Immigration Muslim Migration

[LeBrok]

Culture is the frame within your own heritage lives on, preserving your genes does not matter if they are lost to a foreign culture.
.

Show me full heritage which survived 1000 years. Show me example of partial heritage which survived 5,000 years.
Right, it is all gone. Life span of even strongest cultures is no more than 2,000 to 5,000 years. Your Finish heritage, you're so proud of, will be completely wiped out in couple of thousands of years. By your definition your life will completely lose any meaning and purpose.
And yet humankind is older than 100,000 years. Not their culture but their genetic material still lives in us. Now you tell me what is really important in nature?

 

[Idun]

Show me full heritage which survived 1000 years. Show me example of partial heritage which survived 5,000 years.
Right, it is all gone. Life span of even strongest cultures is no more than 2,000 to 5,000 years. Your Finish heritage, you're so proud of, will be completely wiped out in couple of thousands of years. By your definition your life will completely lose any meaning and purpose.
And yet humankind is older than 100,000 years. Not their culture but their genetic material still lives in us. Now you tell me what is really important in nature?

Australian Aboriginals and 50.000 yrs.
Jews are good example of surviving even a diaspora and genocide.
If Finns have a partial heritage preserved for 2000-3000yrs I think there is a good chance to make it longer.

You seem one of those cultural relativists that is intent to speed up the process towards some ultimate goal, maybe the reason is that Europeans deserve it?
You have the right to work towards that and I have the right to endorse preserving a culture, I find that important as humans are not just their genes.

That is why I have nothing against natural immigration and assimilation, I am against replacing European cultures to Asian and African ones in a century or two.
With present demographics and flow of people that is what is going to happen, It will not take a 1000yrs.

 

[Idun]

Interesting subject would be how much ethnic wars and genocides resulted from the fall of Rome, the death toll must have been large towards the dark ages.

 

[adamo]

"Right, it is all gone. Life span of even strongest cultures is no more than 2,000 to 5,000 years. Your Finish heritage, you're so proud of, will be completely wiped out in couple of thousands of years. By your definition your life will completely lose any meaning and purpose." Lol he won't be here in 2,000 years is the point, could you imagine if he still WAS? xD

 

[FBS]

This is a good one:grin:

 

[bicicleur 2]

I think people want calm and security in their lives not only Muslims but everyone. It's a bit unfortunate that the Islamic countries are being attacked by the US forces. If Muslims attacked only one world trade center then in revenge the US powers destroy the complete Muslim countries. That's the big injustice and nowadays. If Muslims are migrating from one place to another safe place then the reason behind their migration is the safety of their families.

The biggest threat for Muslims is not US or other western powers. The biggest threats for Muslims are other Muslims. Look what happens in Afghanistan, Irak, Syria.

 

[bicicleur 2]

The biggest threat for Muslims is not US or other western powers. The biggest threats for Muslims are other Muslims. Look what happens in Afghanistan, Irak, Syria.

one more quote from http://clintalexander.hubpages.com/hub/Islam-vs-Christianity-A-Study-in-Violence-and-Cruelty, and I agree completely:

"it would be safe to say that the big three Abrahamic religious canons that rely on the Old Testament (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) are the world leaders in violence and cruelty."

Muslim religion is the younger one among the Abrahamic religions, so what is happening is that they are using their turn, so it needs time for them to evolve.

This is a very odd expression.
Do you mean Muslims have the right to viloence for a few more centuries, just because it is their turn?
And do you think, if you don't restrain the extremists, they will calm down over time?

 

[Idun]

This is a very odd expression.
Do you mean Muslims have the right to viloence for a few more centuries, just because it is their turn?
And do you think, if you don't restrain the extremists, they will calm down over time?

Maybe turn the other cheek?

Im just afraid when European pussified men get from being all hip and happening to start feeling deceived.
If even half turn against it then you really cant stop the train wreck, just hope you can at least brake before the collision.

 

[Garrick]

The biggest threat for Muslims is not US or other western powers. The biggest threats for Muslims are other Muslims. Look what happens in Afghanistan, Irak, Syria.

According to Qu'ran all Muslims belong one community - Ummah. It is possible that one group of Muslims be against another group of Muslims because the members of that group can think that another group did not follow the Islamic faith or acted against, and vice versa, another group can think same for previous group. Yet throughout history Muslims much more fought against non-Muslims than they fought against themselves.

 

[American Idiot]

According to Qu'ran all Muslims belong one community - Ummah. It is possible that one group of Muslims be against another group of Muslims because the members of that group can think that another group did not follow the Islamic faith or acted against, and vice versa, another group can think same for previous group. Yet throughout history Muslims much more fought against non-Muslims than they fought against themselves.

that last part isnt necessarily true. Muslims have been fighting against each other ever since Mohammed's death, when the progenitors of the Shi'ite and Sunni sects started to war with each other.

Muslims have a longer history of fighting against each other than against non-Muslims and its wrong for anyone to assume they always fight over religious reasons too.

Of course they have fought each other and outsiders for religious reasons but many times they also fight for reasons that have nothing to do with Islam, but has more do to with politics alone, power over an area, and even just cultural differences.


as for Muslims terrorists, what you stated is correct. I have been told by Muslims that many Muslim-terrorists in fact claim that first they have to "cleanse" their own people and their sinful ways before they can worry about Israel or anything else.
Many of the Islamic terrorists rape Muslim women in order to "claim them as ours"


I agree with the statement that the biggest threat to Muslims are other Muslims.

Not just the terrorists and oppressive governments, but even the people themselves have much prejudice toward each other sometimes for cultural, ethnic, national, religious and class differences.

Muslims in the middle east have ALWAYS fought against each other.

But before the 20th century, (besides the Crusades, the Muslim invasion of Spain, and the Ottoman Turks), when, historically speaking, have Muslims ever invaded, openly fought, or went to war against Europeans and The West?


There is only a small handful of instances throughout history where Muslims fought against Europeans/Westerners.
But they have been fighting each other all throughout history.

I am just curious. What does anything that happened, say back in the middle ages for example, have do with stuff going on today?

This notion of Muslim terrorism and Muslim extremism has it origins in the early 20th century, when Arab Nationalism started to take root and when groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for example, started to spring up.

Modern Islamic extremism has no pre-20th century historical connection to traditional Islam.
At least no more than Christianity does with it's own history.

In terms of history, Muslims were killing non-Muslims in the name of religion, during the same time-period that Christians were killing non-Christians in the name of religion, as well.
None of that has anything to do with the issues going on today.

 

[Templar]

Is the beating reserved only for emigrants, or you wouldn't mind to be beaten when you brake the law too?

For everyone, but maybe the immigrants should receive an extra tough beating due to the lack of respect showed for their host country. It is like being a guest at someone's house, you are supposed to behave better than you would in your own.

 

[Templar]

Muslims in the middle east have ALWAYS fought against each other.

Christians did the same thing and all other religions. Wars between Hindu princes, Buddhist Chinese civil wars, 100 years war between France and England, etc. People will always find an excuse for war, religion just makes it sometimes a bit easier. Gives people the false belief that they have immortal souls and that death is no big deal.

 

[Templar]

What we have is social immigration instituted by socialists and liberals with an agenda to destroy European nation states, funny thing is that they think this will end wars based on ethnic division.

Ironically liberals/socialists are being used by capitalists/corporations to weaken the national identity which will lead to fewer socialist programs and lower taxes on corporation. Heterogeneous societies are less altruistic and less willing to pay high taxes for welfare programs.

 

[Idun]

Ironically liberals/socialists are being used by capitalists/corporations to weaken the national identity which will lead to fewer socialist programs and lower taxes on corporation. Heterogeneous societies are less altruistic and less willing to pay high taxes for welfare programs.

You are very much right.

 

[Idun]

Christians did the same thing and all other religions. Wars between Hindu princes, Buddhist Chinese civil wars, 100 years war between France and England, etc. People will always find an excuse for war, religion just makes it sometimes a bit easier. Gives people the false belief that they have immortal souls and that death is no big deal.

I still think the holy wars are mainly the invention of the Christians and Muslims, both got big by being political systems and powers structures.
When the Catholic church attacked Northern Europe with bribery and mercenaries I dont think the Popes really believed they where doing gods work and saving souls.

 

[Templar]

I still think the holy wars are mainly the invention of the Christians and Muslims, both got big by being political systems and powers structures.
When the Catholic church attacked Northern Europe with bribery and mercenaries I dont think the Popes really believed they where doing gods work and saving souls.

Christianity and Islam are definitely more aggressive I agree. They paint the world in black and white. You are either perfectly good, proper, and holy or you are a filthy satanic spawn. This makes it easier to kill and conquer, and gives you a good excuse/motivation to do it. And in terms of the afterlife you either live in bliss eternally forever or you get tortured forever, no logical middle ground.

They are systems of power. Islam though is even more conservative. Christianity had enough loopholes and contradictions within it to allow for the renaissance/humanism and the enlightenment (which then lead to modern secular Western culture and technological advances) to eventually happen. Islam on the other hand is very closed off and repeats over and over again that it is the final word of god and that any change to its core tenants is blasphemous to the highest degree. The only way to make Islam more moderate, I think, is when a government forces Muslims to give up certain core practices, this dilutes the religion and allows for a steady process of secularization. This basically happened in Bosnia, Albania, Central Asian former Soviet republics, and to some degree Turkey (Ataturk put some limits on religious liberties). When this happens, their religion becomes more similar to Unitarian Christianity or Reformed Judaism than mainstream Islam. Basically Christianity but without the trinity.

 

[Garrick]

that last part isnt necessarily true. Muslims have been fighting against each other ever since Mohammed's death, when the progenitors of the Shi'ite and Sunni sects started to war with each other.

Muslims have a longer history of fighting against each other than against non-Muslims and its wrong for anyone to assume they always fight over religious reasons too.

Of course they have fought each other and outsiders for religious reasons but many times they also fight for reasons that have nothing to do with Islam, but has more do to with politics alone, power over an area, and even just cultural differences.


as for Muslims terrorists, what you stated is correct. I have been told by Muslims that many Muslim-terrorists in fact claim that first they have to "cleanse" their own people and their sinful ways before they can worry about Israel or anything else.
Many of the Islamic terrorists rape Muslim women in order to "claim them as ours"


I agree with the statement that the biggest threat to Muslims are other Muslims.

Not just the terrorists and oppressive governments, but even the people themselves have much prejudice toward each other sometimes for cultural, ethnic, national, religious and class differences.

Muslims in the middle east have ALWAYS fought against each other.

But before the 20th century, (besides the Crusades, the Muslim invasion of Spain, and the Ottoman Turks), when, historically speaking, have Muslims ever invaded, openly fought, or went to war against Europeans and The West?


There is only a small handful of instances throughout history where Muslims fought against Europeans/Westerners.
But they have been fighting each other all throughout history.

I am just curious. What does anything that happened, say back in the middle ages for example, have do with stuff going on today?

This notion of Muslim terrorism and Muslim extremism has it origins in the early 20th century, when Arab Nationalism started to take root and when groups like the Muslim Brotherhood for example, started to spring up.

Modern Islamic extremism has no pre-20th century historical connection to traditional Islam.
At least no more than Christianity does with it's own history.

In terms of history, Muslims were killing non-Muslims in the name of religion, during the same time-period that Christians were killing non-Christians in the name of religion, as well.
None of that has anything to do with the issues going on today.

The nature of conflict is different when it comes between Muslims themselves and Muslims and non-Muslims.

Justification for the conflict between two groups of Muslims for one group is that the other group is acting against Islam.

But for non-Muslim situation is different.

In Islam there are three divisions of the world:

1. Dar al-Islam (Dar as-Salam)
2. Dar al-Harb and
3. Dar al-Amn.

First is area of the world under the rule of Islam and Sharia Law. Muslims here are undisputed and non-Muslims are in position of Dhimmis. This is mean that they have the right to life (only as Christians, Jews and Sabians; it does not apply for another religions or atheists who have no this right) but they must abide by Sharia Law which include the payment of a special tax for life as non-Muslims - jyzyah.

Second is the area of the world where Muslims fight with non-Muslims to win and impose Islamic rule and Sharia Law.

Third is the area where Muslims are minority or area without Muslims.

Islam is different than Christianity or Judaism. From the perspective some Christian, Jew (or Atheist too) things about Islam cannot be viewed in appropriate way unless he or she lived as non-Muslim in Dar al-Islam, had a fight in the area Dar al-Harb or studied Qu'ran and Islam in a serious way.

Christian and Atheist people fall into one of two error. First is that they have a fear or hostility towards Islam. This means that they behavior as Dhimmis in Dar al-Islam or as enemies in Dar al-Harb. Second is that they try to think in their usual Christian or Atheist way. This is wrong because Islam is different.

 

[Idun]

The nature of conflict is different when it comes between Muslims themselves and Muslims and non-Muslims.

Justification for the conflict between two groups of Muslims for one group is that the other group is acting against Islam.

But for non-Muslim situation is different.

In Islam there are three divisions of the world:

1. Dar al-Islam (Dar as-Salam)
2. Dar al-Harb and
3. Dar al-Amn.

First is area of the world under the rule of Islam and Sharia Law. Muslims here are undisputed and non-Muslims are in position of Dhimmis. This is mean that they have the right to life (only as Christians, Jews and Sabians; it does not apply for another religions or atheists who have no this right) but they must abide by Sharia Law which include the payment of a special tax for life as non-Muslims - jyzyah.

Second is the area of the world where Muslims fight with non-Muslims to win and impose Islamic rule and Sharia Law.

Third is the area where Muslims are minority or area without Muslims.

Islam is different than Christianity or Judaism. From the perspective some Christian, Jew (or Atheist too) things about Islam cannot be viewed in appropriate way unless he or she lived as non-Muslim in Dar al-Islam, had a fight in the area Dar al-Harb or studied Qu'ran and Islam in a serious way.

Christian and Atheist people fall into one of two error. First is that they have a fear or hostility towards Islam. This means that they behavior as Dhimmis in Dar al-Islam or as enemies in Dar al-Harb. Second is that they try to think in their usual Christian or Atheist way. This is wrong because Islam is different.

I know everything you wrote but dont understand how being hostile is an error?

 

[American Idiot]

The nature of conflict is different when it comes between Muslims themselves and Muslims and non-Muslims.

Justification for the conflict between two groups of Muslims for one group is that the other group is acting against Islam.

But for non-Muslim situation is different.

In Islam there are three divisions of the world:

1. Dar al-Islam (Dar as-Salam)
2. Dar al-Harb and
3. Dar al-Amn.

First is area of the world under the rule of Islam and Sharia Law. Muslims here are undisputed and non-Muslims are in position of Dhimmis. This is mean that they have the right to life (only as Christians, Jews and Sabians; it does not apply for another religions or atheists who have no this right) but they must abide by Sharia Law which include the payment of a special tax for life as non-Muslims - jyzyah.

Second is the area of the world where Muslims fight with non-Muslims to win and impose Islamic rule and Sharia Law.

Third is the area where Muslims are minority or area without Muslims.

Islam is different than Christianity or Judaism. From the perspective some Christian, Jew (or Atheist too) things about Islam cannot be viewed in appropriate way unless he or she lived as non-Muslim in Dar al-Islam, had a fight in the area Dar al-Harb or studied Qu'ran and Islam in a serious way.

Christian and Atheist people fall into one of two error. First is that they have a fear or hostility towards Islam. This means that they behavior as Dhimmis in Dar al-Islam or as enemies in Dar al-Harb. Second is that they try to think in their usual Christian or Atheist way. This is wrong because Islam is different.

I see what you are saying. But I guess my question is, do Muslim immigrants actually try to impose these beliefs on the native populations of the countries to which they migrate to?

Like I said, I cant speak for Europe. I dont know a whole lot of the details as to the problem with Muslim immigration to Europe. I do know there has always been much more controversy with things like Sharia Law in European nations than there has been in America, at least on the national level.

So I know the situation with Muslims in Europe is different in many ways than it is here in America.

But no matter what Muslims or anyone else believes or what their religion teaches them, it's ok unless they are actually trying to impose those beliefs on the people of the countries they are moving to or unless they really are trying to change some kind of policy or law in those countries and impose their beliefs that way.

Guess what I am saying is that, even if every single Muslim in the world truly believed that all non-Muslims are infidels who deserved to die, it means nothing if it is simply a belief system and a matter of opinion.
If they are putting those types of beliefs into action then obviously that would be a great problem but if it's simply just an ideology or religious doctrine then its harmless in and of itself.

I just know in America, no matter what Muslims believe or what their religion teaches them about non-Muslims, they generally aren't acting out negatively on those beliefs.
I see many people who are against Muslim immigrants on the grounds that their religion teaches them to hate all non-muslims etc... But for the sake of argument, Even IF Muslims did believe that... well so f*cking what?
What difference does it make?

It doesnt actually matter what they believe , IMO.

I just dont see how anyone can be against a group of immigrants simply for what their opinion is or for what they believe in.
I mean it doesnt matter what they believe. Unless they actually act out negatively on those beliefs, they arent bothering anyone and it means nothing.

Like I said, in Europe I know the situation is somewhat different when it comes to Muslim immigration.

But I just know that here in America, generally speaking, Muslim immigrants dont cause any major trouble or any problems and regardless of what they may or may not believe about non-Muslims, they arent trying to impose anything on Americans or trying to make any changes to any of our laws to suit their own culture/beliefs. At least not on the national level.

I guess I am seeing this from how things are in America. I just dont actually see WHY any Americans are against Muslim immigrants coming here.
They dont do anything that actually creates any problems nor do they have any negative impact here.... not any more so than anyone else already living here.
I just dont see any real reason as to why Americans are against Muslims coming here.

A person can believe anything they want but as long as they arent causing any problems then what difference does it make?

The only real reason I can tell as to why Americans are truly against Muslims coming here is simply because of the way they are portrayed in the media and in politics which gives a greatly exaggerated impression to non-Muslim Americans and creates this atmosphere of panic or fear that is rooted in that false impression.

 

[Templar]

I just dont actually see WHY any Americans are against Muslim immigrants coming here.

They see the things that are happening in some European countries and hope to prevent that from spreading to the US maybe?
Immigrants from Muslim countries are generally over represented in violent crime rates and welfare use in France, Belgium, the UK, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Germany, and several other countries. Though in the end I believe it depends on the specific Muslim source country.