Immigration ISlamic State step foot in Europe

[Angela]

Angela it has taken Europe centuries for Women, homosexuals to get their rights and Sharia will only turn the clock back to the dark ages. There is nothing to romanticize about it. Sharia is the law of 'Allah' (so its religious law dominated by Males) and that takes different interpretations in different countries. Much of Sharia law CANNOT be implied anyway in democratic countries because stoning to death someone who drinks alchahol and hanging homosexuals is not allowed where the state law is ABOVE the Sharia law. Women only inherit 50% of Man because thats what sharia thinks of them. According to the Koran DEATH is permissible when anything is considered a sin as the verses state it clearly. Even in places like London we heard of honour killings just becase the daughter decided not to wear the hijab!! The Jews ONLY ignore their teachings of the Talmunds and the Torah and the fanatics are MUCH smaller in number then any Muslim community so religious law does not count much. Jews these days are MUCH more secular in nature.

Christians had a man called Christ who turned the Torah upside down with new rules so DEATH was not permissible anymore and the inquisition anyway is a thing of many centuries ago and not ONE Christian dominant country has religious law as law of the country. Sharia law is not welcome because we have fought for our freedom long enough. Welcome to the 21st century.

This is all undeniably true, Maleth, and I couldn't agree more, but that doesn't mean that we have to abdicate our own principles in combating it. Nor does it mean that we should abdicate logic when discussing it.

The fact that Sharia Law proscribes marriage between non Muslim men and Muslim women is no different than the proscriptions of many other religions. The fact that adults willingly choose to follow such proscriptions is not something which should concern the state, just as it doesn't concern the state when Talmudic Law proscribes intermarriage with people of other religions.

If an adult woman chooses to adopt a form of Islam that means she wears a chador, while I may think it is stupid, it is her choice. However, there are situations where it cannot be allowed because of public health concerns. In the case of Orthodox women who shave their heads and wear wigs is anyone seriously suggesting that the state should involve itself? I think Rasta hairstyles are incredibly gross...all sorts of nasty things grow in there, and I certainly could understand a reluctance to sit next to someone wearing it, but is the state going to get involved?

What is the concern of the state is any attempt to impose this law on others. In the example provided above it was stated that non Muslims in certain areas are being harassed for food related reasons, and the implication was that this is proof that Sharia Law is being accommodated by western governments. The fact is that such harassment is a crime which should be prosecuted. Only if there is evidence that it was not prosecuted could we conclude that the government in question is accommodating Sharia Law. Or, to use another example, if Muslim men are going about the streets harassing women, even Muslim women, for not conforming to Islamist dress codes, they should be prosecuted. Of course, the same thing would apply to the harassment or worse of homosexuals.

Even within the Muslim communities themselves, certain practices cannot be tolerated in our societies, in my opinion. Female genital mutilation is beyond the pale; it is assault and should be so prosecuted. Children must be educated, including girls. Slavery, which is still practiced in certain Islamic countries, has no place in our societies. Even in the case of marriage practices, as I pointed out above, attempts to coerce women into marriage through confinement, beatings, starvation etc. are, in my parlance, felony kidnapping and assault and should be dealt with in that context. Honor killings, which do indeed take place in Europe, are murder and should be prosecuted as such and the perpetrators punished to the limits of the law, limits which, in my more angry moments, seem to be too low.

On a more general level, the preaching of forcible conversion and/or the forcible imposition of Sharia Law amounts to sedition, in my opinion. I don't want to get too technical in terms of what constitutes conspiracy to riot or sedition in terms of evidence as the statutes will differ from country to country. All I'll say is that it seems to me that the western democracies are going to have to grapple with this issue and decide upon the legislative solutions and the means of enforcement.

My discomfort with some of the prior posts (not all by any means) stems not only from the fact that some of it was illogical. I may be mistaken, and I apologize if I was, but it seemed to me that there was an undercurrent of the kind of attitudes which led to the horrors in the Balkans not all that long ago.

What, after all, are the other options to dealing with this situation within the western countries themselves? Mass deportations of citizens or legal residents because they are Muslims? Another round of cleansing, this time explicitly religious in nature? That is not an option.

 

[Aberdeen]

My English relatives tell me that there are some areas of London that are so dominated by muslims that English women can't walk there alone or without a headscarf, and restaurants can't sell alcohol or they'll be burned down after dark. In light of that, wanting government to reconsider immigration quotas for moslems is not the same as wanting to deport moslems that are already there or to wipe them out or whatever. People are just saying that there's a problem that may require a new approach to immigration for some groups.

 

[Fire Haired14]

Fire-haired, I assure you that I do not place myself in judgment of the ancient Hebrews. It was a different time and a different level of moral development.

Nor does the religion in which I was raised teach that all the Old Testament stories should be taken as literally true. It hasn't taught for generations that the Creation story, for example, is literally true.

The point was just that some of the precepts which are so objectionable in the Koran can also be found in the Holy Scripture of Christianity. It's just, as Aberdeen so succinctly put it, that "In terms of tolerance for others and control of people's lives, Islam is where christianity was 500 years ago."

Moral development is overplayed. Our nature hasn't changed for 10,000's of years. My point was that if you believed in the God of the old testament you would do what the Jews did. Christianity hasn't really changed much in the last 2,000 years or so. Not everyone who goes under the name Christian represents what Jesus taught. You can't put all Christians in a certain time period under the same category either, so it's impossible to mark development. Injustice that Christians committed especially in medieval Europe do not at all represent the core teachings of Christianity.

Like I said before why are y'all so obsessed with debating about religion, when this thread is about stopping ISIS?

 

[Maleth]

My English relatives tell me that there are some areas of London that are so dominated by muslims that English women can't walk there alone or without a headscarf, and restaurants can't sell alcohol or they'll be burned down after dark. In light of that, wanting government to reconsider immigration quotas for moslems is not the same as wanting to deport moslems that are already there or to wipe them out or whatever. People are just saying that there's a problem that may require a new approach to immigration for some groups.

 

[Angela]

My English relatives tell me that there are some areas of London that are so dominated by muslims that English women can't walk there alone or without a headscarf, and restaurants can't sell alcohol or they'll be burned down after dark. In light of that, wanting government to reconsider immigration quotas for moslems is not the same as wanting to deport moslems that are already there or to wipe them out or whatever. People are just saying that there's a problem that may require a new approach to immigration for some groups.

This is also happening in Italy; I was appalled at what is going on in Reggio Emilia, for example, and even in La Spezia. I am all for a different approach to immigration in the future, and, in fact, I'd go further and say that proposals for the deportation of illegal immigrants should indeed be considered.

There should also be zero tolerance for the kind of behavior which you describe. If prosecution of the perpetrators leads to riots by Muslims, so be it. The rioters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

 

[Yetos]

@ Angela,

We are about to live the after 313 AD times,

trust me, as a pagan, I read about that times, much much,

today in Europe religion is away from state, and science
tomorrow will not,


we needed centuries to 'escape' the holy inquision,
wil we bring a new one? sharia law?



About Jews,
the penalty of death by stones, is written in old testament, and Mose's law,
and I ask, do we see any death by stone today in Israel? why?

the video is not proper for underage of 18,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTGd6VJ-M6k

watch after minute 1:30,

Who are these man who decide who is 'sinner' and who is 'divine'
who gave the right to mood to stone till death?
who is the judge? and who the executioner?

is that a way to control mood?
All I see is a gang of men, called 'priests' 'mulah', 'imam' who are doctors, judges, lawers, scientists, beacause 'they read Quran',
put religion foundamental priests above science, and replace state, what you have?
SCYTHOPOLIS

if tommorow you are stoned, or kick of the bus cause you wear a short skirt, or eat a sausage, or sing a song, do not say you were not warned,
and I know that major of muslims, are not in that case,,
but why they expert from Europe to do the bad guy, and they do not do it their own,
cause they afraid,
I believe that inside Muslims there is a % of 'good stuff', but I do not see their voice heard, or act dynamic,
why? , can't tell, cause I am not that fammiliar,

but what was stucked in my mind, was a preach by a Islamic priest, that stuck in my mind,
he said,
' my son soon will leave home and enter the outer world,
what will I say to him, when he ask me what have I done, to bring God's law to human?


AFTER ALL.
If I am a European and beat my wife, and she goes to justice, I am guilty by Europeans laws
If I am a Muslim, under Sharia law I have the right to beat my wife, and I am innocent
WHOSE LAW AND RIGHT IS PRIMARY?
a law that pass by vote of people? or a law that passed from a prophet?

The bellow is when a 'priest' becomes a judge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vnf9EDT-JJs

I suggest you see it.



the bellow reminds me the darlk ages,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IEH0BLuDbI
it reminds me Salem witch hunt.

I do not claim that Paganism or Christianity was or is Better,
but they have been overpass by modern laws
It is time to overpass Islam from rulling and law also,
sharia law can not be above human rights, state law, in the West,
either we deserve our destiny.

 

[Maleth]

This is all undeniably true, Maleth, and I couldn't agree more, but that doesn't mean that we have to abdicate our own principles in combating it. Nor does it mean that we should abdicate logic when discussing it.

agreed

The fact that Sharia Law proscribes marriage between non Muslim men and Muslim women is no different than the proscriptions of many other religions. The fact that adults willingly choose to follow such proscriptions is not something which should concern the state, just as it doesn't concern the state when Talmudic Law proscribes intermarriage with people of other religions.

agreed, but one needs also to keep a check on the frequency that that happens. I know a few muslims that married locals and conversion was not necessary, but I know MANY more were conversion was a requisite and it happened, I know some that after falling out they changed back their religion and baptized their kids. In all fairness I have never come across anyone who requested the other way round. I also know of many locals who married protestants and Atheists and no requisites were needed.

If an adult woman chooses to adopt a form of Islam that means she wears a chador, while I may think it is stupid, it is her choice. However, there are situations where it cannot be allowed because of public health concerns. In the case of Orthodox women who shave their heads and wear wigs is anyone seriously suggesting that the state should involve itself? I think Rasta hairstyles are incredibly gross...all sorts of nasty things grow in there, and I certainly could understand a reluctance to sit next to someone wearing it, but is the state going to get involved?

There are many traditions and much culture, but if any of that interferes with health or security the government should always step in. Locally there is a law for example that masks (covering of the face) is against the law except in the three days of carnival. I sincerly do not expect the government to allow Burkas (for example) just to accommodate a culture. Not everything that is part of the culture is good. Maybe Chadors will be fine, but sincerely I don't know how anyone can wear that in summer when its so hot. Anyway all the female statues are wearing Chadors from the time and nuns are somehow covered up too.

What is the concern of the state is any attempt to impose this law on others. In the example provided above it was stated that non Muslims in certain areas are being harassed for food related reasons, and the implication was that this is proof that Sharia Law is being accommodated by western governments. The fact is that such harassment is a crime which should be prosecuted. Only if there is evidence that it was not prosecuted could we conclude that the government in question is accommodating Sharia Law. Or, to use another example, if Muslim men are going about the streets harassing women, even Muslim women, for not conforming to Islamist dress codes, they should be prosecuted. Of course, the same thing would apply to the harassment or worse of homosexuals.

Denmark banned hallal and Koscher by the way, because it deemed cruel the way the animals were slaughtered.

Even within the Muslim communities themselves, certain practices cannot be tolerated in our societies, in my opinion. Female genital mutilation is beyond the pale; it is assault and should be so prosecuted. Children must be educated, including girls. Slavery, which is still practiced in certain Islamic countries, has no place in our societies. Even in the case of marriage practices, as I pointed out above, attempts to coerce women into marriage through confinement, beatings, starvation etc. are, in my parlance, felony kidnapping and assault and should be dealt with in that context. Honor killings, which do indeed take place in Europe, are murder and should be prosecuted as such and the perpetrators punished to the limits of the law, limits which, in my more angry moments, seem to be too low.

exactly, and there is bigamy too. Some argue that Western countries are NOT democratic because they should accommodate ALL of these laws. What makes my blood boil is go to Saudi Arabia or gulf countries and see if anyone is allowed to build a church. So the trend is that they want everyone to open up to them but they open up to no one.

On a more general level, the preaching of forcible conversion and/or the forcible imposition of Sharia Law amounts to sedition, in my opinion. I don't want to get too technical in terms of what constitutes conspiracy to riot or sedition in terms of evidence as the statutes will differ from country to country. All I'll say is that it seems to me that the western democracies are going to have to grapple with this issue and decide upon the legislative solutions and the means of enforcement.

The truth is that there was a believe that many cultures that would settle in free societies would eventually appreciate the freedom and fit (integrate) nicely, I am sure that many do and all these fanatics do not represent the whole Muslim communities. These fanatics bring unwanted prejudice to the Muslims that are secular and grateful, but as things turn out its becoming hard to distinguish and people get uneasy.

My discomfort with some of the prior posts (not all by any means) stems not only from the fact that some of it was illogical. I may be mistaken, and I apologize if I was, but it seemed to me that there was an undercurrent of the kind of attitudes which led to the horrors in the Balkans not all that long ago.

What happened in the Balkans was another form of fanaticism but the other way round. However each situation has its story and any form of fanaticism especially when it ends up hurting innocent people should be condemned

What, after all, are the other options to dealing with this situation within the western countries themselves? Mass deportations of citizens or legal residents because they are Muslims? Another round of cleansing, this time explicitly religious in nature? That is not an option.

It is being recognized at least in Europe that the multiculturalism experiment has failed in many ways (some did work) We are hearing main stream politicians saying it publicly now. I don't think cleansing will be necessary (Goodness forbids it ever comes to that) and one has to intelligently assess between the genuine and the trouble makers, but seriously stopping what fueling the tension can be sensible.

 

[Angela]

agreed



agreed, but one needs also to keep a check on the frequency that that happens. I know a few muslims that married locals and conversion was not necessary, but I know MANY more were conversion was a requisite and it happened, I know some that after falling out they changed back their religion and baptized their kids. In all fairness I have never come across anyone who requested the other way round. I also know of many locals who married protestants and Atheists and no requisites were needed.



There are many traditions and much culture, but if any of that interferes with health or security the government should always step in. Locally there is a law for example that masks (covering of the face) is against the law except in the three days of carnival. I sincerly do not expect the government to allow Burkas (for example) just to accommodate a culture. Not everything that is part of the culture is good. Maybe Chadors will be fine, but sincerely I don't know how anyone can wear that in summer when its so hot. Anyway all the female statues are wearing Chadors from the time and nuns are somehow covered up too.



Denmark banned hallal and Koscher by the way, because it deemed cruel the way the animals were slaughtered.



exactly, and there is bigamy too. Some argue that Western countries are NOT democratic because they should accommodate ALL of these laws. What makes my blood boil is go to Saudi Arabia or gulf countries and see if anyone is allowed to build a church. So the trend is that they want everyone to open up to them but they open up to no one.



The truth is that there was a believe that many cultures that would settle in free societies would eventually appreciate the freedom and fit (integrate) nicely, I am sure that many do and all these fanatics do not represent the whole Muslim communities. These fanatics bring unwanted prejudice to the Muslims that are secular and grateful, but as things turn out its becoming hard to distinguish and people get uneasy.



What happened in the Balkans was another form of fanaticism but the other way round. However each situation has its story and any form of fanaticism especially when it ends up hurting innocent people should be condemned



It is being recognized at least in Europe that the multiculturalism experiment has failed in many ways (some did work) We are hearing main stream politicians saying it publicly now. I don't think cleansing will be necessary (Goodness forbids it ever comes to that) and one has to intelligently assess between the genuine and the trouble makers, but seriously stopping what fueling the tension can be sensible.

As always, Maleth, your posts are a model of reason and good sense.

The major area where we differ is where marriage proscriptions are concerned. The government should not tell a religious community which kinds of marriages should be allowed. Civil marriages are a different story, and should always be an option.

I also think the Danes have gone overboard in legislating against kosher or halal meats. I personally find Kosher beef very dry and not palatable, but given the choice, I only buy Kosher chicken and hot dogs, for example, because they are far healthier, being more free of bacteria, and in the case of hot dogs of the "mystery" meat, gristle, bone and other disgusting things which the commercial varieties contain.

These are minor points, however.

 

[Aberdeen]

This is also happening in Italy; I was appalled at what is going on in Reggio Emilia, for example, and even in La Spezia. I am all for a different approach to immigration in the future, and, in fact, I'd go further and say that proposals for the deportation of illegal immigrants should indeed be considered.

There should also be zero tolerance for the kind of behavior which you describe. If prosecution of the perpetrators leads to riots by Muslims, so be it. The rioters should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I realize that there's a danger that if we talk honestly and openly about the problems caused by mistakes in immigration policy, we will find ourselves in bad company with extremists. But if we don't address the issue, our open and tolerant world could be lost, or we could reach a point where ordinary folk turn to extremists because mainstream politicians aren't fixing the problem.

 

[Angela]

I realize that there's a danger that if we talk honestly and openly about the problems caused by mistakes in immigration policy, we will find ourselves in bad company with extremists. But if we don't address the issue, our open and tolerant world could be lost, or we could reach a point where ordinary folk turn to extremists because mainstream politicians aren't fixing the problem.

I totally agree.

 

[LeBrok]

A prime example where we are losing the war with Radical Islam, which is a fertile ground for terrorism. We should have had concentrated our effort fighting and eradicating extremist teachings, either in Mosques or schools, including hateful, intolerant, calls for jihad on internet, we wouldn't had ISIS big problem and war.
We can't be tolerant to intolerant people. This is a trapping, the loophole in tolerance and democracy, from where the evil can sneak in. The religious, cultural and political intolerance should be legislated as a crime, the same way we already legislated other hate and intolerance crimes, like racism, slavery, or sexual orientation.
Burka should be banned indefinitely, even as halloween costume. Regardless of women "choice", it is a symbol of oppression, second class people, a man's property cover against prying eyes of other men. With proper brainwashing people can be made to do anything, consider it right, and even believing in their choice: arranged marriage, female mutilation, honor killing, ritual cannibalism, ritual masochism or sadism, euthanasia of weak and sick, etc. With proper "preparation" people choose these "choices" themselve.

 

[Garrick]

Old testament is the story of Jews through a religiouw look
new testament is the mix of Στοικοι Stoic philosophy with Monotheism
Christianity did the same from 313 to late religious wars who last even 100 years,
by religion history comapring, is like the after the great Schisma times, closer to Reformation wars,
Christianity once had 2 Popes, 2 patriarchs in jerusalem etc etc,
As a clear war, WW2 was more more massive destruction,
but when analyze the modern IS case we see non locals, much non locals, probably mercenairies, or foundamentalists, who kidnap or sell even kids,
the IS is something away from situations we knew as war until today,
the IS and the other in Nigeria, as also taliban before years is a complex case where Religion is also used in order to change status, rulling families, system, etc etc.
by kidnaping 200 virgin christian girls at age of 12 in Nigeria to sell them, I do not think someone gives glory to Allah or God,
and that is what makes me wonder on what is behind, and makes me wonder who and for what would buy them,
on the other hand, we all know about the 'rich' who go to SE Asia for same reason,
I would say it more like an international mafia which hide the crime behind religion,
or they do what Quran demands (post#40). who knows their deep inner soul.
even in Troyan war we see mix of Gods in war,
WW2 if we exclude the extreme acts and holocaust was a typical war,
what happens now in IS is above a typical war due to extreme acts, made by foreigners,
I agree that a 'Crusade' is a stupid solution,
but can we accept back to Europe all these?
Why we pass NAZI's from trials about war criminality,
SHOULD WE DO THE SAME WITH THOSE WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SYRRIA BUT WENT TO CREATE IS AND ITS CRIMINALITY?
WORLD search and send ex-yugoslavian 'captains' to Netherlands for war criminals,

Are we gonna leave the IS outside from war criminality?

Islamic supremacism should be understood:

ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM is the belief that Islam is superior to other religions, cultures, and governmental systems, and the belief that Islam's superiority entitles Muslims to dominate, control, and rule non-Muslims.

Islam is a supremacist religion. The Hadith and Qur'an command every Muslim to strive until Islam dominates all other religions. The Qur'an says very clearly that the only legitimate form of government is Allah's. According to mainstream, well-established Islamic teachings, the goal of Islam is to make the whole world submit to the law of Allah (Shari'a).

http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2008/12/islamic-supremacism.html

...
Two things are wrong:

1) Dhimmi attitudes, where someone is willing to submit to Muslims (for example leftist sometimes make this)
2) Islamophobia, where someone has phobia of Muslims.

Realistically, large part of the world is Muslim (about 23% of Planet) and this fact should be respected.

Key is knowledge, Muslims often have an advantage because they know a lot more of systems of non-Muslims, strengths and weaknesses these systems, than non-Muslims know about Islam.

 

[Yetos]

Moral development is overplayed. Our nature hasn't changed for 10,000's of years. My point was that if you believed in the God of the old testament you would do what the Jews did. Christianity hasn't really changed much in the last 2,000 years or so. Not everyone who goes under the name Christian represents what Jesus taught. You can't put all Christians in a certain time period under the same category either, so it's impossible to mark development. Injustice that Christians committed especially in medieval Europe do not at all represent the core teachings of Christianity.

Like I said before why are y'all so obsessed with debating about religion, when this thread is about stopping ISIS?

you are right,

but first we must find them,
and then to decide if millitary actions or embargo or diplomatic solutions, etc.
personally i do not think large scale millitary actions needed,
it is more diplomacy and political,

 

[Garrick]

A prime example where we are losing the war with Radical Islam, which is a fertile ground for terrorism. We should have had concentrated our effort fighting and eradicating extremist teachings, either in Mosques or schools, including hateful, intolerant, calls for jihad on internet, we wouldn't had ISIS big problem and war.
We can't be tolerant to intolerant people. This is a trapping, the loophole in tolerance and democracy, from where the evil can sneak in. The religious, cultural and political intolerance should be legislated as a crime, the same way we already legislated other hate and intolerance crimes, like racism, slavery, or sexual orientation.
Burka should be banned indefinitely, even as halloween costume. Regardless of women "choice", it is a symbol of oppression, second class people, a man's property cover against prying eyes of other men. With proper brainwashing people can be made to do anything, consider it right, and even believing in their choice: arranged marriage, female mutilation, honor killing, ritual cannibalism, ritual masochism or sadism, euthanasia of weak and sick, etc. With proper "preparation" people choose these "choices" themselve.

It is essence, LeBrok. Reputation. Dhimmi attitudes are wrong. However, and repression is wrong, too, I'm personally against any kind of oppression just because someone is Muslim.

What is important, do not allow the implementation of Islamic rule and Sharia law, parallel legal system of any country. It is not democracy. If this happens, the Muslims will demand more and more.

Muslim autonomous zones, for example Daniel Pipes wrote about it, are wrong option for European countries.

D. Pipes:

“These microstates will enjoy a "monopoly on legitimate violence," impose their own autonomous legal order, and form alliances among themselves. They will feature such Shar'i customs as polygyny, no-interest finance, huddud punishments, Islamic ways of dress, family "honor" codes, bans on criticism of Islam, and so on. Arabic and the dominant immigrant vernacular will enjoy more currency than the host country's language. Street names will be changed, statues removed, churches and synagogues converted to mosques.”

 

[LeBrok]

It is being recognized at least in Europe that the multiculturalism experiment has failed in many ways (some did work) We are hearing main stream politicians saying it publicly now. I don't think cleansing will be necessary (Goodness forbids it ever comes to that) and one has to intelligently assess between the genuine and the trouble makers, but seriously stopping what fueling the tension can be sensible.

It is not about multiculturalism per se, it is about letting intolerant people in. We can have tolerant people of many cultures living peacefully together, and conversely, we can have intolerant people in any culture fighting whoever they hate. Sadly a big percentage of emigrants from Near East hate European culture, they don't tolerate European culture, but still come here for material benefits. I have no idea how such situation is acceptable in emigration policies of many western countries.

 

[Maleth]

As always, Maleth, your posts are a model of reason and good sense.

Thank you, and so are yours

The major area where we differ is where marriage proscriptions are concerned. The government should not tell a religious community which kinds of marriages should be allowed. Civil marriages are a different story, and should always be an option.

agreed, however it is also true that siblings should be protected from bullying from parents or communities if they choose to cut off from the traditional ties and mindset. There is much much more pressure on these ultra conservative groups then we can ever imagine and getting away is truly not an easy options (due to other pressures such as family support and financial pressures). By the way Hindus are very similar so as you say its not just a Muslim thing when it comes to marriage pressure. The pressure is also big on Christian groups and also the Jehovas have similar tactics.

I also think the Danes have gone overboard in legislating against kosher or halal meats. I personally find Kosher beef very dry and not palatable, but given the choice, I only buy Kosher chicken and hot dogs, for example, because they are far healthier, being more free of bacteria, and in the case of hot dogs of the "mystery" meat, gristle, bone and other disgusting things which the commercial varieties contain.

I think you are right and probably they just wanted to make a point and not necessarily have to do with animal welfare. After all Most Hallal in Europe the animals are stunned first (like any other) and not have their throat slashed directly. The blood is drained later. Unless the ban was just for those animals that were having their throats slashed while conscious. (as the procedure seems to still happen in other countries in Europe, but in smaller numbers)

 

[Maleth]

It is not about multiculturalism per se, it is about letting intolerant people in. We can have tolerant people of many cultures living peacefully together, and conversely, we can have intolerant people in any culture fighting whoever they hate. Sadly a big percentage of emigrants from Near East hate European culture, they don't tolerate European culture, but still come here for material benefits. I have no idea how such situation is acceptable in emigration policies of many western countries.

Its not easy to distinguish the tolerant from the intolerant. I think there are two kinds of immigration, one were people invest in the country and open some business so it will be granted citizenship of some sort, or to be granted a job that locals cannot do so they are regularized by companies that employ them, and the others are mainly asylum seekers were no one questions if the are tolerant or intolerant as their plea is to flee war and persecutions and are given automatically residential rights with some conditions (not full citizenship) if they arrive from those areas. I can say more but prefer not to.

go on the time counter 2.56. We had the arab spring since then! and guess what happened with the arab spring? Sharia law was imposed in Libya. And now they are fighting again. What do you think for? Democracy? Its the even more fundamentalists are fighting for control to remove the government that imposed Sharia law in the country.......And the media told us we are experiencing an Arab spring........

 

[Garrick]

go on the time counter 2.56. We had the arab spring since then! and guess what happened with the arab spring? Sharia law was imposed in Libya. And now they are fighting again. What do you think for? Democracy? Its the even more fundamentalists are fighting for control to remove the government that imposed Sharia law in the country.......And the media told us we are experiencing an Arab spring........

Islam is totality, religion in Islam is only one of part that system.

Who identifies Islam only as religion he or she cannot understand the whole system.

For example this author talk about political aspect of Islam (of course there are other aspects in Islam):

http://maverickphilosopher.typepad....slams-religious-exemption-from-criticism.html

"The truth of the matter is that Islam is a hybrid: it’s both a political ideology and a religion. And although the political side of Islam may turn out to be every bit as dangerous as Nazism or communism, the religious side provides considerable protection from criticism. Because of its religious nature, it seems improper to engage Islam in the kind of ideological warfare the West waged against fascism and communism."

"We hear a lot about all the different forms of Islam, but the idea of the caliphate is that there should be only one unified Islam. Like communism, the caliphate is intended to be a borderless community—a trans-national and ever-expanding empire of true believers. That’s because, like communism, Islam aspires to be a universal belief system."

"Unlike communism, however, Islam has the advantage of conducting its proselytizing activities under the banner of religion. During the Cold War, communists did not have the benefit of being able to set up recruitment and indoctrination centers all over the free world. Yet, in effect, Islam does. Mosques are not just places of worship; they are often centers of political activity and, not infrequently, of jihad activity."

 

[hope]

A prime example where we are losing the war with Radical Islam, which is a fertile ground for terrorism. We should have had concentrated our effort fighting and eradicating extremist teachings, either in Mosques or schools, including hateful, intolerant, calls for jihad on internet, we wouldn't had ISIS big problem and war.
We can't be tolerant to intolerant people. This is a trapping, the loophole in tolerance and democracy, from where the evil can sneak in. The religious, cultural and political intolerance should be legislated as a crime, the same way we already legislated other hate and intolerance crimes, like racism, slavery, or sexual orientation.
Burka should be banned indefinitely, even as halloween costume. Regardless of women "choice", it is a symbol of oppression, second class people, a man's property cover against prying eyes of other men. With proper brainwashing people can be made to do anything, consider it right, and even believing in their choice: arranged marriage, female mutilation, honor killing, ritual cannibalism, ritual masochism or sadism, euthanasia of weak and sick, etc. With proper "preparation" people choose these "choices" themselve.

Yes I agree with this LeBrok. Fundamentalism,extremism, is a dangerous state of mind and one that becomes all consuming. It is hard to fight such. Yet, surely not all Muslims are extremists, there are some who are more moderate in their thinking, I imagine. Not all Muslims can be in agreement with those shown in these videos, and outside of them. So, where are their voices? Why do they not speak up in number and even protest, against such actions and words, of those fundamental Muslims, to say no, you do not speak or act for all. Whilst they remain silent, the only face of Islam we in Europe see, is the face and voice of violence and unreason. Is it then, any wonder many view the religion with distrust and negativity?
The West has fallen victim to her own good legislation. She is bound,it seems, by fair and sound laws, laws that try to give all, individuals or groups, equality, protection and rights. These things are being badly abused by some IMO. It is this system that has given that man in Maleths video the right to protest. It also gives him freedom to practise his religion of choice, without fear of harm or prejudice. He should not be so quick to renounce it, I think, in favour of the law of Islam. The law of the country one resides in or is a citizen of is the only law which governs, like it or not, it is fact. I would oppose any other law being at work within any country other than the state law..no other should even be considered, one law to cover all.
I am also opposed to segregated education, whatever form it comes in, LeBrok, whether it is an exclusive Muslim school, Catholic, Protestant etc etc. Education should be integrated, thus integrating the community.
As for wearing the burka, last year Britain temporarily set aside making any law regulating this. At the time I thought this was a good thing. Britain gives religous freedom and I thought to ban a piece of clothing solely on religious/cultural reasons was wrong. Now, I think different. As I am for integration of education, I feel the wearing of burkas restrictive to young girls who may wish to fully participate in sports or swimming and such. Also because, I feel it does little to help community integration..and also I give thought to the reasons you have already spoken of. If I am not mistaken, the Qur'an states only that a women be modestly dressed, with her head and neck covered, therefore the hijab is sufficient and not restrictive.
As to how to deal with ISIS, the question Firehaired asked, that`s not easy to answer. It is a group that has murdered without distinction, they have murdered Christians and Muslims alike. They have committed horrendous acts. I do not think there can be a quick fix. But I do know that any who has gone to join them from Europe, should be stripped of their citizenship and never allowed to return to the countries they came from. They have declared themselves part of this new Islamic state, let them become citizens of it and have passports issued from there. It would be interesting to see how far they might travel on those!

 

[LeBrok]

Yes I agree with this LeBrok. Fundamentalism,extremism, is a dangerous state of mind and one that becomes all consuming. It is hard to fight such. Yet, surely not all Muslims are extremists, there are some who are more moderate in their thinking, I imagine. Not all Muslims can be in agreement with those shown in these videos, and outside of them. So, where are their voices? Why do they not speak up in number and even protest, against such actions and words, of those fundamental Muslims, to say no, you do not speak or act for all. Whilst they remain silent, the only face of Islam we in Europe see, is the face and voice of violence and unreason. Is it then, any wonder many view the religion with distrust and negativity?

Unfortunately it is the case, moderate Muslims seem too quiet, not counterbalancing extremists' voices. They either too scared of backlash or perhaps somewhat sympathising with rising Muslim power. However recently I've heard on news two Muslim leaders from Calgary communities voicing concern of youths being radicalised and asking Canadian authorities for better protection against radicals. Maybe a hopeful sign of moderates being active finally.

The West has fallen victim to her own good legislation. She is bound,it seems, by fair and sound laws, laws that try to give all, individuals or groups, equality, protection and rights. These things are being badly abused by some IMO. It is this system that has given that man in Maleths video the right to protest. It also gives him freedom to practise his religion of choice, without fear of harm or prejudice. He should not be so quick to renounce it, I think, in favour of the law of Islam. The law of the country one resides in or is a citizen of is the only law which governs, like it or not, it is fact. I would oppose any other law being at work within any country other than the state law..no other should even be considered, one law to cover all.

I wouldn't mind if Sharia served as nothing more than family counseling services for Muslims.

I am also opposed to segregated education, whatever form it comes in, LeBrok, whether it is an exclusive Muslim school, Catholic, Protestant etc etc. Education should be integrated, thus integrating the community.

I agree, If not one public education, then at least mandatory curriculum in social, history and science subjects, same common knowledge for all separate school types. Except their unique religious classes.

If I am not mistaken, the Qur'an states only that a women be modestly dressed, with her head and neck covered, therefore the hijab is sufficient and not restrictive.

Exactly, it is not even a religious clothing restriction. Burka is nothing more than traditional tribal dress, meant to protect man's property, the married woman. Nothing to do with modesty or religion at all. It has only a support with hyper conservative Muslims.

As to how to deal with ISIS, the question Firehaired asked, that`s not easy to answer. It is a group that has murdered without distinction, they have murdered Christians and Muslims alike. They have committed horrendous acts. I do not think there can be a quick fix. But I do know that any who has gone to join them from Europe, should be stripped of their citizenship and never allowed to return to the countries they came from. They have declared themselves part of this new Islamic state, let them become citizens of it and have passports issued from there. It would be interesting to see how far they might travel on those!

I'm for it. If they are not accepted in any country on earth, they can always go to Antarctica where citizenship is not needed, lol. I have no compassion or empathy for these intolerant, psychopathic, murderers and rapists.