Germany: There is NO place for Islam

[seeder]

Radical Islam European Tactic:

- Radicalize sufficient numbers.

- Start mass migration into Europe.

- Assimilate into local society, with secret intent.

- Engage in local politics, become elected.

- Fortify this secret political position.

- Start changing laws to fit Sharia law.

- Done.

London just elected the first ever.... Muslim Mayor.... no kidding

do read

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3576676/Counting-begins-London-Sadiq-Khan-looks-likely-City-Hall-senior-Tories-blast-Zac-Goldsmith-s-divisive-campaign.html

[+and-then]

Seeing Islam an sich as an inherent threat to the West, even as inherently evil - in contradiction to identifying an extreme, criminal element within its congregation (being the absolute margin) - painting the whole group with thesame brush; is the very definition of Islamophobia.

And refusing to identify the real perpetrators and what drives them is denial. The mantra of "it's not ALL Muslims" is ridiculous and offensive after so many deaths and so much destruction by those espousing their interpretation of the Qur'an. Those who are killing in the name of the prophet are able to hide in plain sight among the most who do not bloody their hands. Molenbeek is a perfect example. Those who perpetually chant Islamophobia will someday become targets themselves when the atrocities affect enough people. There are surely people in the West that hate based on religion and there always will be. The problem for the messaging of Islamophobia is the vast numbers of people who do NOT hate Muslims but will do when they are personally affected. Simple human nature - and it's exactly what the murderers want. These savages truly want to create the chaos necessary to bring about the end days and the rise of a messiah/mahdi that will usher in universal peace and justice...at the point of his sword.

[EllJay]

What tendentious, inciting BS. Europes political construct is inherently secular, and as such should not be populated by religious parties. A similar result will be gleaned regarding any other variant, including Christian / Catholic / Protestant.

Clearly you are quite uninformed. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, is leader for the biggest party called CDU, which stands for; Christian Democratic Union of Germany. "The CDU applying the principles of Christian democracy and emphasising the "Christian understanding of humans and their responsibility toward God. The CDU's policies derive from political Catholicism, Catholic social teaching and political Protestantism, as well as fiscal conservatism and national conservatism."

And Merkel is now losing her popularity amongst the Germans - whom voted for her before - because of her reckless policy of the migrant influx - where the majority of those they let in did not have any sort of ID or passport, or anything to ID themselves. So Germany don't know who they really let in - and since the Ney Years Eve-incident in Cologne people are losing their patience with this reckless policy of Merkel, and also fear that the muslims will get a foothold with a political party when their numbers are growing constantly..

So NO, this poll clearly not some`inciting BS´ and that; ` that similar result will be gleaned regarding any other variant, including Christian / Catholic / Protestant.´

[EllJay]

Seeing Islam an sich as an inherent threat to the West, even as inherently evil - in contradiction to identifying an extreme, criminal element within its congregation (being the absolute margin) - painting the whole group with thesame brush; is the very definition of Islamophobia.

Do you know what The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is? It is a declaration signed and agreed upon by muslim leaders from 45 muslim states around the world - which make it a kinda solid, affirmative, and homogenous, vote from the muslim world.

To make it short; The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam was put together since the large majority of muslim countries around the world protested against the ratification of United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They said that the UN declaration had to many articles in it that muslim countries couldn't agree with. So, they made their own Declaration of Human Rights - The Cairo declaration. And in short it says; `we agree upon all of the articles in UN' declaration........as long as they don't interfere, or stand in conflict, with Sharia Law.´

And that means, literally, that most articles of UN declaration on human rights are thrown out of the window - and Sharia rule. If 48 muslim countries - which is almost full majority - sent their most trusted leaders to sign on this declaration, one could assume that a great deal of their countrymen agrees upon it. Otherwise they would have protested. So yeah, a large degree of the world muslims think Sharia is a good thing. And their POV on `human rights´ is directly opposed to the western world. And people in the western world see that as a threat, if very large groups of muslims migrate to Europe, and ultimately creates a political party.

[GlitterRose]

Saying there is no place for a religion in their politics isn't the same as saying there is no place for Islam (or Muslims) in their country.

[Phaeton80]

Clearly you are quite uninformed. Angela Merkel, the Chancellor of Germany, is leader for the biggest party called CDU, which stands for; Christian Democratic Union of Germany. "The CDU applying the principles of Christian democracy and emphasising the "Christian understanding of humans and their responsibility toward God. The CDU's policies derive from political Catholicism, Catholic social teaching and political Protestantism, as well as fiscal conservatism and national conservatism."

And Merkel is now losing her popularity amongst the Germans - whom voted for her before - because of her reckless policy of the migrant influx - where the majority of those they let in did not have any sort of ID or passport, or anything to ID themselves. So Germany don't know who they really let in - and since the Ney Years Eve-incident in Cologne people are losing their patience with this reckless policy of Merkel, and also fear that the muslims will get a foothold with a political party when their numbers are growing constantly..

So NO, this poll clearly not some`inciting BS´ and that; ` that similar result will be gleaned regarding any other variant, including Christian / Catholic / Protestant.´

Clearly you didnt understand my position. If one would ask Germans today if religion / Christianity should have a place in politics, it will result in a similar endscore.

And yes, this poll clearly IS inciting BS, given not comparable but exactly thesame results will be gleaned asking Germans if any other foreign culture religion - like say Hinduism - should deserve a place in German politics. It has nothing to do with Islam specifically.

Edited May 7, 2016 by Phaeton80

[Phaeton80]

Do you know what The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is? It is a declaration signed and agreed upon by muslim leaders from 45 muslim states around the world - which make it a kinda solid, affirmative, and homogenous, vote from the muslim world.

To make it short; The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam was put together since the large majority of muslim countries around the world protested against the ratification of United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They said that the UN declaration had to many articles in it that muslim countries couldn't agree with. So, they made their own Declaration of Human Rights - The Cairo declaration. And in short it says; `we agree upon all of the articles in UN' declaration........as long as they don't interfere, or stand in conflict, with Sharia Law.´

And that means, literally, that most articles of UN declaration on human rights are thrown out of the window - and Sharia rule. If 48 muslim countries - which is almost full majority - sent their most trusted leaders to sign on this declaration, one could assume that a great deal of their countrymen agrees upon it. Otherwise they would have protested. So yeah, a large degree of the world muslims think Sharia is a good thing. And their POV on `human rights´ is directly opposed to the western world. And people in the western world see that as a threat, if very large groups of muslims migrate to Europe, and ultimately creates a political party.

lol. I stand corrected well balanced sir, it seems Islam IS the main threat to Occident society. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam proves it. Normally, Islamic nations are defined as inherently undemocratic, generally ignoring the wants and wishes of its people (which, before you grab this and run with it; has nothing to do with the religion itself). In this case however, we'd like to turn that around and paint a picture of a necessity of broad support for such decrees. And ofcourse, we can see the call for Sharia law spreading like wild fire in the large and numerous Islamic communities throughout Europe, dont we (no, we dont). It is in fact proof that most Muslims did actively support The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, and are vehemently trying to impose it on others.

[RavenHawk]

Seeing Islam an sich as an inherent threat to the West, even as inherently evil

First of all, it is an inherent threat to the rest of the world because its doctrine holds no room for diversity outside of the submission to Islam. I would not define it as inherently evil but in opposition to every other religion and political system on the planet. Acknowledging that is not Islamophobic.

- in contradiction to identifying an extreme, criminal element within its congregation (being the absolute margin) - painting the whole group with thesame brush; is the very definition of Islamophobia.

And what is the extreme in Islam? Following core principles in an orthodox manner or being deviant or a heretic? Most Moderates are deviant. They follow heretical forms of Islam. I see no criminal element within either side of that. All I see are the devout (whose numbers are growing) and those not so devout. But as long as a single Muslim exists, then the doctrine is alive. What are the chances of the offspring of not so devout Muslim parents, becoming devout? Hearing the call to the true faith? It is quite good and that is why the group *MUST* be painted with the widest of brushes. And that is not Islamophobic. This is just understanding the character of Islam.

If you have an infestation of cockroaches, you don’t lay out poison in one small area and ignore the others. You saturate the whole field. I know this is what you would truly relish but I am not advocating genocide. I advocate engagement and as long as there are those like you that spout Islamophobia, the problem will remain. You create a safe zone for the doctrine to hide, which means there is no mechanism for reform.

[Phaeton80]

First of all, it is an inherent threat to the rest of the world because its doctrine holds no room for diversity outside of the submission to Islam.

That is simply not true. A central Quranic tenet is there can be no conpulsion in religion. Meaning forcing Islam unto others would be without any value; worthless, meaningless.

2:256 “There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way has become distinct from error.” (and please, dont start throwing up that abrogation nonsense)

There is a Surah dedicated to how Muslims should conduct themselves towards disbelievers, Sura Al-Kafirun (109). See Ashtiname of Muhammad, or Charter of Medina for further examples. What humans have done in Islam's name after the death of the prophet doesnt take anything away from this (in thesame way that Christ's teachings aren't subject to the acts of 'Christians' after his leave).

Ashtiname of Muhammad

This is a letter which was issued by Mohammed, Ibn Abdullah, the Messenger, the Prophet, the Faithful, who is sent to all the people as a trust on the part of God to all His creatures, that they may have no plea against God hereafter. Verily God is the Mighty, the Wise. This letter is directed to the embracers of Islam, as a covenant given to the followers of Nazarene in the East and West, the far and near, the Arabs and foreigners, the known and the unknown.

This letter contains the oath given unto them, and he who disobeys that which is therein will be considered a disobeyer and a transgressor to that whereunto he is commanded. He will be regarded as one who has corrupted the oath of God, disbelieved His Testament, rejected His Authority, despised His Religion, and made himself deserving of His Curse, whether he is a Sultan or any other believer of Islam. Whenever monks, devotees and pilgrims gather together, whether in a mountain or valley, or den, or frequented place, or plain, or church, or in houses of worship, verily we are [at the] back of them and shall protect them, and their properties and their morals, by Myself, by My Friends and by My Assistants, for they are of My Subjects and under My Protection.

I shall exempt them from that which may disturb them; of the burdens which are paid by others as an oath of allegiance. They must not give anything of their income but that which pleases them—they must not be offended, or disturbed, or coerced or compelled. Their judges should not be changed or prevented from accomplishing their offices, nor the monks disturbed in exercising their religious order, or the people of seclusion be stopped from dwelling in their cells.

No one is allowed to plunder the pilgrims, or destroy or spoil any of their churches, or houses of worship, or take any of the things contained within these houses and bring it to the houses of Islam. And he who takes away anything therefrom, will be one who has corrupted the oath of God, and, in truth, disobeyed His Messenger.

Poll-taxes should not be put upon their judges, monks, and those whose occupation is the worship of God; nor is any other thing to be taken from them, whether it be a fine, a tax or any unjust right. Verily I shall keep their compact, wherever they may be, in the sea or on the land, in the East or West, in the North or South, for they are under My Protection and the testament of My Safety, against all things which they abhor.

No taxes or tithes should be received from those who devote themselves to the worship of God in the mountains, or from those who cultivate the Holy Lands. No one has the right to interfere with their affairs, or bring any action against them. Verily this is for aught else and not for them; rather, in the seasons of crops, they should be given a Kadah for each Ardab of wheat (about five bushels and a half) as provision for them, and no one has the right to say to them this is too much, or ask them to pay any tax.

As to those who possess properties, the wealthy and merchants, the poll-tax to be taken from them must not exceed twelve drachmas a head per year (i.e. about 200 modern day US dollars).

They shall not be imposed upon by anyone to undertake a journey, or to be forced to go to wars or to carry arms; for the Islams have to fight for them. Do no dispute or argue with them, but deal according to the verse recorded in the Koran, to wit: ‘Do not dispute or argue with the People of the Book but in that which is best’ [29:46]. Thus they will live favored and protected from everything which may offend them by the Callers to religion (Islam), wherever they may be and in any place they may dwell.

Should any Christian woman be married to a Musulman, such marriage must not take place except after her consent, and she must not be prevented from going to her church for prayer. Their churches must be honored and they must not be withheld from building churches or repairing convents.

They must not be forced to carry arms or stones; but the Islams must protect them and defend them against others. It is positively incumbent upon every one of the Islam nation not to contradict or disobey this oath until the Day of Resurrection and the end of the world.

^[3]

And what is the extreme in Islam?

Wahhabist, Takfirieen school of thought.. which is certainly not adhering to core Quranic principles. Rather, the complete opposite.

If you have an infestation of cockroaches, you don’t lay out poison in one small area and ignore the others.

The bias seeps through every sentence, every word uttered. How on gods green earth would you suppose to even approach a remotely balanced view of any subject with such an unimaginable level of prejudice? Btw, I certainly have no intention into making this a discussion, see this as a one time reply. Ignore it, scoff it, whatever. Just dont expect any further replies, weve been there before (too many times).

Edited May 7, 2016 by Phaeton80

[Leonardo]

After reading the responses here, it is still clear that after all that has happened, there are still many people that do not understand what Islam is and what it is capable of and what it is currently doing. There are still too many committing suicide on the alter of Political Correctness. People can be aware and not Islamophobic. And that is what it will take to confront and solve this problem without violence. But if it takes too long to wakeup, the Rhone and Loire will tremble.

You could expand that to say "People can be aware and not anti-Semitic", or "People can be aware and not anti-American", "not anti-black", etc, etc. Valid criticisms will always be valid criticisms, but we should also be careful those criticisms don't cross the line into prejudice and with respect to the current wave of "anti-Islam" feeling across the "Western" world that line has been crossed far too often of late.

I would rather be a little PC and not cross that line, than become prejudiced simply because of a minority in Islam who are themselves prejudiced.

[hetrodoxly]

That is simply not true. A central Quranic tenet is there can be no conpulsion in religion. Meaning forcing Islam unto others would be without any value; worthless, meaningless.

2:256 “There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way has become distinct from error.” (and please, dont start throwing up that abrogation nonsense)

There is a Surah dedicated to how Muslims should conduct themselves towards disbelievers, Sura Al-Kafirun (109). See Ashtiname of Muhammad, or Charter of Medina for further examples. What humans have done in Islam's name after the death of the prophet doesnt take anything away from this (in thesame way that Christ's teachings aren't subject to the acts of 'Christians' after his leave).

Wahhabist, Takfirieen school of thought.. which is certainly not adhering to core Quranic principles. Rather, the complete opposite.

The bias seeps through every sentence, every word uttered. How on gods green earth would you suppose to even approach a remotely balanced view of any subject with such an unimaginable level of prejudice? Btw, I certainly have no intention into making this a discussion, see this as a one time reply. Ignore it, scoff it, whatever. Just dont expect any further replies, weve been there before (too many times).

Cherry picking.

“Lord…Give us victory over the unbelievers.” Quran 2:286

“Lord…give us victory over the unbelievers.” Quran 3:147

“I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers.” Quran 8:12

“Let not the unbelievers think they will ever get away. They have not the power so to do. Muster against them all the men and cavalry at your command, so that you may strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy…” Quran 8:59-60

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.” Quran 9:5

“Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate.” Quran 9:73

“Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with the righteous.” Quran 9:123

“Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another…” Quran 5:51

[Phaeton80]

Until you take some effort actually reading the Qur'an - the teachings as a whole - as well as the historical context in which the Surahs were relayed, discussing this would be useless. The verses you quoted are given in a specific situation of conflict, against a specific number of people, which were 'not Muslims' and/or 'people of the book', hence the word 'unbelievers, infidels'. They are not meant for unbelievers as a whole, only those they were in conflict with (persecuted, like many a newborn religion).

[hetrodoxly]

Until you take some effort actually reading the Qur'an - the teachings as a whole - as well as the historical context in which the Surahs were relayed, discussing this would be useless. The verses you quoted are given in a specific situation of conflict, against a specific number of people, which were 'not Muslims' and/or 'people of the book', hence the word 'unbelievers, infidels'. They are not meant for unbelievers as a whole, only those they were in conflict with (persecuted, like many a newborn religion).

So what is the Quran a book of it's time or a book of all time,

[EllJay]

Clearly you didnt understand my position. If one would ask Germans today if religion / Christianity should have a place in politics, it will result in a similar endscore.

And yes, this poll clearly IS inciting BS, given not comparable but exactly thesame results will be gleaned asking Germans if any other foreign culture religion - like say Hinduism - should deserve a place in German politics. It has nothing to do with Islam specifically.

Why the hell would a majority vote for a Christian Democratic party, with Christian values in their core principles, if they didnt want those values being implemented in the German society?.

Given the recent, lets say, 20 years of Islamic terrorism around the world, and the last 15 years in European cities, compared to Buddist and Hindu-terrorist attacks, I think its a pretty good indicator that people have an animosity against this religion, since they all get their rhetoric from their holy book, their prophet, and the writing & teachings of his life. So once again NO; you wont see German people say that Christianity shouldn't influence compared to Islam - and that is what you said in your earlier post.

[spartan max2]

I feel the real story here is the other 40 percent polled. Does that mean they want Islam to be part of the goverment structure?

Disclaimer:I have not read most of the article

Edited May 7, 2016 by spartan max2

[EllJay]

lol. I stand corrected well balanced sir, it seems Islam IS the main threat to Occident society. The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam proves it. Normally, Islamic nations are defined as inherently undemocratic, generally ignoring the wants and wishes of its people (which, before you grab this and run with it; has nothing to do with the religion itself). In this case however, we'd like to turn that around and paint a picture of a necessity of broad support for such decrees. And ofcourse, we can see the call for Sharia law spreading like wild fire in the large and numerous Islamic communities throughout Europe, dont we (no, we dont). It is in fact proof that most Muslims did actively support The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, and are vehemently trying to impose it on others.

You seem unaware of movements like Sharia4UK Sharia4Belgium, Sharia4Norway, Sharia4Holland, Sharia4Australia, etc.?

Here you have some results of surveys and polls amongsts muslim in some European countries - and in muslim countries;

Denmark;

The survey found that 77.2 percent of Danish Muslims agreed that “the Quran’s instructions should be followed completely”.

The number who think that Muslim girls should wear head scarves is 42.7 percent.

52.4 percent of Danish Muslims also rejected the notion that Islam needs to undergo a reformation or modernization in order to fit in to Western society.

4 out of 10wants the Danish law should be based on Sharia.

http://www.thelocal....n-in-years-past

http://www.jyllands-...

United Kingdom;

Poll reveals 40percent of Muslims want Sharia law in UK

The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predominantly Muslim" areas of Britain. 40% of British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.

20 per cent felt sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people,

Islamic law is used in large parts of the Middle East, including Iran and Saudi Arabia, and is enforced by religious police. Special courts can hand down harsh punishments which can include stoning and amputation.

http://www.telegraph...-law-in-UK.html

Around the World;

A 2013 survey based on interviews of 38,000 Muslims, randomly selected from urban and rural parts in 39 countries using area probability designs, by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that support for making sharia the official law of the land is very high in many countries with a high proportion of Muslims: Afghanistan (99%), Iraq (91%), Niger (86%), Malaysia (86%), Pakistan (84%), Morocco (83%), Bangladesh (82%), Egypt (74%), Indonesia (72%), Jordan (71%), Uganda (66%), Ethiopia (65%), Mali (63%), Ghana (58%), and Tunisia (56%).In Muslim regions of Southern-Eastern Europe and Central Asia, the support is less than 50%: Russia (42%), Kyrgyzstan (35%), Tajikistan (27%), Kosovo (20%), Albania (12%), Turkey (12%), Azerbaijan (8%).

In Muslim-majority countries and among Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land, a percentage between 74% (Egypt) and 19% (Kazakhstan) want sharia law to apply to non-Muslims as well.

A 2008 YouGov poll in the United Kingdom found 40% of Muslim students interviewed wanted sharia in British law.

Polls demonstrate that for Egyptians, the 'Shariah' is associated with notions of political, social and gender justice.

Since the 1970s, the Islamist movements have become prominent; their goals are the establishment of Islamic states and sharia not just within their own borders; their means are political in nature. The Islamist power base is the millions of poor, particularly urban poor moving into the cities from the countryside. They are not international in nature (one exception being the Muslim Brotherhood). Their rhetoric opposes western culture and western power^. Political groups wishing to return to more traditional Islamic values are the source of threat to Turkey's secular government. These movements can be considered neo-Sharism.

https://en.wikipedia.../Sharia#Support

[+and-then]

You seem unaware of movements like Sharia4UK Sharia4Belgium, Sharia4Norway, Sharia4Holland, Sharia4Australia, etc.?

Here you have some results of surveys and polls amongsts muslim in some European countries - and in muslim countries;

Denmark;

United Kingdom;

Around the World;

Even if he and those who share his feelings on Islam ARE aware of such polls, they will make excuses for them. Islam IS the victim, always, forever, in every instance. Anyone who challenges that is a hater.

[Phaeton80]

You seem unaware of movements like Sharia4UK Sharia4Belgium, Sharia4Norway, Sharia4Holland, Sharia4Australia, etc.?

Really.. I am supposed to take this serious? I certainly am aware of them, and I dispize them, but I also know they are fringe movements within the whole of the community. Not unlike Christian cults like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Here you have some results of surveys and polls amongsts muslim in some European countries - and in muslim countries;

Here's an idea; why not actually talk to some Muslims instead of fuelling your preconceived fears reading 'polls' to establish 'what Muslims think'. I know a lot of 'them', and none - not a single Muslim - has ever even remotely implied he/she would like to impose any form of Sharia law in a non Muslim country. This might come as reality shaking news to you, but most of them are just like normal people, like me and you. Go figure. They do not want to convert Europe, they do not want to impose Sharia, they are not shrewdly trying to take over our countries. They want to practice their religion, raise their children, and have a good job.

The survey found that 77.2 percent of Danish Muslims agreed that “the Quran’s instructions should be followed completely”.

The arrogant backstabbing b*******! (oh lordy)

The number who think that Muslim girls should wear head scarves is 42.7 percent.

Thats just terrible. These people are limiting their daughters freedom by wanting forcing them to dress modestly. They should live in Saudi Arabia if they think thats so important. (Right?)

"Respondents were also split on just how far Muslims should go to fit in with Danish norms. While 87 percent said that Muslim women should be just as active on the labour market as Danes, only 17.5 percent said Muslims should be allowed to have sex before marriage and only 21.7 percent think it’s acceptable if young Muslims drink alcohol."

Scandalous! Their children should have sex before marriage, and young Muslims should be allowed to drink alcohol! If they dont, they should leave for Saudi Arabia or some other backward country. (..Am I doing good?)

4 out of 10wants the Danish law should be based on Sharia.

Actual statement source: "Næsten 4 af 10 muslimer i Danmark ønsker, at Koranen skal indgå som fundament for dansk lovgivning."

Translation: Nearly 4 out of 10 Muslims in Denmark want the Quran to be included as the foundation of Danish legislation.

Absolutely shocking! No Christian would state thesame when asked if the Bible should be the foundation of their resp. nation's legislation. Lets just ignore your misrepresentation of the source you cited.

Even if he and those who share his feelings on Islam ARE aware of such polls, they will make excuses for them. Islam IS the victim, always, forever, in every instance. Anyone who challenges that is a hater.

Hahaha there you go again. Nono, thats the mirror image of YOUR position old friend. Being that Islam IS the enemy, always, forever, in every instance. And anyone who challenges that extreme view is a 'Muzzie apologizer'. Thats what you like to do, flip your own extreme position to subsequently try and accuse your opponent with it. Listen (talking to deaf mans ears here, I am aware of that), I do think Muslims are the victim of a massive Islamophobia trend, this is evident for everyone with half a brain to see. I do not however pose there are no issues, not at all. There are some serious (integration) issues within the European Islamic community. People like you however see the whole of Islam as essentially bad, negative, even evil. See how the one position is nuanced, and the other is.. not?

Let me just step aside here and let you people wallow in your existential fear of the Je.. erm I mean Muslim. Might be entertaining.

Edit: Just seen this statement from mr. Spartan, which I love:

"Disclaimer: I have not read most of the article"

Can you imagine certain people claiming all sorts of stuff about a book they have not read adding such a disclaimer at the end of their posts? "The Qur'an is a satanic tome created by a backward culture hellbent on invading Europe to kill the unbeliever! Disclaimer: I have not read most of the book" ;-)

Edited May 8, 2016 by Phaeton80

[bmk1245]

[/font]

Hahaha there you go again. Nono, thats the mirror image of YOUR position old friend. Being that Islam IS the enemy, always, forever, in every instance. And anyone who challenges that extreme view is a 'Muzzie apologizer'. Thats what you like to do, flip your own extreme position to subsequently try and accuse your opponent with it. Listen (talking to deaf mans ears here, I am aware of that), I do think Muslims are the victim of a massive Islamophobia trend, this is evident for everyone with half a brain to see. I do not however pose there are no issues, not at all. There are some serious (integration) issues within the European Islamic community. People like you however see the whole of Islam as essentially bad, negative, even evil. See how the one position is nuanced, and the other is.. not?

Let me just step aside here and let you people wallow in your existential fear of the Je.. erm I mean Muslim. Might be entertaining.

Edit: Just seen this statement from mr. Spartan, which I love:

"Disclaimer: I have not read most of the article"

Can you imagine certain people claiming all sorts of stuff about a book they have not read adding such a disclaimer at the end of their posts? "The Qur'an is a satanic tome created by a backward culture hellbent on invading Europe to kill the unbeliever! Disclaimer: I have not read most of the book" ;-)

Wow... Quite a rant...

[seeder]

well, we did/do have the Muslim Patrol in London, who have attacked gays and assaulted white girls for drinking and showing their legs on their nights out

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_patrols

[Phaeton80]

well, we did/do have the Muslim Patrol in London, who have attacked gays and assaulted white girls for drinking and showing their legs on their nights out

https://en.wikipedia.../Sharia_patrols

And these crazed individuals, fringe groups, should be hunted down with extreme prejudice. Those that committed crimes sentenced harshly, those that did not but remain at their state undermining position; evicted and barred from (that particular) society (earmarked for other non Islamic nations to identify). Main problem often seems to simply be inaction, relative apathy from the government in such cases. How deluded can a person get, to be a guest/immigrant in a foreign nation and start demanding your law is installed against the wishes of the original inhabitants? Crazy stuff. Why not deport all of these people to SA.. they'll have what they want, and we will have what we want. Win win.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Phaeton80

[RavenHawk]

That is simply not true. A central Quranic tenet is there can be no conpulsion in religion.

It’s not a central tenet. Central tenets are the 5 Pillars, etc. More specifically the Shahada. This is where the differences between dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb are defined. But we’ll look a bit close later.

Meaning forcing Islam unto others would be without any value; worthless, meaningless.

Actually forcing Islam on others is the whole goal since declaration of Bara’at in Mecca. When Islam considers that non-believers (polytheists) create mischief or corruption throughout the land, it is of great value to purify the land and subjugate those that cause mischief.

2:256 “There should be no compulsion in religion. Surely, the right way has become distinct from error.” (and please, dont start throwing up that abrogation nonsense)

Well firstly, you are referring to 2:106. Abrogation is discussed in the very same Surah you draw from. I find that hilarious and very ignorant on your part so why should that stop you? This is hardly nonsense. What is nonsense is your cherry-picking. But let’s look closer at 256. 256 is part of the ‘Verse of the Throne’. It basically acknowledges Allah’s authority. It has nothing to do with how to treat non-believers, which is also covered in Surah 2. It is true that there is no compulsion in religion. The individual is free to choose but choices have consequences. Many in the West have problems understanding that concept. The second part of the ayah seemingly contradicts the first part: “The right way has become distinct from error”. So who wouldn’t want to be distinct from error? No one is forcing anyone to believe what they don’t want to, however Surah 2 does say that Allah makes the disbelievers believe what they want and that they will never be on the right path. That there already condemns their fate as non-believers. This is heavy in predestination.

“Indeed, those who disbelieve - it is all the same for them whether you warn them or do not warn them - they will not believe.” 2:6

“Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing, and over their vision is a veil. And for them is a great punishment.” 2:7

“In their hearts is disease, so Allah has increased their disease; and for them is a painful punishment because they [habitually] used to lie. 2:10

“And when it is said to them, "Do not cause corruption on the earth," they say, "We are but reformers."” 2:11

“[but] Allah mocks them and prolongs them in their transgression [while] they wander blindly.” 2:15

“Neither those who disbelieve from the People of the Scripture nor the polytheists wish that any good should be sent down to you from your Lord. But Allah selects for His mercy whom He wills, and Allah is the possessor of great bounty.” 2:105

But you are beginning to see what is coming I hope? Such people are not welcomed into the Ummah, are they? No compulsion in religion begins to become nonsensical.

There is a Surah dedicated to how Muslims should conduct themselves towards disbelievers, Sura Al-Kafirun (109). See Ashtiname of Muhammad, or Charter of Medina for further examples.

109 does not state how Muslims should conduct themselves towards disbelievers. It’s a poetic contrast between Islam and other religions. It is more or less just a Psalm. The Quran is full of instruction on how to treat non-believers and you pick one of the shortest and non-sequitur Surahs. It is said that reciting this Surah would protect one or give immunity from polytheism. That is hardly a concept of acceptance as it is tolerating an annoyance or fear.

St Catherine and Medina were specific occurrences. There is some debate about the authenticity of the Athtiname as being a medieval forgery. No doubt that as a merchant in his youth, Mohammed could have traveled to St Catherine on his way to Alexandria. This is where he probably learned about Christianity outside of a monastic lifestyle. He probably felt no threat from monks. But after the Hijrah, there’s no indication that Mohammed travelled outside of the Medina/Mecca region of the Arabian Peninsula. Historic routes between Medina and Mecca ranged over 300 miles. St Catherine was another 400 miles beyond Medina. That is definitely too far for the Prophet to travel. Security would be non-existent.

The Charter of Medina occurred about the same time that Surah 2 was revealed. For the Jew, what the Charter stated and Surah 2 said were conflicting as far as being Jews staying true to their faith. The Quran repeatedly states that the Jew had corrupted the Torah. Most Jews just don’t see it that way. What this amounted to was coercion. Now for the benefit of stopping the blood feud, Mohammed couldn’t have asked for a better start but at the same time, the end of religious tolerance was before the eyes of the Jew. This eventually led to the slaughter of the Banu Qurayza and then later the Jewish defeat at Khaybar. The Jew were just not safe anywhere.

But there is one more treaty or charter you should have added and that is that Mecca had always been a sanctuary city. The Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was but an extension of that concept. It allowed for Muslims to make Hajj at the Kaaba. After Mohammed had conquered Mecca, he left the status quo. Pagans where still able to worship at the Kaaba. But after he had returned from the battle of Tabuk, Allah declared immunity from pagans and that is recorded in Surah 9. What this also records is the quintessential treatment of the non-believer. Idols destroyed and pagans killed. Muhammad passed away shortly after and this is his ultimate legacy that his followers devoutly emulate.

What humans have done in Islam's name after the death of the prophet doesnt take anything away from this (in thesame way that Christ's teachings aren't subject to the acts of 'Christians' after his leave).

What followers of Mohammed have done after his death was to remain faithful to his teachings. The core of Muhammad’s teachings was submission and using force to do so if necessary. His teachings have not varied all that much in implementation in 1400 years. There has never been an external force to challenge it. Jesus’ message was love and respect. Early Christianity only knew unsolicited persecution. Then it gained acceptance with the Edict of Milan, then it became the state religion under the efficiency of Roman administration, i.e. very austere. And this left very little room for diversity with heresy, especially Arianism. With this infighting then came an external force that threatened it in the form of Islam. Christianity became more militant to combat that influence and it wasn’t until the Peace of Westphalia when it began to return to Christ’s original teachings. Christianity has gone full circle and has matured whereas Islam has remained static. Islam has not matured. That’s fact, not bias.

Wahhabist, Takfirieen school of thought.. which is certainly not adhering to core Quranic principles. Rather, the complete opposite.

FYI, Wahhabism is the Saudi version of Salafism, which is orthodox Islam. You can’t get more core than that.

[EllJay]

Really.. I am supposed to take this serious? I certainly am aware of them, and I dispize them, but I also know they are fringe movements within the whole of the community. Not unlike Christian cults like the Westboro Baptist Church.

Well hold on for a effin minute here It was you who said that there were no islam movements in Europe who wanted to implement Sharia here. Sharia4UK was apparently so "insignificant" that the government had to put a ban on them, the same with Sharia4Belgium. But they just pop up with a new name a few months later. But that's irrelevant really,. Instead you can just have to look at the polls & surveys I presented for you, and you see clearly were the leaning is for Sharia implementation in those European countries.

Here's an idea; why not actually talk to some Muslims instead of fuelling your preconceived fears reading 'polls' to establish 'what Muslims think'. I know a lot of 'them', and none - not a single Muslim - has ever even remotely implied he/she would like to impose any form of Sharia law in a non Muslim country. This might come as reality shaking news to you, but most of them are just like normal people, like me and you. Go figure. They do not want to convert Europe, they do not want to impose Sharia, they are not shrewdly trying to take over our countries. They want to practice their religion, raise their children, and have a good job.

Here's an idea, why dont you read this extensive survey done (around 40 000 muslims IIRC) . I have met, talked, discussed, with a lot of muslims. I remember a few times when I knew one of the muslims - who were a secular-muslim (non-practising) - and we were in on a discussion with his friends who were practising muslims. They said that; "we have no problem with western countries laws, norms, and traditions, and islamic segregation with Shariah law was something they rejected". However, I met this guy (the secular-muslim) a few weeks later, and we talked a bit about the last time we met, and the discussions we had. And he said; "- Later that evening, after you left, I and the other muslims discussed the matter again, and now they had totally changed their view, and said the only right thing would to have Shairah law that ruled the society, and if not the whole society, at least the muslim neighbourhood. Because they (we non-muslims) should not interfere with how the muslims chooses to live their life, and by what law."

I have a number of other instances were different muslims have said one thing to my face, and another thing behind my back. some call it Taqiyya, Tawriya, Kitman or Muruna. The description put forward by islam-apologets are that, Taqiyya is only permitted when a muslim has to lie about his devotion to islam, only to save his life. But that is hardly the interpetation the majority take it for. Taqiyya (as deceit for the purposes of spreading Islam) is by far the most common interpretation & use - at least what I come across.

The arrogant backstabbing b*******! (oh lordy)

Well, numbers dont lie!! Deal with it.

Thats just terrible. These people are limiting their daughters freedom by wanting forcing them to dress modestly. They should live in Saudi Arabia if they think thats so important. (Right?)

There are a lot of muslim girls who are forced to wear Hijab from very early age (9-10-11), and I very much doubt that it is by free choice. But for all I care they can use the Hijab as much as they like, if it is volunterally, and not forced upon them. But nany schoolgirls takes of their Hijab on the way to school, and put it on later when they are going home.

But I do have an issue with Niqab & Burqa. In a modern western society we rely very often on facial expression when we talk with someone, and a lot of people get a bit irritated when we cant get eye contact, for a lot of reasons. Then we have the security risk as well. Drivers license & police, Bank withdrawal, or ID oneselves to all the places were an ID is necessary, etc. It's just a god damn nuisance with those tents & veils.

Scandalous! Their children should have sex before marriage, and young Muslims should be allowed to drink alcohol! If they dont, they should leave for Saudi Arabia or some other backward country. (..Am I doing good?)

Yeah, you are doing pretty good. Muslim girls whom are over 18 have their free will to do what they like with their body - and no father, mother, brother, or religion, shall force their will upon her. But as you see - by the survey - a majority of the muslims doesnt think so.

Absolutely shocking! No Christian would state thesame when asked if the Bible should be the foundation of their resp. nation's legislation. Lets just ignore your misrepresentation of the source you cited.

Well in a Christian country that might be the case. But since a large part of Europe are quite secular, I dont think they will impose the teachings of the Old Testament. But we live by some of the points of the Ten Commandment - by norms & by law. The Sabbath day, for example, and You shall not murder & You shall not steal. Committing Adultery is by law not a crime, but it is frowned upon, by your peers. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, isnt a crime either, but is frowned upon. But it can be a crime, if you do it in a court of law. But we dont have a majority of people who think that all the teachings and laws from The Old Testament, and forward, should be the law of the land.

Yet again; numbers dont lie in the survey.- and we can see that a large gropu of muslims want their law & teachings implemented in the country, whom took them in, when they fled from their own.

When it comes to the point you make of me misrepresentating the article and survey. Sharia law is derived from the religious precepts of the Quran and the Hadith. And you cant expect me to believe that a devout muslim would rule out the teachings of their prophet in the Hadits and the Sunna. So when they say that they want the quran to be the law of Denmark, they mean the Shariah quite obviously.

[LV-426]

I can't imagine feelings towards Islam are going to improve in Germany today:

Germany knife attacker kills man in Grafing

[+and-then]

And these crazed individuals, fringe groups, should be hunted down with extreme prejudice. Those that committed crimes sentenced harshly, those that did not but remain at their state undermining position; evicted and barred from (that particular) society (earmarked for other non Islamic nations to identify). Main problem often seems to simply be inaction, relative apathy from the government in such cases. How deluded can a person get, to be a guest/immigrant in a foreign nation and start demanding your law is installed against the wishes of the original inhabitants? Crazy stuff. Why not deport all of these people to SA.. they'll have what they want, and we will have what we want. Win win.

The reason British politicians do not behave as you suggest - correctly suggest, I might add - is that they ARE politicians and fear the ballot repercussions. They also seem to have become completely docile in the face of the same rhetoric about Islam that you use here all the time. I stand by every word of that post you ranted on.