Immigration ISlamic State step foot in Europe

[bicicleur 2]

I believe that even if whole Europe would turn to Islam or staid pagan, Europe would have same tolerant character and segregation of religion from state, as we have it right now.

under Sharia law ?

 

[John Doe]

guys it is more than that.

the 15 year old that escape, describes an industry of moneys, through many things, that we can not imagine, they multiply with tremendous rythm,
20 girls from 14 to 18 pregnant by same man,
they buy and sell human bodies, as slaves, and not as working class.
on the other hand I do not know globall policy of some countries,
I do not know if all of that is a plan and not a mistake,

return to jungle or not,
return to nature or not,
Apokalypto or not
Apocalypsis or not,
it is a fire, with no protection zones.

They're nothing less than mad barbarians.

 

[John Doe]

That's right. The difference is that Western World learned to be tolerant, but Near East didn't.

Indeed, you're right.

 

[FBS]

This is a good example of religious harmony: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ng-first-visit-to-Muslim-majority-nation.html

Or when Muslims help the Christians to build their church:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/0...ious-harmony-in-albania-muslims-help-rebuild/

Look at this photo, this happens in Albania:

and this one:

This proves what actually LeBrok says that in Europe this religion (Muslim) would behave differently.

 

[FBS]

In 1934, Herman Bernstein, the United States Ambassador to Albania, wrote:

“There is no trace of any discrimination against Jews in Albania, because Albania happens to be one of the rare lands in Europe today where religious prejudice and hate do not exist, even though Albanians themselves are divided into three faiths.”

Albania, the only European country with a Muslim majority, succeeded in the place where other European nations failed. Almost all Jews living within Albanian borders during the German occupation, those of Albanian origin and refugees alike, were saved, except members of a single family. Impressively, there were more Jews in Albania at the end of the war than beforehand.


Here is the link:http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/besa/introduction.asp

 

[Garrick]

under Sharia law ?

You're right.

In Islamic society under Sharia law for atheists and pagans there no place. They can exist eventually only as slaves.

Christians, Jews and Sabians as non-Muslims have right to exist in Islamic Society but with restrictions.

They have Dhimmi status, they have no political rights and freedoms as Muslims and must to pay Jizyah - tax for life (this tax Muslims don't pay).

They practically depend on the mercy of Islamic government, if the government is benevolent it could be somewhat acceptable life (in second class citizen status).

But if the government is not merciful, life of non-Muslims under Islamic rule and Sharia law is much harder with suffering and sacrifice.

Two best ways to survive in such situation are convert to Islam or migration.

 

[Angela]

I don't think Europeans have any moral high ground upon which to stand, unless someone is going to convince me that their basic nature has changed in the last twenty or thirty years.

How "tolerant" were the Germans? Was it tolerance when the Germans rounded up a priest, old men, women, and children in a village near me, locked them in a church and burned them to death? Or the Russians under Stalin? How do the mass rapes committed by the Russians as they advanced during World War II differ in kind? Does it make a difference if the killing and raping and mass deportations and consignment to camps is done in the name of a political ideology? That was seventy years ago.

Or, for a more recent time frame, how about the Balkans? Did only the Muslims there commit atrocities and mass rapes? Most of the killing and ethnic cleansing and raping there was done by Christians, and many of the victims were secularized Muslims.

Oh, and to save everyone some time, how tolerant were the Italians when they bombed Ethiopia? Perhaps we can revisit the Spanish Civil War while we're at it. That was a good one too.

That doesn't mean, imo, that there should be any "tolerance" for this type of behavior. Some areas of Italy are no longer recognizable. Young immigrant Muslim girls are still subject to Sharia law there; it's just that it is administered by their fathers and brothers, not the state. Anyone subjecting their daughters to this kind of treatment should be prosecuted for child abuse, endangerment of a minor, assault or murder as the case may warrant. The perpetrators should be given the harshest possible prison sentences. It's only a pity that Italy has no death penalty, imo. I don't think a twenty year prison sentence is adequate for killing your own daughter because she was seeing a boy.

If immigrants don't wish to abide by the norms and laws of their host countries, they should get out or face the consequences, and I'm speaking as an immigrant myself. Anyone advocating for the forcible imposition of Sharia law or violent conversion who is not a citizen should be deported immediately. Those who are citizens and preach what is virtually sedition should be imprisoned.

The other extreme to intolerance is being so tolerant that it becomes a death wish.

 

[LeBrok]

under Sharia law ?

There was no higher and stronger law than religious courts in Middle Age Europe. "Immoral" people were imprisoned, tortured and burned on bonfire. Did I mention killing pagans for the glory of Christian God?

 

[LeBrok]

I don't think Europeans have any moral high ground upon which to stand, unless someone is going to convince me that their basic nature has changed in the last twenty or thirty years.

How "tolerant" were the Germans? Was it tolerance when the Germans rounded up a priest, old men, women, and children in a village near me, locked them in a church and burned them to death? Or the Russians under Stalin? How do the mass rapes committed by the Russians as they advanced during World War II differ in kind? Does it make a difference if the killing and raping and mass deportations and consignment to camps is done in the name of a political ideology? That was seventy years ago.

Or, for a more recent time frame, how about the Balkans? Did only the Muslims there commit atrocities and mass rapes? Most of the killing and ethnic cleansing and raping there was done by Christians, and many of the victims were secularized Muslims.

Oh, and to save everyone some time, how tolerant were the Italians when they bombed Ethiopia? Perhaps we can revisit the Spanish Civil War while we're at it. That was a good one too.

That doesn't mean, imo, that there should be any "tolerance" for this type of behavior. Some areas of Italy are no longer recognizable. Young immigrant Muslim girls are still subject to Sharia law there; it's just that it is administered by their fathers and brothers, not the state. Anyone subjecting their daughters to this kind of treatment should be prosecuted for child abuse, endangerment of a minor, assault or murder as the case may warrant. The perpetrators should be given the harshest possible prison sentences. It's only a pity that Italy has no death penalty, imo. I don't think a twenty year prison sentence is adequate for killing your own daughter because she was seeing a boy.

If immigrants don't wish to abide by the norms and laws of their host countries, they should get out or face the consequences, and I'm speaking as an immigrant myself. Anyone advocating for the forcible imposition of Sharia law or violent conversion who is not a citizen should be deported immediately. Those who are citizens and preach what is virtually sedition should be imprisoned.

Well said, Angela.

The other extreme to intolerance is being so tolerant that it becomes a death wish.

That is a trap indeed. I'm always stopping being tolerant when facing intolerance. Perhaps intolerance should be a considered a crime? It is in extreme case like racism, however this should apply to more issues, like religion, education, gender.

 

[bicicleur 2]

There was no higher and stronger law than religious courts in Middle Age Europe. "Immoral" people were imprisoned, tortured and burned on bonfire. Did I mention killing pagans for the glory of Christian God?

those were crimes, for sure

but I haven't heared of anyone wanting to reinstall this

on the other hand, there are many calls to install sharia

it's no use arguing who commited the most crimes in past history and certainly not to use them as excuse for todays behaviour

i'm talking about todays threats

i believe in seperation of state and religion and nobody should impose his law under any excuse

 

[Garrick]

I don't think Europeans have any moral high ground upon which to stand, unless someone is going to convince me that their basic nature has changed in the last twenty or thirty years.

How "tolerant" were the Germans? Was it tolerance when the Germans rounded up a priest, old men, women, and children in a village near me, locked them in a church and burned them to death? Or the Russians under Stalin? How do the mass rapes committed by the Russians as they advanced during World War II differ in kind? Does it make a difference if the killing and raping and mass deportations and consignment to camps is done in the name of a political ideology? That was seventy years ago.

Or, for a more recent time frame, how about the Balkans? Did only the Muslims there commit atrocities and mass rapes? Most of the killing and ethnic cleansing and raping there was done by Christians, and many of the victims were secularized Muslims.

Oh, and to save everyone some time, how tolerant were the Italians when they bombed Ethiopia? Perhaps we can revisit the Spanish Civil War while we're at it. That was a good one too.

That doesn't mean, imo, that there should be any "tolerance" for this type of behavior. Some areas of Italy are no longer recognizable. Young immigrant Muslim girls are still subject to Sharia law there; it's just that it is administered by their fathers and brothers, not the state. Anyone subjecting their daughters to this kind of treatment should be prosecuted for child abuse, endangerment of a minor, assault or murder as the case may warrant. The perpetrators should be given the harshest possible prison sentences. It's only a pity that Italy has no death penalty, imo. I don't think a twenty year prison sentence is adequate for killing your own daughter because she was seeing a boy.

If immigrants don't wish to abide by the norms and laws of their host countries, they should get out or face the consequences, and I'm speaking as an immigrant myself. Anyone advocating for the forcible imposition of Sharia law or violent conversion who is not a citizen should be deported immediately. Those who are citizens and preach what is virtually sedition should be imprisoned.

The other extreme to intolerance is being so tolerant that it becomes a death wish.

Yes Angela, people of all nations, races, religions etc. can be very brutal.

But clearly, this is not the point about such cases.

Here we all talking about the system (and knowing the nature of Islam someone should always thinks it is totality which includes human life and whole society).

And you noticing exactly where is the disorder.

Once, Kingdom of Yugoslavia was made that mistake, and today some Western European countries are making the same mistake.

In any democratic country there must be one legal system.

But Kingdom of Yugoslavia before World War Two (even Yugoslav communists tacitly tolerated although officially it was forbidden), and some Western European countries today, allow that Muslims among themselves can apply Sharia law.

It has nothing to do with tolerance/intolerance how some people think idealistically.

Applying Sharia law in legal systems of democratic countries turning order in chaos.

 

[Angela]

Yes Angela, people of all nations, races, religions etc. can be very brutal.

But clearly, this is not the point about such cases.

Here we all talking about the system (and knowing the nature of Islam someone should always thinks it is totality which includes human life and whole society).

And you noticing exactly where is the disorder.

Once, Kingdom of Yugoslavia was made that mistake, and today some Western European countries are making the same mistake.

In any democratic country there must be one legal system.

But Kingdom of Yugoslavia before World War Two (even Yugoslav communists tacitly tolerated although officially it was forbidden), and some Western European countries today, allow that Muslims among themselves can apply Sharia law.

It has nothing to do with tolerance/intolerance how some people think idealistically.

Applying Sharia law in legal systems of democratic countries turning order in chaos.

Yes Angela, people of all nations, races, religions etc. can be very brutal.

But clearly, this is not the point about such cases.

Here we all talking about the system (and knowing the nature of Islam someone should always thinks it is totality which includes human life and whole society).

And you noticing exactly where is the disorder.

Once, Kingdom of Yugoslavia was made that mistake, and today some Western European countries are making the same mistake.

In any democratic country there must be one legal system.

But Kingdom of Yugoslavia before World War Two (even Yugoslav communists tacitly tolerated although officially it was forbidden), and some Western European countries today, allow that Muslims among themselves can apply Sharia law.

It has nothing to do with tolerance/intolerance how some people think idealistically.

Applying Sharia law in legal systems of democratic countries turning order in chaos.

Civilized societies accommodate all religious faiths. There is ample precedent in American jurisprudence. Amish children are allowed to attend public schools in their own communities.Other religious faiths operate their own private schools, and no one prevents them. Within a ten minute drive of my home there are dozens of Catholic schools, a Lutheran school and a number of Orthodox Yeshivas. No one prevents children attending public school from attending religious instruction classes at their churches, and, in fact, some schools release students early one day a week to accommodate that. In the days of the draft, Amish and Mennonite men were exempt, as they are pacifists. American Indians have always been allowed to use certain intoxicating substances in their religious ceremonies. If an adult Christian Scientist wishes to refuse medical care that is her or her own decision.

However, the child of a Christian scientist should be taken from the parents if medical treatment is denied and the child faces imminent harm. A child is not a possession. If excommunicated Mormon communities wish to practice polygamy, there is no way to prevent them, but an underage girl cannot be given in marriage, especially against her will.

Someone's religious rights stop where someone else's human rights begin.

 

[Garrick]

Civilized societies accommodate all religious faiths. There is ample precedent in American jurisprudence. Amish children are allowed to attend public schools in their own communities.Other religious faiths operate their own private schools, and no one prevents them. Within a ten minute drive of my home there are dozens of Catholic schools, a Lutheran school and a number of Orthodox Yeshivas. No one prevents children attending public school from attending religious instruction classes at their churches, and, in fact, some schools release students early one day a week to accommodate that. In the days of the draft, Amish and Mennonite men were exempt, as they are pacifists. American Indians have always been allowed to use certain intoxicating substances in their religious ceremonies. If an adult Christian Scientist wishes to refuse medical care that is her or her own decision.

However, the child of a Christian scientist should be taken from the parents if medical treatment is denied and the child faces imminent harm. A child is not a possession. If excommunicated Mormon communities wish to practice polygamy, there is no way to prevent them, but an underage girl cannot be given in marriage, especially against her will.

Someone's religious rights stop where someone else's human rights begin.

Everything you write is completely all right and does not interfere with the violation of the legal system.

But the use of Sharia law resulting disruption of the existing legal order.

For example, here is the article from last year:

Hellen Parra Florez

http://lawyerssecularsociety.files....arra-florez-sharia-law-no-place-in-europe.pdf

"Sharia law, due to its increased presence in Europe, is staking its claim to become the main social, political and legal challenge of the 21^st century. A distorted idea of multiculturalism and a culture of political correctness among politicians, academia and journalists go hand in hand to exacerbate the sharia problem in Europe. The understanding that sharia law discriminates against women is not rocket science. Likewise, the more sharia the more the rule of law suffers. Children’s welfare under sharia does not meet European human rights standards either. Furthermore, the operation of sharia is creating parallel legal systems in Europe. This is happening in two ways: on the private level, through rulings delivered by sharia courts or their equivalent and, on the public level, through the encroachment of Islamic law on national legal systems."

 

[Angela]

If adult, competent members of Muslim communities in the west wish to use Sharia law among themselves, which covers many aspects of life, btw, I don't see the problem, unless and until the human rights of a minor are violated, or it is imposed upon people of their own or other religions, or significantly affects the people of other faiths.

For example, all children in a democratic western society have the right to be educated. These families cannot be allowed to deny education to their daughters. That isn't an option, although accommodations can be made. They can't force their underage daughters to marry men of their choice. They can't "discipline" their womenfolk by violence. They can't stone an adulteress. They can't punish even one of their own for theft by amputating a hand.

These things should be self-evident.

Needless to say, as I posted upthread, any attempt to impose this law on non-Muslims should result in deportation or imprisonment.

Let's take a less extreme example...the wearing of head and face coverings by women. If an adult woman chooses to allow herself to be dressed in this way, one could say that it is her right. However, in certain circumstances, her religious freedom might impact too greatly on the rights of others. No woman wearing a chador should be allowed to drive a car. It impedes vision. That or even long veils have no business in certain kinds of work environments. It's too dangerous. However, to ban it outright is, indeed, going too far, I think.

In some situations, a blind man should be able to know where the lines should be drawn. In others, the decisions have to be more nuanced. These things must be decided on a case by case basis.

Are there specific instances to which you can point where western nations are allowing Sharia law to operate in violation of human rights as defined in these nations? Otherwise, it's just generalities.

 

[Garrick]

If adult, competent members of Muslim communities in the west wish to use Sharia law among themselves, which covers many aspects of life, btw, I don't see the problem, unless and until the human rights of a minor are violated, or it is imposed upon people of their own or other religions, or significantly affects the people of other faiths.

For example, all children in a democratic western society have the right to be educated. These families cannot be allowed to deny education to their daughters. That isn't an option, although accommodations can be made. They can't force their underage daughters to marry men of their choice. They can't "discipline" their womenfolk by violence. They can't stone an adulteress. They can't punish even one of their own for theft by amputating a hand.

These things should be self-evident.

Needless to say, as I posted upthread, any attempt to impose this law on non-Muslims should result in deportation or imprisonment.

Let's take a less extreme example...the wearing of head and face coverings by women. If an adult woman chooses to allow herself to be dressed in this way, one could say that it is her right. However, in certain circumstances, her religious freedom might impact too greatly on the rights of others. No woman wearing a chador should be allowed to drive a car. It impedes vision. That or even long veils have no business in certain kinds of work environments. It's too dangerous. However, to ban it outright is, indeed, going too far, I think.

In some situations, a blind man should be able to know where the lines should be drawn. In others, the decisions have to be more nuanced. These things must be decided on a case by case basis.

Are there specific instances to which you can point where western nations are allowing Sharia law to operate in violation of human rights as defined in these nations? Otherwise, it's just generalities.

You can see in article which I gave, for example (Italy):

"Discrimination against women comes in many shapes and forms under sharia law. Muslim women are not allowed to marry a non ‐ Muslim man while Muslim men are free to marry a non ‐ Muslim woman. This Islamic rule violates the Convention. Art 14 states that “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex ...” Nevertheless, it has become part of the Italian jurisprudence. Under Italian marriage rules, a woman from Algeria or Egypt, for example, must obtain her embassy’s consent in order to be able to marry a non ‐ Muslim in Italy. Consent is unlikely unless the would ‐ be husband converts to Islam. This rule in turn comes into question under Art 12, the right to marry and found a family. What is the difference then between applying this rule and legalising forced marriage? Forced marriage is about losing the freedom to choose the person you want to marry. Women are obliged to marry a man that has been chosen usually by her parents or relatives. This is a practice that is legally forbidden in countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Malta, Belgium and Cyprus. Italy has not taken measures to tackle this issue and, therefore, the current state of affairs is not surprising. Requiring women from Muslim countries to get the embassy’s permission is not equivalent by any means to forcing them into an undesired marriage but it is a likely by ‐ product if the woman does not get the embassy’s permission she desires. She may find herself having to choose between being alone or marrying a Muslim man, in order to comply with State’s requirement. Similar to forced marriage, where parents decide their daughter’s marital fate, the Italian state’s obstruction of the freedom of women from Muslim countries to marry is also deciding women’s marital fates. The encroachment of this marital rule is a clear example of how a multicultural accommodation policy can violate rights of individuals, namely women."

What is more important, Sharia law or rights of women in democratic country (such as Italy)?

It is very seriously question.

This is only small example.

Sharia law is more and more in legal system of European countries (about which is the above article).

 

[Ike]

No woman wearing a chador should be allowed to drive a car.

Seeing young Sadiyah on a chariot, Muhammad frowned and said: No female is allowed to ride a camel or a horse, navigate boats, motor vehicles, space shuttles and other flying or submerged objects.

 

[Angela]

You can see in article which I gave, for example (Italy):

"Discrimination against women comes in many shapes and forms under sharia law. Muslim women are not allowed to marry a non ‐ Muslim man while Muslim men are free to marry a non ‐ Muslim woman. This Islamic rule violates the Convention. Art 14 states that “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex ...” Nevertheless, it has become part of the Italian jurisprudence. Under Italian marriage rules, a woman from Algeria or Egypt, for example, must obtain her embassy’s consent in order to be able to marry a non ‐ Muslim in Italy. Consent is unlikely unless the would ‐ be husband converts to Islam. This rule in turn comes into question under Art 12, the right to marry and found a family. What is the difference then between applying this rule and legalising forced marriage? Forced marriage is about losing the freedom to choose the person you want to marry. Women are obliged to marry a man that has been chosen usually by her parents or relatives. This is a practice that is legally forbidden in countries like the United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, Germany, Austria, Malta, Belgium and Cyprus. Italy has not taken measures to tackle this issue and, therefore, the current state of affairs is not surprising. Requiring women from Muslim countries to get the embassy’s permission is not equivalent by any means to forcing them into an undesired marriage but it is a likely by ‐ product if the woman does not get the embassy’s permission she desires. She may find herself having to choose between being alone or marrying a Muslim man, in order to comply with State’s requirement. Similar to forced marriage, where parents decide their daughter’s marital fate, the Italian state’s obstruction of the freedom of women from Muslim countries to marry is also deciding women’s marital fates. The encroachment of this marital rule is a clear example of how a multicultural accommodation policy can violate rights of individuals, namely women."

What is more important, Sharia law or rights of women in democratic country (such as Italy)?

It is very seriously question.

This is only small example.

Sharia law is more and more in legal system of European countries (about which is the above article).

Constitutional pronouncements are only as good as the statutes enacted to enforce them. Those are pretty words, but how would it work in terms of real life, with real police officers and real prosecutors?

In the real world, it can be impossible to enforce such rules. Let's assume for the moment that we are talking about a Muslim woman who is an Italian citizen. Let's further assume that the coercion takes the form of haranguing her, or 'guilting' her, or ostracizing her. What can the law do? The answer is... nothing. Likewise, if the girl is brainwashed into agreeing? That, in my opinion, is what is going on in these break away Mormon sects. The answer again is...nothing. Should they confine her, or starve her, or beat her, then we are talking about crimes which can be prosecuted.

The situation which you bring up involving foreign nationals is a different matter. These are citizens of another country, with an ambiguous status in their host countries. The rules governing their marriages are obviously the result of a diplomatic agreement between Italy and these countries, an agreement based, I have no doubt, largely on the fact that Italy gets a lot of its oil from Muslim countries, and North Africa and the Near East are good markets for its goods. Do I agree with the decision? No, but to make a real difference, all the European countries would have to agree to present a united front. Do you see that happening? I don't. Each one will scramble for its own economic interest, or to keep their underclass Muslim populations quiet. Has anyone forgotten the French riots? Look at European cowardice, from my perspective, where Russia is concerned. Forgive me, but it seems to me that a lot of European countries would rather waste their time arguing about meaningless details of history or exaggerating meaningless, minute differences in genetic ancestry rather than figuring out how to heal their economies or how to confront the real existential threat which confronts them. And I do not, by any means, exclude Italy from this judgment.

None of this Islamist propaganda, or even parental teachings, would carry so much weight among these young people, even in the presence of the corroding effect of the internet, if these young people were integrating into the societies of their host countries. There are many reasons, in my opinion, why this isn't happening. Part of it is that these are people from the lowest rung of society in their own countries in many cases, desperately poor, uneducated, and untrained for roles in post industrial societies. Part of it is that the cultures are, indeed, vastly different. The psychological world which the older generations, at least, inhabit, has more in common with 1200 AD, or even earlier, than with 2014 AD. Some of it is because, imo, they have been met with racism and ostracism.

This is what happens when you accept people within your borders for cheap labor when times are good and then the good times abruptly end. Perhaps it's also the consequence of refusing to recognize that you can't admit and absorb everyone from the third world who seeks that admittance, and illegal immigrants have to be turned away, as hard hearted as that may seem.

 

[LeBrok]

those were crimes, for sure

but I haven't heared of anyone wanting to reinstall this

on the other hand, there are many calls to install sharia

it's no use arguing who commited the most crimes in past history and certainly not to use them as excuse for todays behaviour

i'm talking about todays threats

i believe in seperation of state and religion and nobody should impose his law under any excuse

Don't take me wrong, I'm against sharia law or any religious law which is placed above or parallel to any civil law. My arguments were voiced against putting Christianity on higher moral or developmental standings than Islam or any other religion.
There is a good example of Islam being tolerant and not in conflict with liberties and technological progress in Al Andalus before reconquista. Spanish/Christian inquisition was in awful violation of basic human rights in contrast with tolerant Islamic Al Andalus.

 

[Garrick]

I've already said this, but it is not easy to understand, it is not the best to compare Islam with another religions.

Because, Islam is not only religion.

According to Muslim scholars, and non-Muslim scholars too, Islam is "totality, legislating for all of man's earthly activities, not just his spiritual needs" (Jansen G.H., Pan Book, London).

Amishes, Mormons and many others have their own customs.

Of course, and Muslims have their own customs.

But Amishes, Mormons and many others don't have Jihad.

Jihad has military/violent and non-military/non-violent meaning. It can be fight, battle, holy war against infidels but and spreading and defending Islam by words and other means.

What the means will be used, often depends of situation.

It is one situation where Muslim population is 5%, and quite another where this population is 70%.

Every Muslim has a duty of Jihad, someone can thinks of him/her as moderate, liberal, radical etc., but the duty always exists and Muslims meet it in different ways.

It is not easy that understand that Islam is different from any creation that appeared so far.

 

[Yetos]

Quran
chapter 8 phrase 12
chapter 47 phrase 3

thank you.