Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Fifth of the European Union will be muslim by 2050 watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Rubbish, religion and race are two different things. And religion is very important, which secular Europe has forgotten because its been several centuries since the Enlightenment and the end of the religious wars which bathed Europe in bloodshed. It only takes a small minority of Muslim youth to be radicalised to pose a severe threat to Western states. Look at the activities of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. If all Muslims in Europe were to embrace the views of Tariq Ramadan there would be absolutely no problem with these demographic trends, but as of the moment that is fanciful - it isn't happening and there is even less likelihood of it happening as the demographic situation continues to shift so profoundly.

    According to a Guardian survey of British Muslims, on 30 November 2004, 61% want British courts to incorporate sharia principles in courts, 58% believe that anyone who insults Islam should face criminal prosecution, and 88% want schools and workplaces to change the normal working day to accommodate Muslim prayer times. I shouldn't need to remind anyone of the Guardian's political pedigree. There is a war going on for the soul of Islam between the those like Tariq Ramadan and the many Muslims influenced by his grandfather's Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi-financed Wahhabism, and amongst young Muslim men it is not going the way we would wish. The Muslim population is currently around 2,422,000 (Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5621482.ece ) and if only 10% of British Muslims were susceptible to radical and political Islam that would make 242,200 radicals. Lets say at some point in the future Britain had 20,000,000 Muslims of a total population of 80,000,000 people (neither of which is a crazy prediction but it isn't rooted in any demographic modeling, I just plucked the numbers out of the air), if 10% of that population was radicalised we would be talking about 2 million Muslims.

    As well as potential terrorist attacks that could mean that non-Muslim women felt unsafe walking outside in many areas without a headscarf, as is already the case in several suburbs in French cities. The police are as of the moment reluctant to intervene to protect British Muslim girls from being forced to leave school, being imprisoned in the house, being forced into marriages against their will and sometimes being sent to Pakistan to live out the rest of their life imprisoned in a forced marriage. Domestic violence and marital rape are also significantly higher in some parts of the British Muslim community. The state sometimes intervenes in these cases, but not often enough, it tends to only get involved by the time it reaches the stage of an 'honour' killing. In effect the state discriminates against British Muslim girls by failing to protect them in circumstances where it would definitely seek to protect a Christian girl. This kind of unequal treatment were minority communities are treated as a whole and individuals, especially girls not protected as is their right as individual citizens of the country, would be bound to increase with a substantially larger Muslim population. There would also be more acts of individual violence against apostates, Jews and homosexuals.

    None of this is rooted in race, there are white converts to radical Islam, and as with many converts they tend to be the most zealous. It is rooted in interpretations of Islam and in backward cultural practices to often justified in the name of Islam. Anyone who thinks this demographic process would not have profound implications for society is deluding themselves.
    Pew conducted a study recently on attitudes amongst European Muslims; which showed sharply differing attitudes amongst various Muslim populations, unsurprising as North African French, and Turkish Germans, and south Asian Brits have very little in common. The debunking the idea that their a monolithic homogeny.

    Europe has problems, and so far none of the political cultures seems to be doing the trick while in Britain multiculturalism actively encourages segregation, In France policies like banning head scarfs alienates many.

    There are two central lessons that Europe can learn from Americas success at integration encouraging employment opportunities, not a reliance on welfare and segregation. Plenty have argued for the deregulation of Europe's employments markets as a key strategy for combatting segregation, but few politicians find discussing labour markets as sexy as discussing the Bukah or whatever this weeks scare story is.:rolleyes:

    There is also the need for looking at the Europes Muslim youth who are after all unlike their parents most perceptible to extremism and alienation. There is plenty of bad news with Muslim youth, but also a great deal to be proud about too, like how many French Muslim women are actively involved in politics there, and the various political and religious voices in German Islam many of whom are secular.

    The Issue of Europes Muslims requires political attention. yet there is nothing to indicate it's as serious as we are lead to believe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    As well as potential terrorist attacks that could mean that non-Muslim women felt unsafe walking outside in many areas without a headscarf, as is already the case in several suburbs in French cities. The police are as of the moment reluctant to intervene to protect British Muslim girls from being forced to leave school, being imprisoned in the house, being forced into marriages against their will and sometimes being sent to Pakistan to live out the rest of their life imprisoned in a forced marriage. Domestic violence and marital rape are also significantly higher in some parts of the British Muslim community. The state sometimes intervenes in these cases, but not often enough, it tends to only get involved by the time it reaches the stage of an 'honour' killing. In effect the state discriminates against British Muslim girls by failing to protect them in circumstances where it would definitely seek to protect a Christian girl. This kind of unequal treatment were minority communities are treated as a whole and individuals, especially girls not protected as is their right as individual citizens of the country, would be bound to increase with a substantially larger Muslim population. There would also be more acts of individual violence against apostates, Jews and homosexuals.
    Couldn't one imagine a situation where the Muslims in the country take a different direction and, consequently, the effect of extremism in the global Muslim community is negated?

    Firstly, if the Muslim population in Britain becomes more tolerant then perhaps we will see the extremists among the Muslim population beginning to be challenged more by other Muslims. If Muslims become as much a part of other strands in Western culture as they are a part of the Muslim community then it seems sensible to think that they may be more likely to challenge other Muslims -- if the Muslim community is all that they have, and they cannot envisage having other friends and associates, then they may be more afraid of speaking out and challenging extremists; if they can have support from elsewhere then they need not fear being ostracized completely for speaking out.

    Secondly, if Muslims in the UK become more moderate and tolerant, and begin to consider secular Western society to be positive rather than negative, then they may begin to transmit and spread those ideas abroad to Muslims who may not currently feel that way. That spread of information is important: some extremists are partly motivated by the nature of society in the West - these ideas present, for example, in the writings of Sayyid Kutb - but if it becomes more widely known that, actually, the West isn't all that bad of a place for Muslims to live then the desire to punish or hurt the West for other misdemeanors (such as military involvement in Muslim countries) will be diminished. In this scenario, rather than increasing the extremist threat to Britain, we are pacifying it through the spread of information.

    So, in conclusion, it is easy to focus on the worst-case scenario without giving other scenarios due consideration as well. In the possible scenario I have outlined, we come out with a more tolerant, moderate Islam and a reduced extremist threat to Britain. I can't say which scenario is more likely, but I am sure that the doom-and-gloom scenario is not the only possibility we should consider.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Many Muslim girls are second class citizens, not in the sense that you mean, but because the state fails to protect them from being taken out of school and forced into marriages against their will, from household imprisonment, domestic violence and marital rape, in cases were a western girl would be protected by the laws of the country.

    It only takes a radical minority of growing demographic to profoundly challenge our way of life, and through threat of violence instill silence in their opponents.

    So according to you because of imperialism, we deserve to be destroyed as a civilisation, and there are no worthwhile values that have come out of our nations that ought to be defended? Freedom of expression? Secular democracy? The rights of the individual? Freedom to apostate from religion and choose one's belief system? Women's position in our societies?

    The fact that you are so critical of your own civilisation and its historical failings is itself a profoundly western activity and freedom. When was the last time you heard the Chinese saying how awful it was that they had dominated non-Han minorities and imposed their rule on Tibet? When was the last time you heard people in Islamic societies say, wasn't it terrible and aggressive how we conquered the formerly Christian and Zoroastrian lands of the Persian and Roman Empires (North Africa, the Middle East, Persia and Central Asia)? Wasn't it terrible that we conquered much of Spain and the Balkans? Wasn't it terrible how we sacked Constantinople, the centre of the Orthadox Christian world? Wasn't it terrible how our armies tried to carry the Qu'ran into Southern France and Italy? Has there ever been a non-western civilisation as able and willing to criticise itself as the west is? Isn't that self criticism also a facet of our free thinking and free speaking democratic culture that ought to be protected?
    out of all the muslim girls you know, how many were subject to your claims?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Milk'n*Honey)
    Pew recently conducted a study recently on attitudes amongst European Muslims; which showed sharply differing attitudes amongst various Muslim populations, unsurprising as North African French, and Turkish Germans, and south Asian Brits have very little in common. Effectively debunking the idea that their a monolithic homogeny.

    Europe has problems with integration, and so far none of the political cultures seems to be doing the trick while in Britain multiculturalism actively encourages segregation, In France policies like banning head scarfs alienates many.

    Europe can learn from Americas success at integration; like encouraging employment opportunities, not a reliance on welfare and segregation. Plenty have argued for the deregulation of Europe's employments markets as a key strategy for combatting segregation, but few politicians find discussing labour markets as sexy as discussing the Bukah or whatever this weeks scare story is.:rolleyes:

    There is also the need for looking at the Europes Muslim youth who are after all unlike their parents most perceptible to extremism and alienation. There is plenty of bad news with Muslim youth, but also a great deal to be proud about too, like how many French Muslim women are actively involved in politics there, and the various political and religious voices in German Islam many of whom are secular.

    The Issue of Europes Muslims requires political attention. yet there is nothing to indicate it's as serious as we are lead to believe.
    I agree with most of what you are saying and think its a very good post, but I don't think your last statement follows from the rest of the arguments you put forward. It is of course the case that Pakistanis, Turks and North Africans have very different cultures, but the spread of Saudi sponsored Wahhabi ideas, Salafism and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is at work across the divisions between the Muslim community. The pleasant, peaceful and spiritual aspects of South Asian Sufi Islam are less important to young Muslims in Britain. And the ideas of Tariq Ramadan are not making a big enough impact on European Muslim youth.

    Radical Islam offers a feeling of belonging emphasising the the transnational and transcultural Islamic Ummah. The first generation of Muslim migrants to the west either stayed with their traditional forms of Islam (along with backward cultural practices carried out in the name of Islam) or they sought to integrate, their children and their children's children however, although de facto more integrated are increasingly alienated and attracted to a literal fundamentalist and prominently political Islamic ideology that makes intercommunity boundaries within the wider Islamic community practically irrelevant. You do make something approaching this point yourself, so I don't see how you can regard this as an exaggerated problem for European societies.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by steed999)
    out of all the muslim girls you know, how many were subject to your claims?
    Do you think I would be likely to know British Muslim girls who are taken out of school early and forced into marriages and kept at home? I didn't even go to school in England. British Muslims of this kind are largely segregated from the rest of British society. By the very nature of the phenomenon even a British Muslim man my age would be unlikely to know them unless it was occurring in his immediate family or he was marrying one of them. Its no good to say that if you have no anecdotal experience of it yourself that its not relevant, its well documented and highly relevant. Part of the problem is that its not a very visible problem and that its not spoken about in the way it would be if it were happening in any other community.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It does happen but it isn't an Islamic thing. Why do you take culture and pass it off as religion?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by crusading)
    I have no problem if Europe was made up of 20% Sikhs or Hindus. I am disgusted with the possibility of 20% of my European homeland being made up of Muslims. A people so alien and different to us that it threatens our existence. Your people have a track record of not integrating and imposing your disgusting beliefs on us.

    Muslims belong on muslim countries, muslims do not belong in secular, democratic europe. You are an insult to everything my ancestors fought for.
    I didn't know the BNP had a presence here...? Some facts for you, Mr Ignorant Racist:

    1) Over a million British citizens are based in Arab countries working for oil companies. Most of them of course are god people but some are involved in rape and murder on a consistent basis.

    2) When Britain controlled the Indian subcontinent it forcibly converted millions of people to Christianity, fired upon innocent protestors, arrested Gandhi and failed to provide security resulting in the death over 7m people during partition.

    3) A majority of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians.

    4) Most Muslims are supportive of a democratic and secular EU (for example me). It's just extremists on both sides (like u) that cause the problem. We may be Muslim but we're also British.

    5) "You are an insult to all my ancestos fought for". Your ancestors fought to keep Germany from winning the 2 World Wars and were helped by millions of muslims from the Indian Subcontinent amongst other places. They certainly didn't fight for democracy etc. - that evoloved by itself as Britain became more industrialised.

    6) "A people so alien blah blah" Most of my friends are white Brits and most of my friends have a lot of Muslim friends who last time looked were NOT about to blow them up or impose Islam on them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Der Springer)
    Couldn't one imagine a situation where the Muslims in the country take a different direction and, consequently, the effect of extremism in the global Muslim community is negated?

    Firstly, if the Muslim population in Britain becomes more tolerant then perhaps we will see the extremists among the Muslim population beginning to be challenged more by other Muslims. If Muslims become as much a part of other strands in Western culture as they are a part of the Muslim community then it seems sensible to think that they may be more likely to challenge other Muslims -- if the Muslim community is all that they have, and they cannot envisage having other friends and associates, then they may be more afraid of speaking out and challenging extremists; if they can have support from elsewhere then they need not fear being ostracized completely for speaking out.

    Secondly, if Muslims in the UK become more moderate and tolerant, and begin to consider secular Western society to be positive rather than negative, then they may begin to transmit and spread those ideas abroad to Muslims who may not currently feel that way. That spread of information is important: some extremists are partly motivated by the nature of society in the West - these ideas present, for example, in the writings of Sayyid Kutb - but if it becomes more widely known that, actually, the West isn't all that bad of a place for Muslims to live then the desire to punish or hurt the West for other misdemeanors (such as military involvement in Muslim countries) will be diminished. In this scenario, rather than increasing the extremist threat to Britain, we are pacifying it through the spread of information.

    So, in conclusion, it is easy to focus on the worst-case scenario without giving other scenarios due consideration as well. In the possible scenario I have outlined, we come out with a more tolerant, moderate Islam and a reduced extremist threat to Britain. I can't say which scenario is more likely, but I am sure that the doom-and-gloom scenario is not the only possibility we should consider.
    That would be great, but there are many Muslims in Britain and there are few signs it is going that way. What you are saying is wishful thinking, and I genuinely wish it would come about, but as I've said it only takes a small minority of this growing population to terrorise and silence with threats of violence the rest. I think its more likely that trends will move in the direction of the Netherlands and Marseilles. The murder of Theo Van Gogh seems to me to be a likely scenario to happen in Britain in the future. We really need more Tariq Ramadan's to help things go in the direction you suggest they might and we all hope they will. But we can't just leave it be, and hope for the best, we need to do all the things I suggested in a previous post to oppose radical and political Islam and encourage the voices of moderation. Its far too risky, because we are talking about the fate of our country and civilisation, to simply adopt a lets wait and see attitude and approach.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I didn't know the BNP had a presence here...? Some facts for you, Mr Ignorant Racist:
    However, poorly expressed and potentially offensive his sentiments were, they are plainly not racist - because he said he is happy with Sikhs and Hindus who are ethnically Indian just like many South Asian British Muslims. Call it Islamophobia if you wish, but its not racism, and that should be obvious to anyone with more than two brain cells.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by roots)
    It does happen but it isn't an Islamic thing. Why do you take culture and pass it off as religion?
    Were you replying to me? You should quote or your response might be overlooked.

    I know that many of these abuses and malpractices (as with cousin marriage) are rooted in lower class tribal areas of Pakistan and in parts of Africa, but its not me who tries to pass them off as religion, its usually the perpetrators who justify them in the name of Islam. And some practices are easier for political Islamists to justify in the name of Islam because they have Qu'ranic or Hadthic sanction - the permissibility of wife-beating and the injunction to always be sexually available to your husband except during Ramadan and your period. I am aware that Tariq Ramadan argues against all these things on theological grounds, and entirely support his efforts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Mr Ignorant Racist:
    Islam is not a race.

    (Original post by Inzaman99)
    Over a million British citizens are based in Arab countries working for oil companies. Most of them of course are god people but some are involved in rape and murder on a consistent basis.
    Evidence?

    (Original post by Inzaman99)
    When Britain controlled the Indian subcontinent it forcibly converted millions of people to Christianity, fired upon innocent protestors, arrested Gandhi and failed to provide security resulting in the death over 7m people during partition.
    What does this have to do with the current discussion?

    (Original post by Inzaman99)
    A majority of people killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are civilians.
    Again, why is this relevant?

    (Original post by Inzaman99)
    Most Muslims are supportive of a democratic and secular EU (for example me). It's just extremists on both sides (like u) that cause the problem. We may be Muslim but we're also British.
    According to a recently conducted poll, the majority of young Muslim men in Britain think that homosexuality ought to be criminalised. I'm sorry but interfering in other peoples bedrooms doesn't sound very British to me.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    2) When Britain controlled the Indian subcontinent it forcibly converted millions of people to Christianity, fired upon innocent protestors, arrested Gandhi and failed to provide security resulting in the death over 7m people during partition.
    Britain did not forcibly convert millions of people to Christianity. The East India Company had no interest in converting people, and actively discouraged missionaries. The Indian Mutiny (or First War of Independence for Indians) which caused the British government and crown to take control directly and remove the East India Company also caused the British to be wary of attempts at conversion owing to the religious rumours that pig and cow fat had been used to grease rifle cartridges having sparked the Mutiny.

    There were Christian missionaries present in India before and after the Mutiny but they received no official sanction or support from the state, if anything they were discouraged. The Christian population in India is comprised of Anglo-Indians (the offspring of consensual unions between British/European father's and Indian mothers) and of largely lower caste Hindus converted voluntarily and peaceably by missionaries engaged in charity work and proselytisation - the same group of people who had in the past, under the Moghuls, often converted to Islam because they were at the bottom of the socio-religious hierarchy and in Christianity and Islam all believers are in terms of salvation equal (though of course there is a lot of sexism involved in all major religions, some more so than others).

    Yes there was the Amritsar massacre to which you refereed, which was not the result of state policy and resulted in the officer who ordered it, Brigadier Dyer, being demoted, removed from command and censured by the Government.

    Lastly, I agree that Britain should have done more to prevent the violence that accompanied partition and that it was a terrible stain on the end of our rule in India, but you can't say that it was simply Britain's fault. It was the fault of the Muslims and Hindu's who were actually guilty of murdering each other in cold blood. The British bear responsibility for not doing more to prevent it, but the people who did the killing are most to blame.

    This is an important point relating to your next comment on Iraq and Afghanistan and regarding terrorism. Many civilians who have been killed have been killed not by coalition forces but by Muslim terrorists intent on destabilising those countries, the huge number of Iraqi civilians killed in bombings are murdered by radical Muslims in the name of Islam, and we ought to blame them primarily for these deaths, those who try and obfuscate this point are doing the terrorists propaganda for them.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Human Condition)
    Islam is not a race.



    Evidence?



    What does this have to do with the current discussion?



    Again, why is this relevant?



    According to a recently conducted poll, the majority of young Muslim men in Britain think that homosexuality ought to be criminalised. I'm sorry but interfering in other peoples bedrooms doesn't sound very British to me.
    1) If ur prejudiced against a religion you can be defined as racist.

    2) Look it up yourself and come back with what you find. An example is the housing complex in Khamis Mishait in Asir province in Saudi.

    3) The guy claims Muslims are intefering in the UK and should be kicked out- well here is proof of ur somewhat more intense inteference. Whereas we increase our population through giving birth etc. u forcibly invaded (and invade in the present) foreign countries for largely selfish means. If that's not intefereing I don't know what is.

    4) Same as above

    5) Last time I looked most White British people are also opposed to Homosexuality- most are Christians and the Bible says Homosexuality is punishable by death. Another fact: groups such as the BNP etc. kill and injure more gays than Muslims do. Again look it up yourself and disprove me if im wrong.

    Anyways people are entitled to their opinion, Nick Griffin reckons u should sink immigrant boats and says the Holocaust was a myth. I don't see u having a go at him- is it because im Muslim and hes not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Riquelminho)
    What are you going to do about it?

    Does it really matter if 20% of the population have different religious beliefs to you? I smell an intolerant bigot.
    Why does disliking muslims and islam make you an intolerant bigot? Islam is a system of beliefs on how to live your life and what society should look like. I don't understand how disliking it is any different to a socialist disliking thatcherism? Are socialists intolerant bigots as well? Along with anyone who criticises anothers way of life or beliefs?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    Britain did not forcibly convert millions of people to Christianity. The East India Company had no interest in converting people, and actively discouraged missionaries. The Indian Mutiny (or First War of Independence for Indians) which caused the British government and crown to take control directly and remove the East India Company also caused the British to be wary of attempts at conversion owing to the religious rumours that pig and cow fat had been used to grease rifle cartridges having sparked the Mutiny.

    There were Christian missionaries present in India before and after the Mutiny but they received no official sanction or support from the state, if anything they were discouraged. The Christian population in India is comprised of Anglo-Indians (the offspring of consensual unions between British/European father's and Indian mothers) and of largely lower caste Hindus converted voluntarily and peaceably by missionaries engaged in charity work and proselytisation - the same group of people who had in the past, under the Moghuls, often converted to Islam because they were at the bottom of the socio-religious hierarchy and in Christianity and Islam all believers are in terms of salvation equal (though of course there is a lot of sexism involved in all major religions, some more so than others).

    Yes there was the Amritsar massacre to which you refereed, which was not the result of state policy and resulted in the officer who ordered it, Brigadier Dyer, being demoted, removed from command and censured by the Government.

    Lastly, I agree that Britain should have done more to prevent the violence that accompanied partition and that it was a terrible stain on the end of our rule in India, but you can't say that it was simply Britain's fault. It was the fault of the Muslims and Hindu's who were actually guilty of murdering each other in cold blood. The British bear responsibility for not doing more to prevent it, but the people who did the killing are most to blame.

    This is an important point relating to your next comment on Iraq and Afghanistan and regarding terrorism. Many civilians who have been killed have been killed not by coalition forces but by Muslim terrorists intent on destabilising those countries, the huge number of Iraqi civilians killed in bombings are murdered by radical Muslims in the name of Islam, and we ought to blame them primarily for these deaths, those who try and obfuscate this point are doing the terrorists propaganda for them.
    I understand what you are saying in relation to the last half of your post concerning Partition, Iraq and Afghanistan- why I mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan is because there were no bomb blasts etc. before you lot (US, UK etc.) came in.

    Yes OK fine there weren't any forced conversions supported by the state but nevertheless the phenomenon did exist. Also you seem educated about the topic and must know how many of the countries treasures the British stole while they were there. You probably also know of the other "killing of innocent scenarios" except the Amristar massacre.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    If ur prejudiced against a religion you can be defined as racist.
    How so?

    (Original post by Imzamam99)
    Look it up yourself and come back with what you find. An example is the housing complex in Khamis Mishait in Asir province in Saudi.
    Why don't you provide a news article documenting these alleged vile acts?

    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    The guy claims Muslims are intefering in the UK and should be kicked out- well here is proof of ur somewhat more intense inteference. Whereas we increase our population through giving birth etc. u forcibly invaded (and invade in the present) foreign countries for largely selfish means. If that's not intefereing I don't know what is.
    Firstly, I suggest you drop the unhelpful and crude 'your', 'we' and you'. Secondly, as I said before, the Iraq war (or whatever) isn't relevant to this debate - you can't defend X by pointing to Y.

    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    Last time I looked most White British people are also opposed to Homosexuality
    You ought to look again because the vast majority of British people are NOT opposed to homosexuality. According to a recent Gallup survey, 61% of the respondents stated that they have absolutely no moral objection to homosexuality. On the other hand, the majority of young British Muslim men in this country want to use the law to interfere in other peoples bedrooms.

    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    most are Christians and the Bible says Homosexuality is punishable by death.
    Christians do not believe that homosexuality ought to be punished by death - perhaps you should educate yourself about Christianity.

    (Original post by Inzaman99)
    Another fact: groups such as the BNP etc. kill and injure more gays than Muslims do. Again look it up yourself and disprove me if im wrong.
    The British National Party is a British political organisaton and it's members are situated in the United Kingdom where it's illegal to harm or murder someone merely because of their sexual orientation. On the other hand, gay people are oppressed and systemically executed in Muslim coutnries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran.

    (Original post by Inzaman99)
    Anyways people are entitled to their opinion, Nick Griffin reckons u should sink immigrant boats and says the Holocaust was a myth. I don't see u having a go at him- is it because im Muslim and hes not?
    Actually, I also despise Nick Griffin and often criticise the British National Party. I mean, there really isn't much difference between the hatefulness of the British National Party and Islam.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vertigo)
    I have no problem if Europe was made up of 20% Sikhs or Hindus. I am disgusted with the possibility of 20% of my European homeland being made up of Muslims. A people so alien and different to us that it threatens our existence. Your people have a track record of not integrating and imposing your disgusting beliefs on us. Muslims belong on muslim countries, muslims do not belong in secular, democratic europe. You are an insult to everything my ancestors fought for.

    Ho ho ho and the West has never EVER done this...
    Which western beliefs do you find disgusting? We imposed our beliefs because they were superior and correct. I don't consider imposing beliefs on another to be a bad thing so long as the beliefs are good, islamic ones are not. Western ones about the rights of individuals and the rule of law are however good and certain nations benefited from having them imposed. Would india be the worlds largest democracy without British beliefs being imposed? Would south africa be that continents most prosperous nation without imperialism? How will the UK benefit from muslim beliefs?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    I understand what you are saying in relation to the last half of your post concerning Partition, Iraq and Afghanistan- why I mentioned Iraq and Afghanistan is because there were no bomb blasts etc. before you lot (US, UK etc.) came in.

    Yes OK fine there weren't any forced conversions supported by the state but nevertheless the phenomenon did exist. Also you seem educated about the topic and must know how many of the countries treasures the British stole while they were there. You probably also know of the other "killing of innocent scenarios" except the Amristar massacre.
    There was lots of cruel punishments in the aftermath of the Mutiny, but setting this and Amritsar aside British rule was not characterised by violent repression. Imperialism wasn't a one way experience, it required Indian cooperation at every level. Which is why Gandhi's campaign ultimately worked, if Gandhi had been facing an enemy like the Nazis, Stalin, the Imperial Japanese, the Taliban or the Revolutionary Guard of Iran he would have been killed or at least would not have succeeded. If you look at countries that were part of the British Empire, most of the dominant regional powers are included - the US, Australia, India, South Africa; and they all tend to be more advanced and free societies (with good rule of law) than their neighbours. India has railways and is the world's largest democracy as a result of British rule. Yes there were negative elements in the process but I think it would be hard to imagine a more benign rule under anybody else. It certainly wasn't all bad, and the consequences aren't all bad either.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    1) If ur prejudiced against a religion you can be defined as racist.
    By people who don't know the difference between racialism and difference of religious or ideological opinion perhaps.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pendragon)
    I agree with most of what you are saying and think its a very good post, but I don't think your last statement follows from the rest of the arguments you put forward. It is of course the case that Pakistanis, Turks and North Africans have very different cultures, but the spread of Saudi sponsored Wahhabi ideas, Salafism and the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood is at work across the divisions between the Muslim community. The pleasant, peaceful and spiritual aspects of South Asian Sufi Islam are less important to young Muslims in Britain. And the ideas of Tariq Ramadan are not making a big enough impact on European Muslim youth.

    Radical Islam offers a feeling of belonging emphasising the the transnational and transcultural Islamic Ummah. The first generation of Muslim migrants to the west either stayed with their traditional forms of Islam (along with backward cultural practices carried out in the name of Islam) or they sought to integrate, their children and their children's children however, although de facto more integrated are increasingly alienated and attracted to a literal fundamentalist and prominently political Islamic ideology that makes intercommunity boundaries within the wider Islamic community practically irrelevant. You do make something approaching this point yourself, so I don't see how you can regard this as an exaggerated problem for European societies.
    I think we must first differentiate between "radical" and "orthodox" Islam, Salafism is split between countless groups some more political than others and Sufi can be both conservative and liberal in equal measure.

    You're right in pointing out most terrorists are from either prosperous families or well-integrated ones (which yes, I did touch upon), but much of that rage stems from material rather than purely theological underpinnings; can we be certain of predicting the political climate in the Muslim world in 2059? All trends seem to indicate liberalization (albeit at snails pace), and that still doesn't account for those who are genuinely integrating and will be taking on leadership positions. The Muslims who rioted in Paris' banlieues rarely if ever attended mosques. And apart from hot spots like Helmand and Swat valley, radical Islam is increasingly loosing support as a legitimate form of protest in the Islamic world; I would look at Harvards Pluralism projects recent studies for the Obama administration.

    Ultimately integration in Europe will only prove to be insurmountable if liberal Europeans demand all Muslims share the same moral values on hot topics like homosexuality. I am not suggesting that there aren't legitimate concerns (quite the opposite), just that these kinds of stories are often accompanied by hysterics. Perhaps a sensible public debate on Islam in Europe (Britain) which involved Muslim voices would be helpful.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.