhenitsyn, though his main bete noires were the Left, Jews, the Entente Powers and Liberals with a sprinkling of Islam

I doubt his political views impact on his social life at all

I have to say I agree that using faith organisations is a terrible way for the state to engage with its citizens, as David T has tirelessly pointed out. But the rest is utopian/dystopian catharsis

That should be ‘a religiously informed nomic canopy’

Bugger

You know it’s possible to find Islam unusually evil and unredeemable without having any religion or respect for religion at all. Similarly, it’s possible to disdain soft liberalism that makes no demands, that does not require tolerance, does not suppress or protest oppression and totalitarianism, does not actively oppose hatred. Multiculturalism is navel gazing that demands tolerance only from it’s vanguard, tolerating intolerance, tolerating hatred, tolerating oppression, tolerating fascism. How one can avoid despising something so useless and self indulgent I can’t imagine.

As for Islam, I think a close study of it and of it’s leader Mohammad shows reveals no light, nothing that isn’t hostile to the unbeliever, nothing that isn’t oppressive, nothing that can be transmuted into reasonable ethics, not where women are concerned not where unbelievers are concerned, not where governance is concerned. Islam can be reasonable only the extent that Muslims are ignorant of or ignore Mohammad, and this can’t ever be a stable situation.

I may have disdain for other religions for being wrong, for brainwashing children, for ruining sentience – the others do seem to be capable of permanently accommodating civil society, and I don’t believe that Islam can do that short of being deliberately ignored by it’s members. Unless all Muslims are only ethnically Muslim and none are believers, there will be trouble. And the latter is impossible because many human beings need religion, and those born ethnically Muslim have only one safe choice among religions.

I find Islam ridiculous, I meant Angels giving out philosophy lessons to Arabian bandits, come on! But its the same as parting seas and virgin births, institutionalised (and quite frankly ossified) magic. Human agency as a holistic and at times bizarre process is the motor to our actions, not Sky Pixies.

Frankly Allah didn’t tell Mo to kill the Jews of Medina nor did the archangel Micheal instruct a sleepy CZ Codreanu to form the Iron Guard nor did God give Cromwell his mission to kill Irish papists. Socio-Psychology/Psychosis did. And that must be laid on their heads, their very human and profane heads. Ideology is a conception, a guide to preception, it ain’t some supra-human force that takes over responsibility. We are sovereign

Indeed, it is vital (to keep it honest) to critique Liberal society, indeed it is in the DNA of every Socialist to do so. But informing it with narratives of rebirth, resurection, manichean division, mythology of terrible Turks at the gates, relativising the suffering of the ‘other’ and pure historical fiction is not within the bounds of meaningful debate. As is the case with JP. I don’t think he is a racist, I think he is pre-race. Thats is why he is kinda fascinating, like a typing artifact from the 1500s who has become fairly savvy to this day and age.

I’d roll back the islamisation that has already occured, banning headscarves and overt religious symbols in both grade-school and high-school.

Yet John, you’d fill the schools with Christian propaganda.

You know it’s possible to find Islam unusually evil and unredeemable without having any religion or respect for religion at all.

That is my position, Josh.

Morgoth, you’re a strange libertarian that supports a family policy of which the authorities of the People’s Republic of China would be proud.

Ven, there are too many fucking people, and not enough animals and plants. Do you have an alternative?
we’re basically at war with the planet. Strange things happen in wartime.

“Unless all Muslims are only ethnically Muslim…”

But they are not. Islam is not an ethnicity.

If you believe that Islam is intractable and therefore Muslims are incapable of fully participating in a liberal society, then what do you propose to do with them? They are here, they are citizens and they will continue to believe what they want.

“Multiculturalism is navel gazing that demands tolerance only from it’s vanguard, tolerating intolerance, tolerating hatred, tolerating oppression, tolerating fascism.”

I don’t think any government should tolerate breaking the law, but in a democratic society it is up to people to choose what they want to believe. If a group of people want to believe in a global Caliphate then let them and you have the right to oppose it and challenge it. But the day the government makes such a belief into a thoughtcrime is the day that I will be on the same side of the barricades as the Islamists.

…and they will continue to believe what they want.

Actually they will continue to believe what they have no choice but to believe on pain of death. That’s part of the problem. And so will you, if they have their way. Did you hear about the court in Pakistan that just awarded custody of two little girls to their kidnappers because the kidnappers are Muslim and the parents are Christian. The kidnappers only had to claim that the girls had converted to Islam and then the girls can’t go back to their filthy infidel family.

No doubt the girls are now sex slaves or wives, if there’s a difference in Pakistan.

http://www.compassdirect.org/en/display.php?page=news&lang=en&length=short&idelement=5476&backpage=summaries

Joshua: You have taken an example of an injustice that has happened in Pakistan and used it to judge Islam and Muslims everywhere. There are Hindu tribal people who marry their children to dogs to ward off evil, but that doesn’t mean British Hindus are into bestiality. If someone believes that Muslims should be governed by a single Islamic government run on religious principles, it is their right. If they are in the UK and advocate violently imposing it, then they should be imprisoned under the same laws that apply to everyone in the UK in relation to support for terrorism. But you can’t outlaw beliefs that do not involve the instigation of violence. As such, those who chant “Death to Rushdie” should be prosecuted for inciting murder, those who support Hezbollah should be prosecuted for supporting an illegal terrorist group. But believing that Rushdie is an apostate blasphemer or that Muslims should live under Veliyat-e-Faqih should not be made illegal. Do you understand the difference?

Actually Dan that ruling was pure Sharia which will be the same in the Caliphate or anywhere else that Muslims rule. It’s universal. Under Sharia, you are less than a second class citizen.

You go join the barricades on the side of those fighting to make you and your people into slaves, I almost approve just because the irony is too delicious. You couldn’t possibly fail more spectacularly.

‘anywhere else that Muslims rule’ -So any person in a position of political power who is also a muslim is naturally in hock to sharia law?

When you preceive the world in the same dichotimous manner as Qutb, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri, Daniel Pipes, JP ,Nick Griffin and the Vlaams Belang, you are on the right side of the barricade?

To quote myself ‘Nothing good can come from across that divide unless penitant, no understanding is allowed as that is toxic to the whole construct. Angels and Satyrs’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
Poll: 40 % of British Muslims want Sharia.

And since sharia is imposed by force – since it is totalitarian, not democratic in nature, 41% is more than enough of the population for it to be, by its standards, the winner. Sharia doesn’t come to rule because 50%+1 vote want’s it in a country. It comes into being amid whatever intimidation and killing and ethnic cleansing it takes to impose it, as in Nigeria.

And I could walk around the world and point festering sores that are this fight in nascent form. Whether it’s villages of Sikhs and Hindus massacred in Kasmir (with Muslim boys from all over the world showing up to lend their support to ethnic cleansing, the American Ishmael Romer for example), or fighting or masscres in the Philippines or Southern Thailand.

The question isn’t one of being fair to a few liberal Muslims the question is what does a large percentage of men with a will to create oppression and war bring about. This is about masses not individuals.

You might want to ask surviving Armenians about how easy it is to get your rights back once the Muslims take them away from you. Ask them how brutal Muslims are willing to be to deny you your sovereignty.

For some reason my comment isn’t showing up, and it won’t let me post it again.

Maybe it’s the moderation queue. I’ll try again without the article linke:
(google for link)
Poll: 40 % of British Muslims want Sharia.

And since sharia is imposed by force – since it is totalitarian, not democratic in nature, 41% is more than enough of the population for it to be, by its standards, the winner. Sharia doesn’t come to rule because 50%+1 vote want’s it in a country. It comes into being amid whatever intimidation and killing and ethnic cleansing it takes to impose it, as in Nigeria.

And I could walk around the world and point festering sores that are this fight in nascent form. Whether it’s villages of Sikhs and Hindus massacred in Kasmir (with Muslim boys from all over the world showing up to lend their support to ethnic cleansing, the American Ishmael Romer for example), or fighting or masscres in the Philippines or Southern Thailand.

The question isn’t one of being fair to a few liberal Muslims the question is what does a large percentage of men with a will to create oppression and war bring about. This is about masses not individuals.

You might want to ask surviving Armenians about how easy it is to get your rights back once the Muslims take them away from you. Ask them how brutal Muslims are willing to be to deny you your sovereignty.

Also, social republican, you’re throwing bullshit rhetoric at me that was obviously invented to attack our religious friend and doesn’t apply to me. I don’t give a shit about penitence, but if you’re asking me to see something good in religiously based hatred, oppression, triumphalist invasion, and slavery, you’re asking for nonsense. You might as well insist that any Jew who can’t name something good about Auschwitz is too biased to be listened to.

When you preceive the world in the same dichotimous manner as Qutb, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Zawahiri, Daniel Pipes, JP ,Nick Griffin and the Vlaams Belang, you are on the right side of the barricade?

I stated earlier that I divide the world between supid people and smart people.

That’s the only dichotomy that counts here.

Of just what value is the promotion of a clerical fascism?

And in what way does the promotion of Islam enhance your sense of moral self-worth?

The world has become so stupid that people feel oblidged to give a leg up to a *belief* systeme that posits a violent, manichean world view demonising the other and depriving them of their full humanity

And when the implacable nature of that manicheanism is outlined, as well as its horiffic implications, it is the person pointing it out who IS manichean, and NOT the manichean world-view itself.

I find it astounding that people will pat themselves on the back and drape themselves in the mantle of tolerance, understanding and progressivism after defending and promoting an ideology championed by a bunch of savage, bearded, misogynistic, homophobic, jew-hating, ‘abrahamic’ Brownshirts.

I’ve no moral duty or obligation to defend Islam and to say nice things about it, and only a fool would think otherwise. I am, in fact, duty-bound to trash it, to denounce it and to oppose it every step of the way.

If a group of people want to believe in a global Caliphate then let them and you have the right to oppose it and challenge it. But the day the government makes such a belief into a thoughtcrime is the day that I will be on the same side of the barricades as the Islamists.

Cowardice disimulated behind a fig-leaf of ‘concern’ for freedom of conscience.

You should remember that ALL Muslims, even those who say they’re not in hock to Sharia law, are enjoined to visit Islam’s holiest shrines at least once in their life, holy shrines located in a country practicing religious apartheid, a country with perhaps THE WORST human rights record in all of history.

And every year MILLIONS do so and return sans commentaire about the kingdom’s fascistic religious apartheid, only to turn around and demand YET more tolerance and less *islaomphobia* on OUR part.

I have yet to see a single muslim-organised petition, or a single high-profile muslim leader speaking out against such backward and medieval practices

Islam is intolerance on two legs, it is as bad as nazism, and the confused individuals defending it do so out of complete moral blindness.

And it is exactly because of such moral blindeness that Islam may well dominate us in ony a few decades time.

Joshua: You have pointed out one example in one Sharia court with a certain interpretation of Sharia in a particular culture. 40% of Muslims may want Sharia, but that doesn’t really explain much.

If you insist on equating Islam with Nazism and therefore portraying Muslims as Nazi acolytes, then I doubt you’d be interested in the diverse range of views on Sharia, some of which are fairly benign and compatible with a liberal society.

“Islam is intolerance on two legs, it is as bad as nazism, and the confused individuals defending it do so out of complete moral blindness.”

And all the solutions you have come up with so far are equivalent to the Nazi persecution of Jews. Really, you are no better.

… the diverse range of views on Sharia, some of which are fairly benign and compatible with a liberal society.

Laws claimed to be dictated by imaginary supernatural beings that have to be interpreted by self-proclaimed experts in the actual imaginary supernatural being can’t be compatible with democratic liberal society, it doesn’t matter if they are benign or not.

“Overall, Muslims account for 3 per cent of the British population, about 1.5 million people. However, the Muslim birthrate is roughly three times higher than the non-Muslim one.

So Muslims make up 9% of births, you retard Monty (not outnumbering 3:1)”

Before you call someone else a retard, perhaps you should follow your mathematical train of thought a little further….
At present birthrates, and taking into account the very high proportions importing their spouses from the subcontinent, it will take about 4 generations before the UK becomes majority muslim. But severe difficulties will begin long before then. In one more generation, two at most, the population will amount to between 10% and 30% of the population. The results will look very much like the situation in France now.

“The tone of this thread is racist. If you fear a minority group having many children, you are a racist. ”

Go ahead and sling around your magic words of last resort, some of us are beginning not to care. And islam is not a race, it is a totalitarian, supremacist political dogma with a religious wrapper. Much like national socialism.

“The idea that Europe will become a Muslim continent and then abolish the European secular model is so utterly utterly absurd – there’s no evidence for it, and it feeds popular Islamophobia.”

What do you mean by “no evidence”? What will constitute evidence in this case eh? Would you go to the zoo and stick your head in the lion’s mouth? After all, he has never bitten your head off before, has he?

There is, however, quite a lot of historical evidence of the repression and disenfranchisement of other national populations who were overtaken by an islamic tide.

“Laws claimed to be dictated by imaginary supernatural beings that have to be interpreted by self-proclaimed experts in the actual imaginary supernatural being can’t be compatible with democratic liberal society, it doesn’t matter if they are benign or not.”

There is plenty of supernatural influence in the British constitution, via an unelected monarch.

The title of the British head of state is “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.”

An Act of Parliament begins with “Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows …”

Does that mean the UK is not a liberal society?

And all the solutions you have come up with so far are equivalent to the Nazi persecution of Jews. Really, you are no better.

Yes I AM better.

In fact, I am MUCH better.

Look, islam is ENTIRELY based on demonising and dehumanising the other, and this as a prelude to robbing them of their goods, to disenfranchising them and of transforming them into second class citizens in their own polity.

Islam is Hitler anchored in god; it is an elaborate protection racket, and nothing else.

Positing the individuals holding such vile views as the “new jews” simply supports the argument I put forward above about moral blindness characterising the Age.

Do you, Dan, know of any cases where the Jews of 1930s Germany flew bi-planes into office towers, bombed Berlin’s subway or blew up its commuter trains ?

Do you? If so, please tell us.

You do not have the moral literacy to properly attend to Islam, and so are reduced to insulting those who do instead of addressing the arguments they raise.

You’ve mistaken the victimisers for the victims, and I must say that if the Organisation of Islamic States gets its way and succeeds in outlawing ALL criticism of islam as ‘blasphemy’, then we’re really fucked.

Islam is a religion whose adepts perform their most *sacred* and pious acts in a country practising slavery and religious apartheid, a country considered one of the worst abuser of human rights on the entire fucking planet.

Saudi Arabia is a moral/ethical pig-sty, and since Saudi Arabia is Islam’s head office, then as goes Saudi Arabia, so goes Islam.

And I’ve no use for individuals who cannot face up to that.

“The title of the British head of state is “Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.””

Please inform us as to which UK legislation has been dictated to us by the Queen or the Archbishop of Canterbury? Last time I looked we had a democratic parliament determining the law, and an independant judiciary interpreting it.

But then you already knew that when you made that last comment.

Let’s take a look at how many Muslims live under a legal system completely based on Sharia. Saudi Arabia, Iran and a few northern states of Nigeria are about it. Some other states, including India and the Philippines, have adopted aspects of Sharia in civil law, which Muslims can choose to abide by. So the argument that Sharia as a legal system is necessarily falls down. Sharia, for the most part, is a code just as the Talmud is a code. And for many Muslims, Sharia enforced through a legal system is heresy.

Does that mean the UK is not a liberal society?

That is so. A true democratic society is ruled and get it’s mandate by the people not imaginary supernatural beings. But is of course some difference between a semi democratic society where the head of state by the providence of some supernatural being is symbolic and law and jurisdiction is ruled and decided by the peoples democratically elected representatives and law and jurisdiction that is of the providence of some supernatural being.

In Sweden the head of state and heirs to the throne must be of the pure evangelical faith as it is declared in the unchanged Augsburg Confession. The heirs must be raised in this faith and must have permission from the parliament to get married. And they do deviate from this they and their descendants are for ever excluded from the possibility to be head of state.

————————–
The Augsburg Confession
Chief Articles of Faith
Article I: Of God.
5] They condemn all heresies which have sprung up against this article, as the Manichaeans, who assumed two principles, one Good and the other Evil: also the Valentinians, Arians, Eunomians, Mohammedans, and all such.
…
Article II: Of Original Sin.
1] Also they teach that since the fall of Adam all men begotten in the natural way are born with sin, that is, without the fear of God, without trust in God, and with 2] concupiscence; and that this disease, or vice of origin, is truly sin, even now condemning and bringing eternal death upon those not born again through Baptism and the Holy Ghost.
…
Article III: Of the Son of God.
1] Also they teach that the Word, that is, the Son of God, did assume the human nature in 2] the womb of the blessed Virgin Mary, …
4] He also descended into hell, and truly rose again the third day; afterward He ascended into heaven that He might sit on the right hand of the Father, and forever reign and have dominion over all creatures, …
————————–

I can’t with the best will in the world call a society that in its constitutional law demands that their head of state shall truly believe such nonsense is a true democratic liberal society. It doesn’t matter if it is it is decided by a democratic parliament, when they do so they deviate from a liberal society into something else.

At a certain point I don’t have time to educate Dan. I hope that unlike TheIrie, he can learn though.

Joshua: I would prefer Muslims to speak for themselves. My experience has taught me that Muslims are, essentially, little different from Christians. I have lived with Muslims, celebrated Eid with Muslims and lived in Muslim countries. At no point did I feel I was anything but welcome – in fact, living in a Muslim country was easier than living where I currently am, a BNP ward in Essex. Muslims have no problem with my Hindu wife, but the racists in my community do. So, I have very positive opinions of Muslims and very negative opinions of xenophobes who use religion as a means to ostracise non-white people. Islam is not an enemy, bigotry is and bigotry exists in every culture, whether in Lahore or Loughton.

You might want to get to know some ex-Muslims like I have. Then perhaps you’ll learn something of darkness that you were so fortunate to have missed. You’re like mister Magoo, walking though the forests, stepping over snakes and petting tigers.

Lasse,
>There are about 21 million females in the age of 15-64 in France
>That would be 5.2 muslim women in that age per child and 40,4 women
>of other affiliation per child.

I think you do not understand, the muslims in France have found a way to make the pregnancy time shorter to less than 3 months, that is how they managed to have 40% of all the childrens born in France :)

People who talk about muslim danger in europe are just funny, they drop a lot of numbers at you as if they KNOW what they are talking about, but in reality, it is just hot air.

“People who talk about muslim danger in europe are just funny”

Funny ha ha or funny peculiar?

Islam is being used as a euphemism for race by the far-right. But at the root of it is plain old-fashioned ignorance, racism and xenophobia.

“Islam is being used as a euphemism for race by the far-right. But at the root of it is plain old-fashioned ignorance, racism and xenophobia.”

How long have you been pontificating about what other people are thinking?

Muslims would have a bloody big problem with both you and your wife if she was muslim and you were hindu.

There is something very very racist about you Dan. It’s just that you use racist as a euphemism for non-muslims, white people, hindus, sikhs, and all the other races that you seek to harm.

And before you start shouting “I’m not a racist….!”.

Dan, you are a racist in deep, deep, denial.

If sharia is benign and compatible with western laws , then why change and ask for charia.Muslims should adapt to Western laws without even noticing.

Dan,
Funny, mainly because they have a strange ‘logic’.

>Islam is being used as a euphemism for race by the far-right. But at
>the root of it is plain old-fashioned ignorance, racism and xenophobia.

Unfortunately it is not only the far-right who is doing this. The Muslim scare is very real among many centrist as well as left as well.

No one is talking about the Christian danger when they talk about the crime of Hitler or in todays world US and it’s allies.

Religious nutts are a danger to human kind, no matter they are Muslims, Christian, Jewish or Buddhists. Unfortunately, the craziness of the Muslims is being spread by propaganda organizations like MEMRI TV who’s sole purpose is to picture the middle eastern (read Arabs/Muslims) as barbarians and a danger to the way of life of all westerners.

Unfortunately, there are plenty of idiots in the muslim world for MEMRI to pick up, even thought they are a small minority, they are the one who receive the coverage and “translation service” by MEMRI.

Morgan,
>If sharia is benign and compatible with western laws , then why change
>and ask for charia.Muslims should adapt to Western laws without even
>noticing.

Sharia (or Qhesas as they call it in Iran) is not compatible with anything even in muslim countries. It is not supported by the vast majority of the muslim scholars worldwide and it has it’s origin in the country your queen and your prime minister loves so much, you can guess which country I mean.

Religious fanaticism should not be tolerated and accepted, but that does not mean fearing every person with that ideology witch seems to be the case among many members of this site.

“No one is talking about the Christian danger when they talk about the crime of Hitler”

Well, there you go. Nuther racist, seething with hatred against christians and also, Germans. We all know that Hitler is really a euphemism for Europeans. But at the root of it is a plain old-fashioned ignorance, and racism against infidels.

I don’t know what we are going to do about all you racists, I really don’t.

Oh Monty,
I am so sorry, did I hurt your feeling talking bad about your buddy Hitler?

“Sharia (or Qhesas as they call it in Iran) is not compatible with anything even in muslim countries.”

Islamic finance is not compatible? Rulings on business contracts are not compatible? Marriage and divorce? Sharia is not just Qesas (I think only two states – Iran and Saudi – operate Sharia fully in criminal law and Pakistan and some states in Nigeria have partially adopted it), it covers other areas of life. How Muslims want to invest and organise their private finances, according to Islamic scripture and on the advice of a Sharia board, is no business of mine as it has absolutely no bearing on my life and nor is it incompatible with liberal democracy.

“it has it’s origin in the country your queen and your prime minister loves so much, you can guess which country I mean.”

Scotland?

Birthrate ok ok ok.

But in the end it boils down to who has the guns.

This conversion has deteriorated to only contain people who are blinded.

Look it’s psychological problem I’ve noticed. Most people can’t weigh one enemy against another. They also can’t trust enough accept new information, being too paranoid that the info might come from someone they already despise even if it doesn’t. Lines if mistrust and hatred divide society and information can’t cross over it.

People get overwhelmed by despising one group and can’t expand their field of threats and maintain as sense of proportion.

So now the conversation is dominated by people who’s sense of threat is saturated by despising racists and western bigots.

I’m reminded of the socialists who always thought capital was the source of all evil, and can’t conceive clerical fascism can be a completely separate threat.

“No one is talking about the Christian danger when they talk about the crime of Hitler”

What sort of danger would it be when you talk about the horrible example Mohammad was and the terrible injunctions he laid on his followers.

For instance when he slaughtered the male inhabitants of Medina and let the women be raped and taken as slaves. And the not incidental fact that these were Jews, leaving a horrible precedent for the future.

Or say that story where he took a woman as a slave and raped her after torturing her husband to death and killing her father (her husband was a city leader and some sort of banker who refused to hand over the gold he was keeping).

“Oh Monty,
I am so sorry, did I hurt your feeling talking bad about your buddy Hitler?”

You must not worry so much about hurting my feelings, dear heart.

If hitler had lived any longer than he did, I would never have been born. I am no aryan. I am the offspring of those who defeated him.

But perhaps you are aryan. After all, your name is iranian isn”t it? You are iranian aren’t you?

You used to be called Persians. But hitler renamed you iranians to underwrite your aryan status. And you are still iranian now, aren’t you? Still aryan, after all these years…

Joshua: Whatever you may think of Mohammad, the one billion Muslims on this planet are not all rapists and violent conquerors. Some of them own cornershops and restaurants and some work as doctors, lawyers, etc, where you live. However, the argument put forward by some people here is that Muslims are innately or more inclined towards violence and that a high Muslim birthrate will destroy European civilisation. Yet, millions of them just want to get on with their lives, like the rest of us.

Usually all this Muslim-bashing has a racist element. Neo-Nazis want to create broader appeal, so they have ditched their overt racism against Jews, blacks and Asians and exploited the fear and hatred of Muslims. We’ve had a constant stream of BNP literature displaying the 7/7 attacks and collectively blaming Muslims. And this extends to the Asian students who attend the local college, who have been depicted as rapists, muggers and a threat to national security. The idea is to use religious hatred to encourage racism and xenophobia.

I don’t think that Islamists should be appeased. I think those who threaten people like you because they criticise, ridicule or hold Islam in contempt should be prosecuted. And trashy soft porn novels about Aisha should be not be withdrawn from publication because of the fear of being targetted by religious extremists. But there is a line to be drawn between challenging violent bigots (both Islamist and neo-Nazi) and vilifying an entire people.

” the one billion Muslims on this planet are not all rapists and violent conquerors. Some of them own cornershops and restaurants and some work as doctors, lawyers, etc, where you live. However, the argument put forward by some people here is that Muslims are innately or more inclined towards violence”

No the argument put forward here, by me, is that islam itself is dedicated to violence: islam is violent, sexually rapacious, and extortionate. And if muslims go in search of their roots, they will find them in the fire that is islam. And they will become rapacious and extortionate.

We saw an airport blown up by indendiary doctors, in Glasgow. The leading bugger died of his burns, (GOOD) in the hospital in which he had previously pretended to treat his infidel patients..

And there is a very dedicated muslim lawyer called mudassar arani, who has cost the taxpayer a whole mint of money for fees, to defend islamic terrorists.

So please don’t try to tell me they are too well qualified to be dangerous.

Abdolian,the aryan, it is late in the day for us both.

I shall be back tomorrow. I trust you shall also be here. On this thread.

Dan, it’s not relevant to me what “all Muslims” are.

All Muslims in Thailand aren’t murders, yet thousands of teachers have been murdered.

All Muslims in Nigeria aren’t murderers, yet Christian townships have been razed and the survivors driven out.

All Muslims in Kashmir aren’t murderers, yet Shik and Hindu villagers have been rounded up by the Islamist group Lashkar-e-Toiba and shot in the back of the head.

Oh and Ismael Romer (I don’t remember the correct spelling, sory) is an example of an American who went to help the terrorists, and you might notice that Muslims here in the US oppose his arrest and there seem to be none defending his arrest.

All Muslims are not genocidal, yet some how men came out of the Mosques in Armenia screaming “death to the infidel” and then went and committed a genocide.
…

I care about the society wide outcome. I would like to avoid these sorts of things repeating endlessly.

Whatever we do, it’s more important to me that it be effective than it be perfectly fair to every last Muslim. Sorry. There are bigger problems than fairness to every last Muslim at stake.

Also about “vilifying an entire people” – it is a cult not a people. No matter how many people it claims (half of them more prisoners than believers) that doesn’t change it’s nature. A cult is a cult is a cult.

“There are bigger problems than fairness to every last Muslim at stake.”

Then you cannot claim to uphold liberal democratic values, because fairness and equality before the law is paramount. If someone has committed an offence, then they should be prosecuted. If the law is wrong, then they should campaign to change it. You cannot criminalise a section of the population simply because of what they believe. It’s what people do that matters.

“Also about “vilifying an entire people” – it is a cult not a people.”

But you are vilifying an entire people, based on their religion. There are Muslims who are far more secular than most Europeans. How can you lump them in with the Salafist extreme, which commands a few per cent of Muslims worldwide?

All principles are subject to slippages in extreme conditions like war, because you have to balance one principle against another.

In rational ethics its outcome that matters. It’s mystical nonsense to set up absolutes that matter more than outcomes. If you want purity of action rather than superior outcomes you’re a moron.

Dan, you accuse me of ignoring liberal values, but think of all of the dangers and examples I brought up that you’re ignoring because you haven’t allowed yourself to even consider addressing the real dangers and problems.

“If you want purity of action rather than superior outcomes you’re a moron.”

In a liberal society, for justice to be done it must be seen to be done. I don’t really know what your solutions are, but it appears that you are willing to consider action against a group collectively because of the religion it adheres to, because you regard it as inimical to the values of the society we live in. Even if you hold to the belief that Islam itself is incompatible with a liberal democracy, acting against all believers without regard to their own personal actions is fascistic. There is no place for collective punishment in a liberal democracy. If a personal commits a crime, he should be punished, but the punishment should not be extended to his family, fellow worshippers, etc. If you do so, then you should be honest and don a black shirt and learn to goose step.

Dan you moron, I’m arguing against your insistence that anyone who even mentions the dangers is a racist and bigot.

We are miles away from even talking about policies, because you’re so phobic that any useful policy won’t be perfectly liberal that you can not even allow people to acknowledge history and atrocity around the world.

Your whole argument, boiled down, is “SHUT UP”

Later I have to run now. But I prefer to care about the future of humanity, of human freedom, of my county, of my civilization than to care about being perfectly faithful to a single set of principles.

It is because we have enemies that we have to compromise our principles and get our hands dirty. War is like that. But it’s still important people who care about liberty win, even if we have to compromise liberty in order to win.

Anyway the most important thing in a democracy is that the electorate be as well informed as possible. You can’t have a working democratic government if the populace isn’t fully aware of or can not discuss the problems that policy must address.

Since your position is “shut up and don’t discuss” you’re an enemy to working democratic government, to liberal democracy, no matter that you’ve convinced yourself that silence and ignorance are the only to maintain the appearance that justice is done.

typo “…no matter that you’ve convinced yourself that silence and ignorance are the only wayto maintain the appearance that justice is done.”

“it’s still important people who care about liberty win, even if we have to compromise liberty in order to win.”

Your liberty means nothing if it comes at the price of denying innocent people of their liberty or equality before the law, on the grounds of their religious belief. But you have not actually said what you really want to happen. What do you propose is done with regards to those living in Europe who follow the Islamic faith?

I haven’t decided what I want as a policy. I have decided that I want an open and extensive debate where the full extent of the problem is exposed, no matter how painful that is, no matter how much discomfort that causes, even no matter how violent the response by any party.

“Your liberty means nothing blah blah blah…”

No, your liberty “means nothing” if you LOSE it the way the Armenians did. Then trying to regain it may also come at a high price.

There’s more at stake than points of purity. You’re purposefully ignoring all of the examples I gave. You don’t want to face what’s at stake.

“Your liberty means nothing if it comes at the price of denying innocent people of their liberty or equality before the law”

Who are you to pontificate about what my liberty is worth to me? I would pay any price to keep it.

I believe in collective punishment, when a group is collectively culpable. And the “moderate” muslims are so numerous that we know what all their names are. The mainstream is not moderate, because islam is not moderate. The mainstream is acquiescent, and tolerant of any outrage, violence, or crime, if the culprit is a muslim. And they are becoming more overtly intolerant and hostile, not less.

They have already turned the rest of us into second class citizens in our own homeland. Our freedom of speech is being eroded, because they say so. We have no-go areas in our cities, because they say so. And if we object to any of this, or draw any cartoons, they will take to the streets and riot, along with fellow travellers like you.

Joshua reckons you don’t want to face what is at stake. That is a very charitable view. I think you know perfectly well what is in store.

Furthermore, on the subject of collective punishment:

We absolutely excoriated the Germans because of the Holocaust. We were right. It was widely known in ordinary German society that the prisoners were being killed. You can’t ship hundreds of thousands of folk into a few limited camps, and not see those camps expand rapidly, together with the amount of food going in on the same railway system. The railwaymen knew, and that’s how the knowledge got out.
They knew. They did nothing. When you are sure of winning the war, you need not fear the truth coming out.

We took a similar attitude to the Japanese. They knew just how inhumanly their government treated internees, because there were slave labour camps in all the major cities in Japan. Citizens were accustomed to seeing the wlking skeletons being force-marched from their camps, to work each day. They saw faltering men being shot dead on the way to the shipyard in Nagasaki.

They knew, they did nothing. When you are sure of winning the war, you need not fear the truth coming out.

And now, islam thinks it is going to win the war.

“I believe in collective punishment, when a group is collectively culpable. ”

How will you collectively punish Muslims?

Great -so now HP has a Muslim they can hide behind when they make their far right claim about “the Muslim takeover of Europe” and “Eurabia”.
Didnt the Nazis also quote Jewish spokesman when it suited them?

Monty

“I believe in collective punishment, when a group is collectively culpable.”

Yes we know. The Bible says that about the Jews
“His blood be on us, and on our children” Matthew 27:25

Bugger the bible. I don’t give a flyer about what it says.

If you join a gang, you are responsible for all of it’s deeds.

By the way, the Nazis did whatever furthered their own interests.

Genocide, lying, extortion, rape, slavery, child abuse, you name it, they did it.

And similarly, islam sanctions all of the above, for gang members.

And Dan,
What are you going to do to protect the western world? There are things that I can propose, but I’m not giving you the opportunity to sit there with your “racism gun” and shoot them down, yet. We can do that later, and I reckon we will.

What, precisely, do you prescribe to anchor the rule of law, and the liberty of individuals? How do you make your liberalism future-proof?

How do you ensure that the non-muslim schoolgirls of England will never have their heads sawn off by muslim men, as they were in Indonesia?

Because I reckon you are so full of hate for your fellow citizens, that you think we’ve got it coming, don’t you?

So your answer will be- do nothing. Nothing at all. We have no right to do anything, or demand anything, or expect anything. We have no rights at all in fact. Only muslims have rights. Infidels just have duties, towards their islamic overlords.

Dan: You profess to dispise Christians and even ril against the fact that the schools around your way are all Church-run, and yet, if I didn’t know better, I’d swear you were a Christian. You sound just like one of the ‘love your enemy’ brigade. I can appreciate that you grew up with Muslims, that your wife is Indian and that you have been hounded by racists. You obviously have warm feeling towards Islam and Muslims, however, from our perspective in the secular and liberal Christian (very broadly) West, the prospect of unending strife is not too appealing. One can’t kill an idea, it will rise up and regain momentum, but how do you propose that we deal with the demands of Muslims and intergration into industrial, urbanised societies?

Question for Dan, and also Sue:

Dan purports to be married to a Hindu wife.

What is the quranic treatment for Hindus in a sharia state? What does the scripture say about polytheists?

And Dan, what if you were gay?

“The Islamic Council, which represents 60,000 Muslims in Norway, is still not willing to say whether it is for or against the death penalty for homosexuals, until the fatwa council has spoken.”

Or what if I just told a few muslims that you are as queer as a nine dollar bill, whether or not you are?

Monty, it doesn’t help to bring up all the nastinesses of Islam. Dan’s point is that people have a right to believe what they want to believe. Subsidiary to that is the argument that the West has overblown the threat from Islam. Personally, I adopt a untilitarian approach. The maximum happiness of the maximum number of people; or the modern version perhaps, the maximun amount of (non-thratening) freedom for the maximum amount of people. I don’t think Islam can be shown to satisfy that criteria, but I am waiting to be persuaded otherwise but noone seems to be able to offer any evidence. As for the Hindu thing…a couple of years ago in Leicester Square (a meeting place in the centre of London) an entirely blameless young (British) Hindu man was kicked to death in front of horrified crowds by three Kuwati men. Although it was not prosecuted as a racially motivated attack, I believe it bore all the hallmarks of one.

“There are things that I can propose, but I’m not giving you the opportunity to sit there with your “racism gun” and shoot them down, yet.”

Don’t you have the courage of your convictions? Come on, how do you want to collectively punish Muslims?

“You profess to dispise Christians and even ril against the fact that the schools around your way are all Church-run”

The fact that I oppose all religious schools – including Muslim ones, doesn’t mean I hate Christians.

“Dan purports to be married to a Hindu wife.”

I don’t purport, I am.

“Or what if I just told a few muslims that you are as queer as a nine dollar bill, whether or not you are?”

I know a fair amount of Arab Muslims who think Peter Tatchell is fantastic. In fact, he spoke at an Arab friend of mine’s funeral not so long ago and he received a standing ovation. So, I doubt they’d care less if you told them I was gay.

“I know a fair amount of Arab Muslims who think Peter Tatchell is fantastic. In fact, he spoke at an Arab friend of mine’s funeral not so long ago and he received a standing ovation. So, I doubt they’d care less if you told them I was gay.”

And you are pretending that is the islamic norm are you?

You are seriously expecting sentient beings to believe you?

I never heard such a load of dishonest tripe in my entire life.

Right now, the islamic council of Norway is debating whether to include the summary execution of homosexuals, in their constitution. The are waiting for a fatwa from some old stinker in a mosque somewhere.

“I never heard such a load of dishonest tripe in my entire life.”

Sheltered life of a bigot, I suppose.

“Sheltered life of a bigot, I suppose.”

That’s it?

That is your answer to every point I have made?

Where is your plan? Your grand strategy for the deliverance of the western world from the ravages of sharia?

You are one serious moral coward who will only stand up and fight against infants. Or maybe you are just much like your fellow muslims. You are a muslim, aren’t you dan, and I suspect your wife says exactly what you tell her to say in case you hit her again.

Your name isn’t Dan at all, is it?

“That is your answer to every point I have made?”

You haven’t bothered to answer the single question I asked, so I can’t be bothered with your’s.

“Your name isn’t Dan at all, is it?”

No, it’s Osama bin Laden, obviously.

Monty, you’re doing my side no good with your unfocused emotional arguments. You’re just being an easy target. Sit down.

And Dan, it’s a compete waste of time to talk to someone who only argues easy points. If you’re honest, you take the points most damaging to your argument and address those.

“it’s a compete waste of time to talk to someone who only argues easy points.”

I believed I asked a single question: if Muslims are to be subjected to collective punishment, what form should that punishment take? You also claim that Islam itself and by extension all Muslims represent a major threat to liberal democratic society that requires actions that could entail an injustice to some in return for a greater good. Yet, you have not stated what you think is necessary, you have just raged against me. It’s difficult to have any serious debate with people who are unwilling to follow through the logic of their argument. And perhaps you know that taking your argument to its logical conclusion could destroy the foundations of the very system you claim to want to protect.

There is no debate here, just a prejudiced stream of consciousness. I feel no compulsion to respond to this inane reactionary nonsense.

Side step. You’re not even honest about what form your argument has taken.

OK lesson learned. You’re a troll.

Fuck off. I won’t bother trying to argue seriously with you ever again.

“OK lesson learned. You’re a troll.”

A convenient way of failing to answer a question I have asked repeatedly here: what do you propose to do with Muslims, if they collectively represent an existential threat to liberal democracy?

I answered that I’m more focused on raising awareness than proposing any specific solution.

It’s too early to propose solutions.

But there are obvious policies that will come out in any vigorous debate. Limiting immigration..

Controlling hate speech even speech that is claimed to be from God. Leading to the first attempts to define what is too far for a religion to go. Or what IS a religion. And what do you do when a religion is clearly harmful.

And you seem to be focused on preventing people from talking about the dangers and the conditions around the world, and the history etc.

Is there some theory of the utility of promoting ignorance, now? Liberty through knowledge suppression?

Is the right you want to promote “freedom from speech” ?

“And you seem to be focused on preventing people from talking about the dangers and the conditions around the world, and the history etc.”

Where have I said or implied that? I said that you are wrong and that the belief in collective punishment of a section of the population is wrong. Telling someone they are wrong is not the same as preventing them from saying it.

“I answered that I’m more focused on raising awareness than proposing any specific solution.”

Then you can’t accuse me of running away from the issue when you provide nothing in the way of answers.

“Controlling hate speech even speech that is claimed to be from God.”

All hate speech? Including hate speech against Muslims? Or is some hate speech more acceptable than other forms? I don’t want to ban any hate speech. People should be free to express sexist, homophobic, racist, etc, opinions and others should be free to denounce them in the strongest possible terms.

“Leading to the first attempts to define what is too far for a religion to go. Or what IS a religion. And what do you do when a religion is clearly harmful.”

The limits for religion are already in place. If someone calls for the murder of Salman Rushdie they should be prosecuted for incitement to murder.

Monty

“Bugger the bible. I don’t give a flyer about what it says.

If you join a gang, you are responsible for all of it’s deeds.”

Same thing Christians/ Nazis said about Jews.
By your logic all Christians must be held responsible for the misdeeds of any Christian. Likewise you as a citizen of x country must be responsible for the acts of anyone from x country.

“By the way, the Nazis did whatever furthered their own interests.

Genocide, lying, extortion, rape, slavery, child abuse, you name it, they did it.

And similarly, islam sanctions all of the above, for gang members”

Surely you mean Judaism?

It’s shocking what Mohammad sanctioned. I understand being too ignorant to realize what sort of a monster is at the heart of Islam..

But one shouldn’t turn ignorance into a crusade.

http://www.ex-muslim.org.uk/

Go learn something before you shoot your mouth off again.

So I guess you don’t actually want to answer my points.

If Islam is monstrous, what do you propose to do about it? If it is such a threat then you’d surely seek to ban Islam. But if you don’t advocate a ban, then you have to accept that people will continue to be free to believe what they like.

I propose that the public understand the full extent of the problem, including all that is currently hidden and unknown and let democracy work.

You started off saying that everyone who knows about Islam and talks about it is a racist who should shut up. That’s your policy, “everyone shut up”

You have a certain narrow understanding about Islam and the Muslim world that I do not accept is truth. I think you are wrong and, moreover, I think you are prejudiced. Certainly, racists are using religion as another way of promoting their racist ideologies, which seek to ethnically cleanse Britain of non-whites – for them, Muslims (who are overwhelmingly non-white) are a good start.

“I propose that the public understand the full extent of the problem, including all that is currently hidden and unknown and let democracy work.”

Don’t act so coy. If the full extent of the problem is the existence of Islam, then the logical “solution” would be the eradication of this religion – perhaps you’d swap tips with the BNP on this matter. Stop being evasive and give an answer for once.

An honest dialog about the nature of Mohammad will be more of a shock to the Muslim world than to us. And it will do them more good.

No you don’t understand the extent of my thinking at all.

I believe in the human capacity for sentience. But it can’t work without real information and debate.

Not every problem has a governmental solution. But even social pressure can be a solution to some problems.

Anyway I also believe that if we’re ignorant, we’re doomed. You can’t steer a car blindfolded.

i know the current generation of journalist despises the public and wants to manipulate public opinion rather than inform the public.

elitist assholes

there is no excuse

Also I am certainly not prejudiced. I did not prejudge Islam harshly. My original, ignorant position was the default left one, that Muslims are innocent victims the world over… Then I got to know them better.

It was knowledge and experience that brought me to this point, not assumptions.

‘You might as well insist that any Jew who can’t name something good about Auschwitz is too biased to be listened to.’

Now that what I call rhetorical bullshit. Plus the barrigades thing, old but gold as I have heard uttered.

Well done

penitence can be secular you know, especially given your statement ‘You might want to get to know some ex-Muslims like I have. Then perhaps you’ll learn something of darkness that you were so fortunate to have missed’.

There is a Russian Proverb, ‘Don’t fear the law, fear the Judges’.

SR, it was Dan who brought up barricades with, “If a group of people want to believe in a global Caliphate then let them and you have the right to oppose it and challenge it. But the day the government makes such a belief into a thoughtcrime is the day that I will be on the same side of the barricades as the Islamists” – a sentiment that should not be shared by anyone who thinks that government should have the consent of the governed, that violent revolution isn’t a good option and that oppression of all human rights is a poor idea.

*denial of all human rights..

Anyway SocialRepublican, it isn’t any different to ask a Jew to have a kind word for the rapist of Mediana than for Hitler. The crime is the same, except that Hitler didn’t institutionalize rape and slavery of women and children.

In all this talk about whether or not Islam or parts of it are a threat or if Muslims are going to bred their way to a majority, no one seems to have considered the possibility that white Europeans, over the next generation or so, might convert to Islam in significant numbers. After all, Islamic extremism already has gathered much support from both left & right wing extremists with its hatred of both America and Israel. And more broadly Islam might well appeal to many Europeans who may be seriously looking for something to belong that is firm and committed to its beliefs and has a belief system that explains the whole world or appears to. Given that large numbers of Europeans have in the past have followed either fascism or communism, Islam’s potential appeal should not be
underestimated.

The debate on this thread between Dan and Joshua Scholar has unfortunately become one of the blind argueing with the deaf.

The debate on this thread between Dan and Joshua Scholar has unfortunately become one of the blind argueing with the deaf.

And more broadly Islam might well appeal to many Europeans who may be seriously looking for something to belong that is firm and committed to its beliefs and has a belief system that explains the whole world or appears to.

Thanks for adding the point of view of the stupid to the mix.

Joshua Scholar, I am sorry to disagree with you on this since we usually are on the same side. I also hope that we can disagree without being disagreeable. I repeat what I said above, many Europeans for both political and religious reasons may find Islam to be the strength they do not find elsewhere in modern Europe.

You may have a point since Islam is the only socially acceptable way to blame everything on the Jews, and I know an “explanation for the whole world” that appeals to European taste.