Good bye Europe

[Happy Times]

By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 28, 2006

Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith, seems to have lost the will, the passion to sustain itself. If it continues to practice today’s multiculturalist leftism, Europe’s demographic doom will be sealed. Some harbingers:


In Brussels, Belgium, the most popular name for baby boys is now Mohammad. Sustaining the population of a nation requires that on average each couple gives birth to 2.1 children. The average European couple now has fewer than 1.4 babies, compared to 3.6 babies born to the average Muslim immigrant couple in Europe. Across Western Europe 16 to 20 percent of babies are being born into Muslim families.

In France at least 12 percent of the population is already Muslim, the fruits mostly of immigrants from former French colonies in North Africa. If present birth trends continue, by 2030 a quarter of France’s people will be Muslim, more than enough to determine who controls the national parliament and executive. As this columnist recently noted, the nuclear-armed French military is already 15 percent Muslim. Adjacent Switzerland is now 20 percent Muslim.

The German newspaper Deutsche Welle days ago reported that Germany’s birth rate in 2005 fell to a level lower than at the end of World War II, to a “historic low,” more than fifty percent lower than those of France and Great Britain. But at a meeting this week in Berlin that brought together the interior ministers of six European nations, Germany’s leftwing Social Democrats continued to oppose the application of any test or standard that would restrict who could migrate into Germany.


The burgeoning Muslim population within Europe is not evenly spread. It is largely concentrated in and around big cities, whose local politicians feel its pressure acutely and often bend to that pressure. In the Netherlands the cities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam nearly have Muslim majorities now.



These Islamic enclaves are already taking on the character of conquered provinces that no longer belong to the European countries around them. As FrontPage Magazine recently quoted from the new book While Europe Slept by liberal American expatriate Bruce Bawer:



In France, a public official met with an imam at the edge of Roubaix’s Muslim district out of respect for his declaration of the neighborhood as Islamic territory to which she had no right of access. In Britain, imams have pressed the government to officially designate certain areas of Bradford as being under Muslim, not British, law. In Denmark, Muslim leaders have sought the same kind of control over parts of Copenhagen. And in Belgium, Muslims living in the Brussels neighborhood of Sint-Jans-Molenbeek already view it not as part of Belgium but as an area under Islamic jurisdiction in which Belgians are not welcome.



Europe has several potential choices in the face of a flood of immigrants and families within its borders who refuse to assimilate European values of mutual toleration and liberal social policies.



Europe’s cultural polarization vis-à-vis its Muslim underclass is being exacerbated by socialist policies that are producing stagnant economies and high unemployment. These fruits of Euro-socialism have also created a political tinderbox of Muslim frustration and, as we saw in recent days of protests in Paris, an angry refusal by many traditional Europeans to reform or relinquish their welfare state and job security benefits. This climate discourages investors and pits new and traditional Europeans against one another.



If Europe continues as it is now, the rising Muslim tide will, one at a time, transform the members of the European Union into Islamic Republics under Islamic Shari’a law as Muslims become the majority population.



Already the wealth of traditional Europeans is being bled away and transferred to new Muslim immigrants and their children. One mechanism for this is the European welfare state. In Denmark, observed Bawer, only five percent of the population is Muslim, but this minority demands and receives 40 percent of the Danish government’s total welfare payments and other taxpayer-subsidized social benefits. Even the liberal New York Times Magazine in February reported on the social impact of this growing Islamic drain on the resources of European welfare states such as Sweden and Denmark.



Another method used to transfer wealth from Europeans to Eurabian Muslims is theft. Some radical Mullahs have told their European congregations that Islamic Shari’a law justifies shoplifting and other forms of stealing from European merchants and companies as a way to make non-Muslims pay the discriminatory jizya tax that is extracted from non-Muslim citizens in Muslim countries.



And in Europe’s growing Islamic neighborhoods, where police are often afraid to go, European law is being supplanted by Shari’a. European women venturing into or near such enclaves have been assaulted and, in some cases, raped by gangs of macho Islamic males for violating Muslim dress codes and failing to exhibit the subservient status some Islamic subcultures require of females.

Forty percent of Muslims living in Great Britain want Islamic Shari’a law introduced into parts of that country, according to a poll reported last month by the London Sunday Telegraph.

Shari’a differs dramatically from modern Western notions of law and society. Shari’a has no separation of church and state; to the contrary, under Shari’a the Koran is the ultimate law book and constitution, and the Islamic Mullah is the magistrate who punishes violators of this law. Under Shari’a, as practiced in much of the Islamic world, equality exists only among Muslim men; women are inferior to men, and Jews and Christians are inferior to all Muslims. Risk-taking and usury, i.e., money-lending for profit, are forbidden, so we would kiss capitalism goodbye.

Religious freedom is non-existent under Shari’a. A Christian or a Jew is permitted to convert to Islam, but the penalty for any Muslim converting to a different faith is death. In American-liberated Afghanistan a 41-year-old former Muslim, Abdul Rahman, is on trial in Kabul for the crime of converting to Christianity. The prosecutor in the case, Abdul Wasi, has asked for a death penalty, as Shari’a requires. Wasi, reported Associated Press, said that he “had offered to drop the charges if Rahman changed his religion back to Islam, but the defendant refused.” The Muslim judge’s ruling is expected by mid-May.

It seems worth asking American authorities whether the U.S. would intervene to prevent the execution of an Afghan whose only crime was converting to Christianity.

European Muslims demand toleration and respect and accommodation for their laws, garb, Halal (Islamic “Kosher”) dietary rules, customs, and faith. But as the world has seen in recent months, radical Muslims have no respect for Western traditions such as press freedom. Cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad set off riots, killings and death threats against European journalists.

(Oddly, as this columnist uniquely noted, the tradition prohibiting depictions of the Prophet began with Muhammad himself, who gave such guidance to avoid becoming an object of idolatry by misguided Muslims tempted to worship him instead of Allah. Logically, therefore, a devout Muslim should object to any positive depiction of Mohammad, but negative depictions of Mohammad, as in the European cartoons, pose no such danger of causing idol worship. It was the Islamists who fanatically objected to negative European cartoons of the Prophet who were practicing idolatry by turning Mohammad into an image too sacred to depict in any way.)

Islamic Shari’a is incompatible with Western traditions of tolerance. Too much of today’s Islam preaches “an eye for an eye” but not “live and let live.”

No wonder, then, that earlier this month the chairman of Britain’s Commission for Racial Equality, Trevor Phillips, responded to the Telegraph poll by urging the 40 percent of his nation’s Muslims who want part of the country ruled by Shari’a law to move elsewhere. “We have one set of laws” in Britain, said Phillips. “They are decided by one group of people, members of Parliament, and that’s the end of the story.” (In February Australia’s Federal Treasurer Peter Costello, said much the same, suggesting in a public speech that Shari’a advocates would feel more comfortable living in Saudi Arabia or Iran.)

Immigrant to Norway Iraqi Mullah Krekar, a former leader of the Kurdish guerrilla group Ansar-al-Islam, has told Norwegians that “our way of thinking…will prove more powerful than yours” and described Al Qaeda terror mastermind Osama bin Laden as “a good person.” This prompted Norway’s Minister of Labor and Social Inclusion Bjarne Hakon Hanssen to say he intended to deport Mullah Krekar back to Iraq in the near future. Selective deportation of such radical Islamist firebrands (such as those who inspired recent Muslim terrorism in London) across Europe could reduce immediate social tensions.

What Europe is doing in the meanwhile is preaching the need for press freedom and tolerance while preparing this June to prosecute, in Paris, famed Italian journalist Orianna Fallaci for daring to write a book, The Force of Reason, critical of the Muslim immigrant inundation of Europe. In today’s Europe free speech is stifled by laws that prohibit Political Incorrectness in a wide and arbitrary variety of ways.

And France, at the heart of Europe, is promoting trade barriers with a dogmatic zeal not seen since the frenzy of stone castle building in the dark ages. In the name of preserving national security, as Daniel Schwammenthal reported in the March 13 Wall Street Journal, France last winter declared 11 of its industrial sectors off limits to purchase by investors from other European nations; these sectors, noted Schwammenthal, range “from data security to (bizarrely) casinos.” What might become of France if its dice and roulette wheels became Dutch…or Russian?

France is also dragging its feet on agreements to allow European Union workers to move freely from one EU country to another. The French have phobias not only about Muslim peasant immigrants but also about what they call the “Polish plumber,” the skilled European workers who would move to Paris and undercut the high pay now pocketed by scarce French workers. The French incentive to work is dulled by an easy, lazy alternative: a fat welfare check.

If Europe can somehow buy time, then in theory it might be able to make a comeback. What it needs is cloning and fertility technology, moxie, imports of its old sturdier, healthier genetic material from the United States and Australia to restore its seminal vigor, and a renewal of faith. Europe was able to restore its lost population rather quickly after the Black Plague and spawned Baby Booms after two World Wars.

Political policies could facilitate this. When France was unable to recruit many settlers to its colony called New France, now known as Canada, it offered fat pensions to any married couple there that had six children. Quebec to this day retains the spirit of fecundity those pensions bred.

Last September French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin proposed accelerating cash benefits to encourage women to have a third child. This is yet another kind of slacker welfare, but at least it encourages the lazy to spend more time breeding and less watching television. De Villepin did not propose restricting these or other government breeder benefits to non-Muslims, although he could have made the argument that non-Muslim French are an endangered species meriting special help.

Europe has stopped rising Islamic tides before, in battle in southern France in 732 by the knights of Charles Martel, “The Hammer,” and twice at the gates of Vienna in 1529 and 1683 by holding off the Ottoman Turks. Spain even rolled back its Muslim occupiers with the Reconquista of 1492, and Greece, the cradle of Western democracy, won back its independence from Muslim rule in 1829.

In time Islam could collapse, as Communism did. More likely, this religion now living through its own dark 14th Century might flower into a Renaissance and follow the enlightened model of Ataturk’s Turkey. Modern Turkey is a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, a friend of Israel, and a candidate for European Union membership. Women had the right to vote in Ataturk’s Turkey before they did in England. Turkey could become the model for the future Islamic world, besting the medieval ideology of Islamism, narrow-mindedness, hate and violence preached by Osama bin Laden and his ilk.

A courageous European stand against that nest of Islamist vipers and their atomic eggs in Teheran would be a good place for Europe to demonstrate to itself and to the world that it has the will and skill to survive.



www.frontpagemag.com . . .

[CCIP]

All the good points he makes are obscured by ass-stupid (excuse me) and outwardly-bigoted presentation. 1/5. :down:

[Ducimus]

I dont hold Muslims or Islam in very high esteem, but even i could see this article was bigoted. :roll:

[August]

I agree with you guys completely. His obvious racism hurts the points he's making more than it helps...

[Sea Demon]

Can you guys give me an example of the bigotry or racism you see the author displaying? :hmm:

[CCIP]

Well, how about...

Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith, seems to have lost the will, the passion to sustain itself. If it continues to practice today’s multiculturalist leftism, Europe’s demographic doom will be sealed.

Having some positive identification with modern European civilization, being a self-confessed moderate socialist, without any identifyable religious belief (and strong opposition to all forms of religious fundamentalism)... and at the same time recognizing a rational, non-extreme (and that goes for both right and left) attitude towards multiple cultures in one society...

...you can see I'm not a happy reader just from that paragraph :88)
It clearly addresses one side of the coin - which is fine by itself - but even the language is very poorly-chosen. It's not that I'm offended; it's more that I'm not convinced, despite some very valid points being made.

[Sea Demon]

Well, how about...

Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith, seems to have lost the will, the passion to sustain itself. If it continues to practice today’s multiculturalist leftism, Europe’s demographic doom will be sealed.

Having some positive identification with modern European civilization, being a self-confessed moderate socialist, without any identifyable religious belief (and strong opposition to all forms of religious fundamentalism)... and at the same time recognizing a rational, non-extreme (and that goes for both right and left) attitude towards multiple cultures in one society...

...you can see I'm not a happy reader just from that paragraph :88)
It clearly addresses one side of the coin - which is fine by itself - but even the language is very poorly-chosen. It's not that I'm offended; it's more that I'm not convinced, despite some very valid points being made.

OK. You may disagree with the author's premise. But I fail to see the blatant bigotry or racism in it's context.

I just think the words "bigotry" and "racism" are used all too often where they may not necessarily be applicable. I myself have a hard time believing this writer is coming from a racially bigoted viewpoint in coming to his conclusions. Just take a look at what's currently happening in France. The quote above that you cite from the author has some validation.

[Pole]

...you can see I'm not a happy reader just from that paragraph :88)
It clearly addresses one side of the coin - which is fine by itself - but even the language is very poorly-chosen. It's not that I'm offended; it's more that I'm not convinced, despite some very valid points being made.

Whatever the wording of the above article, its author has got point, whether we like it or not. If the current tendencies (e.g. birth rates of native Germans, Britons, Poles, Italians or French, you name it and rising tide of Muslim immigration to Europe) are maintained for the next 25+ years, and this seems likely, then the face of The Olde Europe will change beyond recognition. It remains to be seen if the changes are for the better but relatively recent riots in France, "siege" of Spanish enclaves in Africa, lack of immigrants' integration with society in Germany, bit more distant in time riots in the north of UK indicate hard times for the continent.

Pole

[Sixpack]

I see bigotry and lameness in the posts criticizing the article for bigotry and lameness and what not.

Europe surely is a *******ed up place. Not because of the muslims, but because of the native Europeans.

Spineless socialist muthas :hulk:

[CCIP]

Who said anything was perfect? Find me a place that is :hmm:

Otherwise, my problem is precisely that - it blames socialists and muslims for the whole mess, when the picture is more complex than that. I don't think calling socialism a "perversion" and European muslims "Islamist vipers" is accomplishing anything. If you want to make a point, don't make the apparently-influential socialists and muslims seem like lunch meat. If you're going to change anything, you're either gonna have to kill them, or work with them, and I don't think the former is a very workable option.

Let's face it, the muslims are here, and if you plan to kick them out - well good luck trying to save face in the world as a democracy after that. Like it or not, in Europe or elsewhere, you're going to be dealing with muslims. You're not going to make hundreds of millions of people magically disappear or magically love you for hating what they consider "their way" (and I agree - it's fundamentally dangerous). And the more you alienate them, the more pissed they will get at you. Even a hard-line approach against radical muslims will not prevent you from having to deal with them in a civil manner at some point - even if that dealing will be an effort to "modernize" them. And if you acknowledge that dealing with them in a non-civil manner should be a matter of policy - well, who's the "perverted vipers" here? :roll:

That said, and I say it for the third time already - the article makes good points. Multicultural policies aren't working and need to be adjusted to some degree. The fear of offending muslims runs far too high as well. There are alternatives. But they shouldn't include alienating anyone and making them more pissed at you for no reason other than wanting to irritate them (and, consequently, make your arguments ineffective).
.

[Sea Demon]

Who said anything was perfect? Find me a place that is :hmm:

Let's face it, the muslims are here, and if you plan to kick them out - well good luck trying to save face in the world as a democracy after that. Like it or not, in Europe or elsewhere, you're going to be dealing with muslims. You're not going to make hundreds of millions of people magically disappear or magically love you for hating what they consider "their way" (and I agree - it's fundamentally dangerous). And the more you alienate them, the more pissed they will get at you.


Abraham Lincoln had a saying during the U.S. Civil War. We are a nation of laws, but "The Constitution is not a suicide pact". Likewise, democracy is not a suicide pact. I fear much of Europe views things from the opposite spectrum. Too fearful of what everybody will think about them. Not doing what is necessary for their survival. I'm certainly not advocating non-civil discourse against Muslims in Europe. But I am hoping Europe will stop the flow of illegal entrants, deport those already in Europe illegally, and heavily promote (use social pressure) assimilation for those that remain. And do these things without the fear of what everyone thinks.

[porphy]

If Europe can somehow buy time, then in theory it might be able to make a comeback. What it needs is cloning and fertility technology, moxie, imports of its old sturdier, healthier genetic material from the United States and Australia to restore its seminal vigor, and a renewal of faith

De Villepin did not propose restricting these or other government breeder benefits to non-Muslims, although he could have made the argument that non-Muslim French are an endangered species meriting special help.

Writing stuff like this gives him a fat 0 in my book, not because it's often connected to extreme right wing ideology, but that it is mythical thinking. The very few relevant points that are made in the text are diluted and swamped by bad rethoric that shouldn't trick a thinking person. If You can't see what worms are hiding in this woodwoork, to bad... :88)

Cheers Porphy


Cheers Porphy

[Abraham]

I find this remark If Europe can somehow buy time, then in theory it might be able to make a comeback. What it needs is cloning and fertility technology, moxie, imports of its old sturdier, healthier genetic material from the United States and Australia to restore its seminal vigor, and a renewal of faith. showing traces of Eugenetica and a genetic disdain towards Arabs/Muslims. I consider that racist, especially when there is no source named to give scientific proof for it.
Also I don't like the term "breeding benefits".

Nevertheless, the guy makes some valid points as well. His mistake is his premisse that the birth rate of Muslims will remain at the same high level, while in some countries it is already dropping.

[The Avon Lady]

I find this remark If Europe can somehow buy time, then in theory it might be able to make a comeback. What it needs is cloning and fertility technology, moxie, imports of its old sturdier, healthier genetic material from the United States and Australia to restore its seminal vigor, and a renewal of faith. showing traces of Eugenetica and a genetic disdain towards Arabs/Muslims. I consider that racist, especially when there is no source named to give scientific proof for it.
I believe the word to describe this particular quote is "cynical".

I agree though that there obviously is a strong tone of hate in this article. Yet...............
Nevertheless, the guy makes some valid points.
And this is what the head-in-the-sand ostriches here are dissing without a serious rebuttal.

[porphy]

No, it's not "cynical", it is, as rightly observed by Abraham, a piece of propaganda, myth or ideology, and one that usually comes with racism.
Avon Lady, I can't believe you actually even try to soften up that paragraph. Talk about the putting the head down in darkness... :down:

There are issues to discuss concerning different religions, cultures and values, and there coexistence in Europe, but this article deserves no credit whatsoever for putting them forward. Why should we need to read 99% rubbish, slanted comments, anecdotes, etc to sift out a few questions that most people are already aware of and that have received much better treatment and discussion in so many more places?


/Porphy

[The Avon Lady]

No, it's not "cynical", it is, as rightly observed by Abraham, a piece of propaganda, myth or ideology, and one that usually comes with racism.
Avon Lady, I can't believe you actually even try to soften up that paragraph. Talk about the putting the head down in darkness... :down:
If you're right, then yes, he's over the top. I'm not trying to soften up anything. It is still not the essence of what the article's topic is about.
There are issues to discuss concerning different religions, cultures and values, and there coexistence in Europe, but this article deserves no credit whatsoever for putting them forward. Why should we need to read 99% rubbish, slanted comments, anecdotes, etc to sift out a few questions that most people are already aware of and that have received much better treatment and discussion in so many more places?
/Porphy
Good points.

BTW, elsewhere I often say "good luck, Europe". I don't believe it's too late but time's a'wastin'.

[scandium]

I stopped reading at "Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith..."

Being a democratic socialist I lost interest in whatever else he had to say when he began with the assumption that socialism is a perversion while still only at the point of laying out his thesis statement. Either he's a very poor writer or the article is aimed at a select audience who share that premise as a foregone conclusion.

[Abraham]

I stopped reading at "Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith..."

Being a democratic socialist I lost interest in whatever else he had to say when he began with the assumption that socialism is a perversion while still only at the point of laying out his thesis statement. Either he's a very poor writer or the article is aimed at a select audience who share that premise as a foregone conclusion.
Ahw c'mon scandium!
You stopped reading after one remark about socialism? You have no stomach for polemics against the left?
I don't believe you, if only because your postings often show much background knowledge. I would advise you always to read your opponents opinion, you might learn something from him.
To give you an example: I read your postings - not just because I'm moderating - although usually I don't agree at all with you. I'm just looking for something to learn...
:rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Maybe we should substitute the thread's opening article with Eurabian Nightmares (http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=21609), by Andrew G. Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1591023076/sr=8-1/qid=1143626871/ref=sr_1_1/002-5860147-0288848?%5Fencoding=UTF8).

[Sixpack]

LOL. You would not say but I stopped reading right there as well !

I could fill in the blanks myself from there on :rotfl:

[Sixpack]

LOL. You would not say but I stopped reading right there as well !

I could fill in the blanks myself from there on :rotfl:

[time management, guys, for me it's all about time management :know: ]

[Skybird]

Abraham Lincoln had a saying during the U.S. Civil War. We are a nation of laws, but "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".
I like that one.

[The Avon Lady]

Abraham Lincoln had a saying during the U.S. Civil War. We are a nation of laws, but "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".
I like that one.
However, Lincoln never said it. :nope:

[Skybird]

Is this a Philip K. Dick scenario, then? :-?

[scandium]

I stopped reading at "Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith..."

Being a democratic socialist I lost interest in whatever else he had to say when he began with the assumption that socialism is a perversion while still only at the point of laying out his thesis statement. Either he's a very poor writer or the article is aimed at a select audience who share that premise as a foregone conclusion.
Ahw c'mon scandium!
You stopped reading after one remark about socialism? You have no stomach for polemics against the left?
I don't believe you, if only because your postings often show much background knowledge. I would advise you always to read your opponents opinion, you might learn something from him.
To give you an example: I read your postings - not just because I'm moderating - although usually I don't agree at all with you. I'm just looking for something to learn...
:rotfl:

Yes but I try and save my most controversial points for the body or closing portion of my post rather than the opening portion before even getting to the thesis statement ;)

I actually don't mind polemic against the left, in fact I'm rather used to it as its somewhat common. If the author's thesis statement was that socialism was a perversion, then I might have read it to see why he believes this is so. However, having begun in his opening paragraph with a controversial premise even before getting to his thesis then he'd already lost me because I know what follows will not be based on any reasoned arguements (because one does not construct them from such a shaky foundation).

[The Avon Lady]

Is this a Philip K. Dick scenario, then? :-?
I had to look that one up. :doh:

Here's the original:

"There is danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact."
- U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert Jackson,1949, Terminello v. City of Chicago

[Happy Times]

Atleast the article got some attention here. :lol: The article is at some points quite extreme. But in general i agree his points about what is wrong with Europe. Times are coming when understanding and hugging the entire world arent going to cut it. This weekend i became a godfather to my good friends first child. From his apartments window i saw two couples with children passing by, they were foreign and they were muslim. The men walked in front the women, the women were wearing those burghas that have only small holes in front of the eyes, there were atlest six children with them. I really feel that my way of life is threatened, but they are the ones getting every concession. As an ordinary citizen my belief in the goverment to handle this multiculti fairly is very low. I dont even understand what obligation a country ( Finland) that has no colonial past and that was dirt poor only 40 years ago, has to cater a life here for people that openly despise us and our culture. All answers ive heard for multiculturalism, are starting to sound naive and irritating.

[Sixpack]

:up: Happy Times,

Good to note not all Scandinavians are treehuggers, ready to roll or bend over in the name of abstract human rights.

[Pole]

I really feel that my way of life is threatened, but they are the ones getting every concession. As an ordinary citizen my belief in the goverment to handle this multiculti fairly is very low.

Same here, Happy Times :up:

Pole

[Oberon]

My belief in the government is very, very, very low...
but my belief that someone will actually do something about it, is even lower.... :down:

[Happy Times]

:up: Happy Times,

Good to note not all Scandinavians are treehuggers, ready to roll or bend over in the name of abstract human rights. I can say that in Finland a silent MAJORITY is against this policy of unilateral appeasement. It just that it takes alot to get us loud about it. One reason is that there isnt too many imigrant here, if we had communities the size of Holland, Sweden, Denmark and problems in the same scale, Finland would be near a civil strife. Finns are quite conservative, we have ALLWAYS through entire history of our parlament, had a right wing majority. The socialists have only ruled by the principle of divide and conquer.

[scandium]

Atleast the article got some attention here. :lol: The article is at some points quite extreme. But in general i agree his points about what is wrong with Europe. Times are coming when understanding and hugging the entire world arent going to cut it. This weekend i became a godfather to my good friends first child. From his apartments window i saw two couples with children passing by, they were foreign and they were muslim. The men walked in front the women, the women were wearing those burghas that have only small holes in front of the eyes, there were atlest six children with them. I really feel that my way of life is threatened, but they are the ones getting every concession. As an ordinary citizen my belief in the goverment to handle this multiculti fairly is very low. I dont even understand what obligation a country ( Finland) that has no colonial past and that was dirt poor only 40 years ago, has to cater a life here for people that openly despise us and our culture. All answers ive heard for multiculturalism, are starting to sound naive and irritating.

I noticed the author citing in his second paragraph:

Sustaining the population of a nation requires that on average each couple gives birth to 2.1 children. The average European couple now has fewer than 1.4 babies...

I'm willing to accept his statistics here as you need at least an average of 2 children per family just to replace the parents and its well known that for generations the birthrate has been declining in the West, so his figure of 1.4 also looks about right.

Faced with a declining population of our own what would be your solution? Tougher immigration to keep foriegners out which ensures, based on the current birthrate, a shrinking population and with it a shrinking taxbase. The net outcome being we will simply depopultate ourselves into non-existance. Or are you in favour of selective immigration from another culture with which to replace our own dwindling numbers with? If so which of these culture(s) is acceptable to you? Another approach that might work would be the criminalization of birth control/abortion to increase the birthrate of European "stock", though as that would alienate a very large percentage of voters it would not be an easy thing to enact. Is that a solution you think acceptable?

I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population.

[STEED]

My belief in the government is very, very, very low...
but my belief that someone will actually do something about it, is even lower.... :down:

Sadly I agree.

[Sixpack]

:up: Happy Times,

Good to note not all Scandinavians are treehuggers, ready to roll or bend over in the name of abstract human rights. I can say that in Finland a silent MAJORITY is against this policy of unilateral appeasement. It just that it takes alot to get us loud about it. One reason is that there isnt too many imigrant here, if we had communities the size of Holland, Sweden, Denmark and problems in the same scale, Finland would be near a civil strife. Finns are quite conservative, we have ALLWAYS through entire history of our parlament, had a right wing majority. The socialists have only ruled by the principle of divide and conquer.

You make me want to move me and all my family to Finland ! Good stuff ! :up:

[Sixpack]

Atleast the article got some attention here. :lol: The article is at some points quite extreme. But in general i agree his points about what is wrong with Europe. Times are coming when understanding and hugging the entire world arent going to cut it. This weekend i became a godfather to my good friends first child. From his apartments window i saw two couples with children passing by, they were foreign and they were muslim. The men walked in front the women, the women were wearing those burghas that have only small holes in front of the eyes, there were atlest six children with them. I really feel that my way of life is threatened, but they are the ones getting every concession. As an ordinary citizen my belief in the goverment to handle this multiculti fairly is very low. I dont even understand what obligation a country ( Finland) that has no colonial past and that was dirt poor only 40 years ago, has to cater a life here for people that openly despise us and our culture. All answers ive heard for multiculturalism, are starting to sound naive and irritating.

I noticed the author citing in his second paragraph:

Sustaining the population of a nation requires that on average each couple gives birth to 2.1 children. The average European couple now has fewer than 1.4 babies...

I'm willing to accept his statistics here as you need at least an average of 2 children per family just to replace the parents and its well known that for generations the birthrate has been declining in the West, so his figure of 1.4 also looks about right.

Faced with a declining population of our own what would be your solution? Tougher immigration to keep foriegners out which ensures, based on the current birthrate, a shrinking population and with it a shrinking taxbase. The net outcome being we will simply depopultate ourselves into non-existance. Or are you in favour of selective immigration from another culture with which to replace our own dwindling numbers with? If so which of these culture(s) is acceptable to you? Another approach that might work would be the criminalization of birth control/abortion to increase the birthrate of European "stock", though as that would alienate a very large percentage of voters it would not be an easy thing to enact. Is that a solution you think acceptable?

I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population.

Import more South Americans (pref. Brasil and Argentina) :-j

Still good Catholics and thus breeding like rabbits.

[scandium]

Import more South Americans (pref. Brasil and Argentina) :-j

Still good Catholics and thus breeding like rabbits.

That's one possible solution.

edit: the selective immigration solution.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population.
Start here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008827.php).

[Happy Times]

:up: Happy Times,

Good to note not all Scandinavians are treehuggers, ready to roll or bend over in the name of abstract human rights. I can say that in Finland a silent MAJORITY is against this policy of unilateral appeasement. It just that it takes alot to get us loud about it. One reason is that there isnt too many imigrant here, if we had communities the size of Holland, Sweden, Denmark and problems in the same scale, Finland would be near a civil strife. Finns are quite conservative, we have ALLWAYS through entire history of our parlament, had a right wing majority. The socialists have only ruled by the principle of divide and conquer.

You make me want to move me and all my family to Finland ! Good stuff ! :up: I would welcome you and your family in an instant. :up: http://virtual.finland.fi/

[Sixpack]

:yep:

Quote

Only one group, only one belief-system, distinguishes itself by appearing incapable of fitting in. And that is Muslims, and Islam. For their belief-system does not envision a Holland, an Italy, an England, a France. Islam does not distinguish between the various components of one single unit, the Dar al-Harb, the regions of the world were Islam does not yet reign and Muslims do not yet dominate.

What further decline do we actually wait for in Europe to finally deal with this problem ?

When it's too late ?

The ironic part is that the treehugging bend-over believers in absolute Human Rights and thus apologists for Islam are digging their very own graves as their extreme liberalism will have no place in New Islamized Europe. Silly cretins.

:hulk: [/i]

[Happy Times]

scandium wrote:
I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population We have the right to choose who we take, first of people are given points by the skills they have, then by the cultural combatability. Someone allready said South America, i agree. I also feel that East Asians are generally easily assimilated and contribute alot to society.

[Sixpack]

:up: Happy Times,

Good to note not all Scandinavians are treehuggers, ready to roll or bend over in the name of abstract human rights. I can say that in Finland a silent MAJORITY is against this policy of unilateral appeasement. It just that it takes alot to get us loud about it. One reason is that there isnt too many imigrant here, if we had communities the size of Holland, Sweden, Denmark and problems in the same scale, Finland would be near a civil strife. Finns are quite conservative, we have ALLWAYS through entire history of our parlament, had a right wing majority. The socialists have only ruled by the principle of divide and conquer.

You make me want to move me and all my family to Finland ! Good stuff ! :up: I would welcome you and your family in an instant. :up: http://virtual.finland.fi/

Thanks ! :up: I am seriously tempted, and will now try to persuade my GF to accept it's really in the best interest of our kids to leave their grandparents behind asap :D

[scandium]

I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population.
Start here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008827.php).

Articles a bit long-winded but their solution seems to be a two prong approach:

1. The solution is to stop all Muslim migration to the Lands of the Infidels, and wherever possible, to reverse it.

2. And along with it, in ways little and big, the country can be Islam-proofed the way a house is child-proofed.

With the first prong we're back again to the declining birthrate issue, given the 1.4 birthratre figure for European couples which is not high enough to sustain a population with. #1 does nothing to address that. Also, on the "reversal" side, there's the issue of mixed couples where one spouse is Muslim and the other is not. Its even more complex if they also have children: do you break apart the marriage by deporting the Muslim partner? Or do you deport them both? And what of their children, what do you do with them?

The second prong is somewhat independent of the first one. It would require passing legislation which would require a government that's not worried about a likely public backlash. Do such politicians exist in Europe? Do they have popular support or are they on the fringe?

[The Avon Lady]

scandium wrote:
I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population We have the right to choose who we take, first of people are given points by the skills they have, then by the cultural combatability.
But Europe is beyond that point (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008690.php), having ignored those for so long.

[scandium]

scandium wrote:
I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population We have the right to choose who we take, first of people are given points by the skills they have, then by the cultural combatability. Someone allready said South America, i agree. I also feel that East Asians are generally easily assimilated and contribute alot to society.

Okay then you favour selective immigration as well as Sixpack. To its credit such a policy has in its favour that it does address the birthrate issue. We could also call this "immigration reform" where the goal is not to seal the border, but rather to restrict immigration to selective groups.

[The Avon Lady]

I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population.
Start here (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008827.php).

Articles a bit long-winded but their solution seems to be a two prong approach:

1. The solution is to stop all Muslim migration to the Lands of the Infidels, and wherever possible, to reverse it.

2. And along with it, in ways little and big, the country can be Islam-proofed the way a house is child-proofed.

With the first prong we're back again to the declining birthrate issue, given the 1.4 birthratre figure for European couples which is not high enough to sustain a population with. #1 does nothing to address that. Also, on the "reversal" side, there's the issue of mixed couples where one spouse is Muslim and the other is not. Its even more complex if they also have children: do you break apart the marriage by deporting the Muslim partner? Or do you deport them both? And what of their children, what do you do with them?
I am really not qualified to answer but I would say families should stay together as long as there's no divorce. Just a thought. No matter how you slice it (pardon the pun), this will be ugly and unpleasant.
The second prong is somewhat independent of the first one. It would require passing legislation which would require a government that's not worried about a likely public backlash. Do such politicians exist in Europe?
Hardly.
Do they have popular support or are they on the fringe?
The latter at present. Sadly, often those that have some level of support are generically xenophobic.

[Sixpack]

Very convincing piece ! :yep:

And so, while our attention and money and men and materiel and morale are monomaniacally focused on, and squandered in, Iraq, the very years in which Western Europe could still be saved, the years in which other, better leaders could help its people come to their senses about Islam, and could be supported in this by a muscular United States with all of its resources, time is wasted, and much else is wasted as well. The inertia in Iraq, the stubborn refusal to comprehend the irrelevance of this pseudo-"democracy" to the more important task of constaining, containing, dividing, and demoralizing the forces of Islam, maddens. Clocks tick, and eventually, demography becomes destiny.

[Wim Libaers]

I stopped reading at "Europe’s botched civilization, perverted by socialism and lost faith..."

Being a democratic socialist I lost interest in whatever else he had to say when he began with the assumption that socialism is a perversion while still only at the point of laying out his thesis statement. Either he's a very poor writer or the article is aimed at a select audience who share that premise as a foregone conclusion.

That was obvious from the beginning. It is aimed at his own group, and those who might join it. To convince people that his way is the right way, he identifies some real problems in Europe, and then blames them on all possible deviations from his ideology.

Not that socialism isn't problematic, and a lot of the socialist parties in Europe are quite pro-immigrant (even though their European socialist voters don't like them at all), but demonstrating that is not his goal, he just wants to warn his people to keep their faith and breeding performance high, or else...

You could make a similar case against the Church, which also is quite pro-immigrant and pro muslim appeasement in Europe despite opposite feelings from many followers, but he doesn't put that in his article.

To illustrate this, here's another text with some good questions/problems (similar to the first article in the thread), that also recommends a racial ideology that many people (more than with the first article) will probably dislike. The form also makes it more obvious that he is primarily addressing those who are already ideologically close to him.
http://www.natvan.com/free-speech/fs0208c.html

Of course, this can create some image problems for the more moderate people who also see these problems, as their opponents can try to push them in the same corner as the radicals who asked similar questions.



Also, the part about population reduction is flawed. Why should we fear population reduction? Some countries in Europe are densely populated, and a small, gradual reduction would put less pressure on the environment. The problem is not population reduction, it's population displacement by a hostile, anti-European population. Follow the suggestion to attempt to outbreed the muslims, and you'll just end up in a miserable, overcrowded country.

[Torplexed]

Reading this thread makes our U.S. illegal immigrant problem seem almost like a blessing in contrast. I certainly have more in common culturally and religiously with the hispanics and the other latins coming here from Mexico and points south than I think I ever will with muslims. Plus, there is a large percentage here that try to assimilate, learn English and have no desire to return to their homeland. Illegal immigration has certainly caused it's share of social and economic headaches in the U.S. but I must confess I prefer burritos over burhkas any day.

[Happy Times]

Last year I wrote an article about how Swedish society is disintegrating and is in danger of collapsing, at least in certain areas and regions. The country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe. The “Swedish model” would no longer refer to a stable and peaceful state with an advanced economy, but to a Eurabian horror story of utopian multiculturalism, socialist mismanagement and runaway immigration. Some thought I was exaggerating, and that talk of the possibility of a future civil war in Sweden was pure paranoia. Was it?

In a new sociological survey (pdf in Swedish, with brief English introduction) entitled “Vi krigar mot svenskarna” (“We’re waging a war against the Swedes”), young immigrants in the troubled city of Malmö have been interviewed about why they are involved in crime. Although it is not stated, most of the immigrant perpetrators are Muslims. In one of the rare instances where the Swedish media actually revealed the truth, the newspaper Aftonbladet reported several years ago that 9 out of 10 of the most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden came from Muslim countries. This must be borne in mind whilst reading the following newspaper article:

Immigrants are “waging war” against Swedes through robbery

The wave of robberies the city of Malmö has witnessed during this past year is part of a “war against the Swedes.” This is the explanation given by young robbers from immigrant backgrounds when questioned about why they only rob native Swedes, in interviews with Petra Åkesson for her thesis in sociology. “I read a report about young robbers in Stockholm and Malmö and wanted to know why they rob other youths. It usually does not involve a lot of money,” she says. She interviewed boys between 15 and 17 years old, both individually and in groups.

Almost 90% of all robberies reported to the police were committed by gangs, not individuals. “When we are in the city and robbing we are waging a war, waging a war against the Swedes.” This argument was repeated several times. “Power for me means that the Swedes shall look at me, lie down on the ground and kiss my feet.” The boys explain, laughingly, that “there is a thrilling sensation in your body when you’re robbing, you feel satisfied and happy, it feels as if you’ve succeeded, it simply feels good.” “It’s so easy to rob Swedes, so easy.” “We rob every single day, as often as we want to, whenever we want to.” The immigrant youth regard the Swedes as stupid and cowardly: “The Swedes don’t do anything, they just give us the stuff. They’re so wimpy.” The young robbers do not plan their crimes: “No, we just see some Swedes that look rich or have nice mobile phones and then we rob them.”

Why do they hate the Swedes so much? “Well, they hate us,” Petra Åkesson reports them as answering. “When a Swede goes shopping, the lady behind the counter gives him the money back into his hand, looks into his eyes and laughs. When we go shopping, she puts the money on the counter and looks the other way.” Åkesson, who is adopted from Sri Lanka and hence does not look like a native Swede, says it was not difficult to get the boys to talk about their crimes. Rather they were bragging about who had committed the most robberies. Malin Åkerström,a professor in sociology, sees only one solution to the problem: “Jobs for everybody. If this entails a deregulation of the labor market to create more jobs, then we should do so.”

It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a “war,” and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such. This is completely in line with what I have posited before. The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or from foreign parents. The phenomenon is not restricted to Sweden. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes as merely random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This is happening in most Western European countries, as well as in other non muslim countries such as India. European jails are filling up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. One can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That is because they cannot, or do not want to, see the obvious: this is exactly how an invading army would behave: rape, pillage and bombing. If many of the Muslim immigrants see themselves as conquerors in a war, it all makes perfect sense.

Malmö in Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority within a decade or two, has nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark. Yet the number one priority for the political class in Sweden during this year’s national election campaign seems to be demonizing neighboring Denmark for “xenophobia” and a “brutal” debate about Muslim immigration. During last years Jihad riots in France, Sweden’s Social Democratic Prime Minister Göran Persson criticised the way the French government handled the unrest in the country. “It feels like a very hard and confrontational approach.” Persson also rejected the idea of more local police as a “first step” in Sweden. “I don’t believe that’s the way we would choose in Sweden. To start sending out signals about strengthening the police is to break with the political line we have chosen to follow,” he said. Meanwhile, as their authorities have largely abandoned their third largest city to creeping anarchy, there is open talk among the native Swedes still remaining in Malmö of forming vigilante groups armed with baseball bats out of concern for their children’s safety. As I argued in another essay: If Arnold Schwarzenegger fails to get re-elected as Governor of California he may like to do a sequel to “Conan the Barbarian.” He could shoot it in Malmö. He will get the extras for free.

What happened to the famous Swedish nanny state, you say? Don’t Swedes pay the highest tax rates in the world? Yes, they do. But tens of billions of kroner, some say several hundred billions, are being spent every year on propping up rapidly growing communities of Muslim immigrants. Sweden has become the entire world’s welfare office, because the political elites have decided that massive Muslim immigration is “good for the economy.” Soon Sweden’s “army” may comprise no more than 5,000 men, five thousand troops to defend a nation more than three times the area of England. Moreover, it may take up to a year to assemble all of them, provided they are not on peacekeeping missions abroad. That Sweden might soon need a little peacekeeping at home seems to escape the establishment. In 2006 the celebrated Swedish welfare state has become the world’s largest pyramid scheme, an Enron with a national flag.

Although Sweden is an extreme example, similar stories could be told about much of Western Europe. As Mark Steyn points out, the Jihad in the streets of France looked like the early skirmishes of an impending Eurabian civil war, brought on by massive Muslim immigration and Multicultural stupidity. Law and order is slowly breaking down in major and even minor cities across the European continent, and the streets are ruled by aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters. At the same time, Europeans are paying some of the highest taxes in the world. We should remind our authorities that the most important task of the state – some would even claim it should be the only task of the state – is to uphold the rule of law in exchange for taxation. Since it is becoming pretty obvious that this is no longer the case in Eurabia, we should question whether these taxes are still legitimate, or whether they are simply disguised Jizya paid in the form of welfare to Muslims and our new Eurocrat aristocracy. Although not exactly the Boston Tea Party, perhaps the time has now come for a pan-European tax rebellion: We will no longer pay taxes until our authorities restore law and order and close the borders to Muslim immigration.

This is urgent. When enough people feel that the system is no longer working and that the social contract has been breached, the entire fabric of democratic society could unravel. What happens when the welfare state system breaks down, and there is no longer enough money to “grease” the increasing tensions between immigrants and native Europeans? And what happens when people discover that their own leaders, through the EU networks and the Euro-Arab Dialogue described by Bat Ye’or in her book “Eurabia,” have been encouraging all these Muslims to settle here in the first place? There will be massive unemployment, and tens of millions of people will feel angry, scared and humiliated, betrayed by the system, by society and by their own democratic leaders. This is a situation in some ways similar to the Great Depression that led to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. Is this where we are heading once again, with fear, rising Fascism and political assassinations? The difference is that the “Jewish threat” in the 1930s was entirely fictional, whereas the “Islamic threat” now is very real. However, it is precisely the trauma caused by the events of 70 years ago that is clouding our judgement this time, since any talk at all about the threat posed by Muslim immigration or about preserving our own culture is being dismissed as “the same rhetoric as the Nazis used against the Jews.” Europeans have been taught to be so scared of our own shadows that we are incapable of seeing that darkness can come from the outside, too. Maybe Europe will burn again, in part as a belated reaction to the horrors of Auschwitz. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

[Sea Demon]

Abraham Lincoln had a saying during the U.S. Civil War. We are a nation of laws, but "The Constitution is not a suicide pact".
I like that one.
However, Lincoln never said it. :nope:

Thanks for the correction Avon Lady. You're correct. :oops:

While many attribute this to Abraham Lincoln, further research shows that the phrase was actually coined by U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Robert Jackson.

But nevertheless, I think you'll agree that democracy is not a suicide pact either. ;)

[Sixpack]

Reading this thread makes our U.S. illegal immigrant problem seem almost like a blessing in contrast. I certainly have more in common culturally and religiously with the hispanics and the other latins coming here from Mexico and points south than I think I ever will with muslims. Plus, there is a large percentage here that try to assimilate, learn English and have no desire to return to their homeland. Illegal immigration has certainly caused it's share of social and economic headaches in the U.S. but I must confess I prefer burritos over burhkas any day.

:yep: Indeed, count your blessings Torplexed and Americans ! I'm, serious, I never understood thes American issue with Mexican influx. I wish they came this way :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Neither one is like the other.

But who the hell do they think they are?!

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/7366/upsidedown3qv.jpg
Whittier area students from Pioneer, California and Whittier high schools walked out of classes to protest the proposed federal immigration bill March 27, 2006. The protestors put up the Mexican flag over the American flag flying upside down at Montebello High. (Leo Jarzomb/Staff photo)

[Abraham]

I noticed the author citing in his second paragraph:

Sustaining the population of a nation requires that on average each couple gives birth to 2.1 children. The average European couple now has fewer than 1.4 babies...

I'm willing to accept his statistics here as you need at least an average of 2 children per family just to replace the parents and its well known that for generations the birthrate has been declining in the West, so his figure of 1.4 also looks about right.

Faced with a declining population of our own what would be your solution? Tougher immigration to keep foriegners out which ensures, based on the current birthrate, a shrinking population and with it a shrinking taxbase. The net outcome being we will simply depopultate ourselves into non-existance. Or are you in favour of selective immigration from another culture with which to replace our own dwindling numbers with? If so which of these culture(s) is acceptable to you? Another approach that might work would be the criminalization of birth control/abortion to increase the birthrate of European "stock", though as that would alienate a very large percentage of voters it would not be an easy thing to enact. Is that a solution you think acceptable?

I'm curious as to how you think Europe should handle the multicultural issue while still sustaining its current population.
@ scandium:
This question is very easy to answer for a Dutchman.
For centuries through our strong emphasys on maritime trade and our traditional freedom of religion, we have been a country of immigrants. Immigrants from Flanders, the Cologne area, French Hugenots, Portugese Jews, Protestant English, poor Germans from the Münster area, Eastern European Jews, the list is practically endless. At the same time we grew from seven fairly independent Provinces into a Nation state. We devellopped a national identity: being a Dutchman stands for something, be it positive or negative. All or most of those immigrants left something, or perhaps I should say: added something to our culture and our economy.
Later, after WWII, we took in a huge amount of people from the Dutch Indies, including Chinse, later 'guest laborers' from poor European countries like Italy, Spain and Greece, then in the '70s a huge influxe of black and 'Hindustan' people from Surinam, boat refugees from Vietnam etc. All these people cause hardly any problems (at least after the first generation). They work, start firms, their children study, they play football, complain about the weather, in one word; they become Dutchmen. And they are widely accepted as such with complete disregard of the color of their skin.

Things went wrong with Muslim immigrants.

How come?
One clear answer only. All the groups I mentionned came to Holland to survive and/or lead a better life. With all the problems their integration costed, one thing was clear: they accepted our culture, were happy with the chance they got, and decided to participate in their new country. They could keep their own habits, their own religion, their own expressions, but under the - liberal - laws of this country. They accepted the - as it is called - dominant culture and integrated - sometimes without assimilation.

The problem with Muslims (I realize I am generalising but it is for arguments sake) is that they don't accept our culture, including our legal system, as dominant. That's because that place is reserved for Islam, which has not devellopped yet to distinguish the true place of a religion in a culture. That's the problem in one line and the result is that we are expecting the impossible from immigrants: integration into a society that they consider as inferior and often hostile towards Islam.
But of course our centre-left government in the seventies - and all the demo-socialists (somehow I like that term) on their left flank - kept their eyes firmly closed for upcoming racial/religious/cultural problems, thought us that the Dutch culture was a thing of the past, consequently decided to scrap history from the list of obliged school subjects and declared Holland as the torchbearer of a new, so called "Multi Cultural" Europe in which criticism of other cultures was harsly suppressed by the tought police but criticism of our own Jewish Christian heritage subsidised by the Government.
Now even some lefties (were forced to) see that things went way out of control and measures are being taken to restore the situation back to normal, which is a hell of a task.

So to answer your question: any immigration to this country is welcome as long as they accept it as their country, accept out culture as dominant and are willing to participate in our economy. That should be the only selection. And I dare to conclude that Arabs/Muslims are bad immigrants from the point of view of their new host society.
I am sick of people who come here, claim state welfare including child support for children they supposedly have according to local birth certificates and send the (=our) money to Morocco, as has happened in the past.

[FERdeBOER]

Only general point of view:

Think first why they are escaping from their countries and why are this countries in this points.

Think about: how the things would be in your country if you decide that is better to risk your live, cross half Africa, put to sea on a overcrowded ship or small boat without knowing to swim, without water... and arrive on a country that is different on language and culture?
And finally you find a work... a work that no one of this new country wants. You work for hours, your pay is ridicolous and you can be fired when the boss wants because you have no papers. You don't even exist, But you achieve to enlarge the money and can live on a 30 m2 flat with other 20 people, eat a bit, and send some to your familly.

And now think how the country is in that situation: yes, we, the poor Europeans that are being invaded, where there. We invaded their countries, took their wood, gold, platinum, diamonds... primary resources.
We enslaved them and, when they revealed, we left the country, but before leaving, we put a tribal leader that will sell the resources to Europe while we support him whith weapons, a lot of weapons.
And if the things are growing stable... a little help to the rebel faction in order to create civil disorders or even a civil war will put them again into darkness.

At last, think that if it wouldn't be for the inmigrants, you will have to work from 12 to 70 years old, because if not, there will be no money to support our way of life.

NO MAN IS ILLEGAL.

[The Avon Lady]

Only general point of view:

Think first why they are escaping from their countries and why are this countries in this points.

Think about: how the things would be in your country if you decide that is better to risk your live, cross half Africa, put to sea on a overcrowded ship or small boat without knowing to swim, without water... and arrive on a country that is different on language and culture?

And finally you find a work... a work that no one of this new country wants. You work for hours, your pay is ridicolous and you can be fired when the boss wants because you have no papers. You don't even exist, But you achieve to enlarge the money and can live on a 30 m2 flat with other 20 people, eat a bit, and send some to your familly.?
Just like the US at the start of the 20th century. Yet immigrants become integrated with the country, were proud of their citizenship and for the most part became contributors to society.

Think of the slums and tenaments of the Lower East Side.

These people came from all walks of life and succeeded to blend in to that melting pot called America.

Now ask yourself why that is not happening in Europe today. And keep in mind that there were almost no social and health services that come anywhere near today what immigrants are receiving throughout the western world.

And now think how the country is in that situation: yes, we, the poor Europeans that are being invaded, where there. We invaded their countries, took their wood, gold, platinum, diamonds... primary resources.

We enslaved them and, when they revealed, we left the country, but before leaving, we put a tribal leader that will sell the resources to Europe while we support him whith weapons, a lot of weapons.

And if the things are growing stable... a little help to the rebel faction in order to create civil disorders or even a civil war will put them again into darkness.
So this is about revenge? Historical agendas? Europe should bend over and take what it deserves, is that the new line?

NO MAN IS ILLEGAL.
Plenty of people are. That's a fact.

[Abraham]

@ FERdeBOER:
In my posting earlier on this page I was talking about legal immigrants, who are, certainly seen from the point of view of their hom countries, pampered with social benefits and government aid workers to promote integration.
I just wanted to make the point that if you want to immigrate, you'll have to accept the culture of your host country as dominant. If you don't, you're not immigrating but invading.
Another example. In Holland there is a discussion about a (Muslim) school girl that refuses to shake hands with men.
First I should tell you that we Dutch have the strange habit of shaking hands when we meet others or are intoduced. Been doing that for ages.
This girl says that her religion forbids any physical contact with males above 12. The reason is obvious, it is a female suppressing cultural rule of a oversexed and undercivilised male dominant desert tribe from the Dark Ages.
Some Dutch took offense for not being greeted by her in our funny Dutch way. She went to the Anti-discrimination Board which declared her position valid, even in our society. This is definitly the wrong signal. My solution: Integrate, and if this society is asking too much, go back to your tribe!

[The Avon Lady]

In Holland their is a discussion about a (Muslim) school girl that refuses to shake hands with men.
First I should tell you that we Dutch have the strange habit of shaking hands when we meet others or are intoduced. Been doing that for ages.

This girl says that her religion forbids any physical contact with males above 12. The reason is obvious, it is a female suppressing cultural rule of a oversexed and undercivilised male dominant desert tribe from the Dark Ages.
Watch me jump to Islam's defence! :yep:

Are Muslim men allowed to shake hands with other women (whether Muslim or not)? If yes, then you have a point in this particular case. If not, however, and the prohibition of shaking hands in Islamic law/customer with the opposite gender is equivalent for both men and women, then your claim in this particular instance is wrong.

I speak from first hand experience (http://www.aish.com/societyWork/society/Shaking_Hands_with_the_Opposite_Gender.asp), pun unintended.

OK. So it was intended. Sue me!

[Konovalov]

Avon Lady,

Is what you have referred to in your link covered under the Jewish law of Tzniut which if I recall correctly is the area of modesty? And if so and I'm on the right track here, is this law or principle behind why orthodox Jewish women cover their hair outside of their own house be it by a hat, scarf, wig or other method?

[The Avon Lady]

Is what you have referred to in your link covered under the Jewish law of Tzniut which if I recall correctly is the area of modesty?
Correct. Tzniut is the Hebrew term for modesty.
And if so and I'm on the right track here, is this law or principle behind why orthodox Jewish women cover their hair outside of their own house be it by a hat, scarf, wig or other method?
Yes, like myself. Specifically the law of hair covering is for married women and generally when they are in the presence of other men.

[Abraham]

@ The Avon Lady:
If somebody greets you in a Western country like Holland by streching out his/her hand and you refuse to take that hand for reasons of modesty, you are making a mistake. Whether it concerns a Muslim man or woman is not the determaning factor for my claim.
The mistake is that, while the rule that has been given in your religion, may be very valid within the timeframe and/or within the society in which it is generally accepted, you - as a new immigrant - have moved to a new society, with another culture and you have to think hard whether that is acceptable for you and - if not - how far you will compromise without shutting yourself up in your own subculture.

I know this kind of problems can pop up within Judaïsm as well as in Islam. However, there it is - if I am well informed - not only a matter of modesty but also of cleanness and hygiene. That had its merits, 2.500+ years ago in the desert, but those rules are archaïc an sometimes offensive.
I once knew a stewardess with KLM who was asked by a fundamental (male) Jewish passenger if she had her period, otherwise he did not want to be served by her. My reaction: go hich hiking or fly El Al. Nobody ordered you to fly KLM, but if you do, you accept the local norms.
(Although religious Jews sometimes prefer to fly KLM to enjoy non-kosher food, not having ordered a kosher meal beforehand but blaming KLM for a mess up in order to justify themselves with their friends. KLM countered those tactics by keeping scores of extra kosher meals on Tel-Aviv-Amsterdam-New York flights.)
:D

This kind of behaviour, whether based on religion or archaic customs, is often considered very offending if not discriminatory by the autochtones, who are reaching out to help newcomers integrate in our society.
As far as I know, especially the Jews are masters in strechting the interpretation of those rules in such ways that they are not to much hindered in their daily live by these rules themselves, in the proces circumvening their original intention. To give an exemple: observant Jews are not allowed to make fire or light during the Sabbath. When my father was young (in the early thirties of last century) he and his friends went to Jewish families on Friday nights and earned a few dimes by switching on the light in their houses. Nowadays modern wigs have replaced old time veils and electronics has come to the help of the observant Jews. Hotels in major Israeli cities have a "Sabbath-elevator" which is set to stop at each floor so you can get in and out without pressing - and lighting - a button (or having to resort to the stairs).

While this may sound funny, opportunistic or even hypocritical to some, observant Jews are fully justified to set their own religious parameters and shouldn't care about world opinion.
However, a problem arises when one decides to settle in a different country and culture and especially when one interacts with the autochtone population. Because not observing the dominant rules of normal behaviour is a statement: I moved to and am now living in your culture, but my own culture forbids me to follow your cultural rules. In other words, my culture is superior and I don't accept your culture as dominant.
Well, you really have a problem then, because you are offending another ethnic group or culture. Integrate or move back, too bad.

By the way, the link you gave clearly states the archaïc, sexually induced, male dominant view on the "problem" of normal physical contact between men and women (weird that neither the fundamental Judaïsme nor the Islam takes the possible sexual tangent of physical contact between men and men into account! In those cultures men to men contacts can be quite intense, embracing and often kissing is considered acceptable. This is in my view proof of the male-dominant background of those rules).

Every time an Orthodox man or woman distances him or herself from even the most non-erotic forms of physical contact, he or she is reminded that what is forbidden in this instance is promoted elsewhere - i.e., within the exclusive context of marriage.

Every act of distancing is also an act of drawing close to one's spouse.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning.

True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning. Those who observe the ban convey the message that "the erotic element is excluded from our relationship." Far from showing a lack of "dignity and respect" for those of the opposite gender, observance of the ban reflects a determination to treat members of the opposite sex with the utmost respect - as everything but objects of sexual desire. Judging from the proliferation of sexual-harassment charges in work settings and elsewhere, many women would prefer precisely such relationships ... but are not asked", I would like to add.

Demanding women not to do certain things and cover themselves up to a certain degree is a typical male-dominant easy way out-rule. The problem clearly lies with men who are obviously susceptable to hit the "slippery slope" of "disrespect" and even possible "sexual harrisment" when seeing an unveiled woman or touching her in "even the most non-erotic form".
Poor Jewish and Muslim men, what should we do about them. I guess those religions should come up with some drastic rules for men to behave, for instance a ban on looking at attractive women. The problem is that unless you resort to Burka's and Niqfa's or whatever garbage bag-style of clothing, women still can be attractive to men, and often want to be so. Sexual attractiveness is created by G-d, God, Allah and any denial of this sexual tension only serves to magnify sexual frustration.
I mean I can honestly say that - ostentably contrary to the men the quote reflected upon - I can shake a man's or a woman's hand with the most non-erotic thoughts...
:D

[Sixpack]

Overall a great post, Abraham :up:

Those ME customs dont belong here, unless it's in a restaurant where it's part of the act, and I play along :)

[TteFAboB]

I'm with you Abraham.

A Jewish friend of mine blesses pork before chewing it. :D

I have travelled to many regions of Africa, most of which today are in different hands with different borders, I was forbidden to enter Kenya with the lame excuse of being from the PLO, fine, Mr. Kenyan revolutionary, I won't spread my western influence, wisdom and knowledge to your local population and subvert them in the most basic revolutionary way. Really, I won't! That's the whole point!

In my trips to Africa and Indochina I've ALWAYS made an effort to keep a low-profile. I don't like being a tourist, it's not fun, unless you're looking to relax at a resort or enjoy common attractions or sites, but to me it is much more fun to reach out and touch the local population. In most of the globe I've visited I can go easily unnoticed, but on more sinister regions as Soweto, if you go as a tourist (good luck) you'll be looked down by the locals, if not with hate, but if you can bypass the book-cover judgement, then you can discover what Soweto is really like, the people, the land, the culture.

As a tourist, I could run to the airport or an embassy and escape at any time, I could insult and hurt the locals all I wanted and simply run away, I had my home to go back to, my safe heaven, I had no fundamental need to respect the local culture.

But I wouldn't do that if I understand I'm stepping on a land that is not my own, talking with people whom I share no bonds with at all, other than the spiritual one, as we're both Human, in a country which I have nothing to do with, the least I can do is respect the local population, learn and understand the culture and do my best to integrate.

The reward is unmeasurable. The smile on their faces, the long chatting afternoons that went deep into the night, being invited to their homes, to dinner with them, being welcomed into their lives, having the doors and windows wide open, it is a very special feeling to share with a distant "stranger" from a distant land, suddenly, it all seems so much closer, to home, to your inner self. It's a pleasure every person should be allowed to experience once in their life times. I mean, how many people can say they have a North Vietnamese General as a pen-pal?

Now, imagine an immigrant! Shouldn't the demands be even higher? A tourist can behave like me voluntarily, but an immigrant, he needs to make the foreign land his own, he needs to understand the foreign culture to be able to feel part of it, knowing or learning the language should be mandatory.

I believe so, using as an exemple the Japanese immigrants from the past decades. People from a different land, rich with culture and religion, no less than any Muslim, and they managed to immigrate without causing any cultural conflicts, their values matched perfectly with those of their hosts. During WW2 they were locked in concentration camps by many nations, yet, the past is left to the past, because revolving these corpses would bring nothing but problems, it doesn't matter, life goes on, there's a life to live and it's not in the graveyard. I'll end the comparison here, because it would be unfair to go further and remember Japanese immigrants brought with them technology techniques and agricultural know-how as Muslims can't be expected to develop such things under Islam and in the desert, so I won't touch that point.

But speaking of which, the only region I never visited was the Muslim world. Never felt the desire, my first contact with an Egyptian Muslim was at the Seine, he was pissing in the river. Now, that's not the problem, I would piss at the Seine anytime too, everybody should piss at the Seine even. Jokes aside, the only thing actually stopping me from pissing at the Seine is that it was not my home, it was not my river. Now, pissing on the streets is awfull, people must be remembered all the time we ditched the dark ages, we have better sewage than ever and we should confine our corporeal excretions to that system. No blame on the Egyptian, if the French pee in their own streets, how do you expect him to understand his custom is not actually acceptable and the French who do that are actually violating the law? When there's no one to set the example... If you actually forced Muslim immigrants to understand what they're getting themselves into, chances are they'd become better and more French than the traditional Seine-pissing Frenchmen.

[The Avon Lady]

@ The Avon Lady:
If somebody greets you in a Western country like Holland by streching out his/her hand and you refuse to take that hand for reasons of modesty, you are making a mistake. Whether it concerns a Muslim man or woman is not the determaning factor for my claim.
I fully agree with you. In fact, I would shake that person's hand if it will avoid embarrassing or insulting him, as that is much much greater prohibition in this case.

My point, however, was that you should not attribute this case to Islam's viewing women as inferior. You have other proofs for that but not here.
The mistake is that, while the rule that has been given in your religion, may be very valid within the timeframe and/or within the society in which it is generally accepted, you - as a new immigrant - have moved to a new society, with another culture and you have to think hard whether that is acceptable for you and - if not - how far you will compromise without shutting yourself up in your own subculture.
Even assuming I would not shake someone's hand under the circumstances, it is farfetched to state that such an act alone indicates I am intraverted within my own subculture. That is a totally unproportional description.
I know this kind of problems can pop up within Judaïsm as well as in Islam. However, there it is - if I am well informed - not only a matter of modesty but also of cleanness and hygiene. That had its merits, 2.500+ years ago in the desert, but those rules are archaïc an sometimes offensive.
I have never heard this one. Logically, that would mean that same-gender handshakes should be forbidden, too. This is certainly not the case in Judaism. Please enlighten me if you find a source for this explanation in Islam.
I once knew a stewardess with KLM who was asked by a fundamental (male) Jewish passenger if she had her period, otherwise he did not want to be served by her.
The gentlemen is either a super holyman or he's cracked out of his wits. This never happens in all of the circles I am involved in, including what you call "fundamental" ones.
My reaction: go hich hiking or fly El Al.
On El Al, they'd let him starve. And other strictly Orthodox Jewish passenger's, knowing how out of line this is, would be disgusted and pipe up and tell him so.
Nobody ordered you to fly KLM, but if you do, you accept the local norms.
I think I've responded to this point of norms and your case of abnorms.
(Although religious Jews sometimes prefer to fly KLM to enjoy non-kosher food, not having ordered a kosher meal beforehand but blaming KLM for a mess up in order to justify themselves with their friends. KLM countered those tactics by keeping scores of extra kosher meals on Tel-Aviv-Amsterdam-New York flights.) :D
An observant Jew who wants to eat non-kosher food is really wasting the opportunity by jumping with excitement over an airline meal. Poor fella!
This kind of behaviour, whether based on religion or archaic customs, is often considered very offending if not discriminatory by the autochtones, who are reaching out to help newcomers integrate in our society.
As far as I know, especially the Jews are masters in strechting the interpretation of those rules in such ways that they are not to much hindered in their daily live by these rules themselves, in the proces circumvening their original intention. To give an exemple: observant Jews are not allowed to make fire or light during the Sabbath. When my father was young (in the early thirties of last century) he and his friends went to Jewish families on Friday nights and earned a few dimes by switching on the light in their houses.
In this case, the rules might and might not have been stretched. Furthermore, this ruling is based on other existing rules.
Nowadays modern wigs have replaced old time veils
There is a strong opinion whether wigs are permissable or not but either way, it is not a question of stretching rules and laws but rather whether permissable or not.
and electronics has come to the help of the observant Jews. Hotels in major Israeli cities have a "Sabbath-elevator" which is set to stop at each floor so you can get in and out without pressing - and lighting - a button (or having to resort to the stairs).
Once again, no stretching of laws here - rather their application.
While this may sound funny, opportunistic or even hypocritical to some, observant Jews are fully justified to set their own religious parameters and shouldn't care about world opinion.
However, a problem arises when one decides to settle in a different country and culture and especially when one interacts with the autochtone population. Because not observing the dominant rules of normal behaviour is a statement: I moved to and am now living in your culture, but my own culture forbids me to follow your cultural rules. In other words, my culture is superior and I don't accept your culture as dominant.
Well, Jewish history in Europe speaks for itself. In some places, especially in but not limited to Eastern Europe, strictly Orthodox Jews were often limited to living in Ghettos.

But for the most part, even such Jews were farmers and tradesmen once they were permited to be. And they never worked en-masse on a basis of any religious commandments to overthrow or usurp a government.
Well, you really have a problem then, because you are offending another ethnic group or culture. Integrate or move back, too bad.
All this for a handshake. Tsk. Tsk.
By the way, the link you gave clearly states the archaïc, sexually induced, male dominant view on the "problem" of normal physical contact between men and women (weird that neither the fundamental Judaïsme nor the Islam takes the possible sexual tangent of physical contact between men and men into account! In those cultures men to men contacts can be quite intense, embracing and often kissing is considered acceptable. This is in my view proof of the male-dominant background of those rules).
Once again, your claim is faulty. We women also greet with hugs and kisses. Furthermore, once upon a time the world wasn't full of homosexuals, as it is today - certainly not the Jewish world. Laws were not enacted when there was no concern for them.
Every time an Orthodox man or woman distances him or herself from even the most non-erotic forms of physical contact, he or she is reminded that what is forbidden in this instance is promoted elsewhere - i.e., within the exclusive context of marriage.

Every act of distancing is also an act of drawing close to one's spouse.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning.

True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning. Those who observe the ban convey the message that "the erotic element is excluded from our relationship." Far from showing a lack of "dignity and respect" for those of the opposite gender, observance of the ban reflects a determination to treat members of the opposite sex with the utmost respect - as everything but objects of sexual desire. Judging from the proliferation of sexual-harassment charges in work settings and elsewhere, many women would prefer precisely such relationships ... but are not asked", I would like to add.
Demanding women not to do certain things and cover themselves up to a certain degree is a typical male-dominant easy way out-rule. The problem clearly lies with men who are obviously susceptable to hit the "slippery slope" of "disrespect" and even possible "sexual harrisment" when seeing an unveiled woman or touching het in "even the most non-erotic form".
Poor Jewish and Muslim men, what should we do about them. I guess those religions should come up with some drastic rules for men to behave, for instance a ban on looking at attractive women. The problem is that unless you resort to Burka's and Niqfa's or whatever garbage bag-style of clothing, women still can be attractive to men, and often want to be so. Sexual attractiveness is created by G-d, God, Allah and any denial of this sexual tension only serves to magnify sexual frustration.
I mean I can honestly say that - ostentably contrary to the men the quote reflected upon - I can shake a man's or a woman's hand with the most non-erotic thoughts...
:D
Yet G-d put limitations on many things. This is a decree to enforce such limitations, plain and simple.

You don't believe in modesty? Fine? But your intollerant view of those that do is just that - intollerant.

[JamesT73J]

Does this mean that this guy and some Israelis don't like Europe, or may not visit us?

Sounds like a good deal to me.

[TLAM Strike]

Now, pissing on the streets is awfull... Tell that to Japanese men. :rotfl:

[The Avon Lady]

Does this mean that this guy and some Israelis don't like Europe, or may not visit us?

Sounds like a good deal to me.
No problem. You're born there and you'll die there (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010816.php).

Live long and prosper.

[Skybird]

Nice post, Abraham.

[Kapitan]

Just off here a bit.


I for one will be glad if the European union broke up, not only does it make less money than seperate countrys but also such stupid rules and laws that have to be impliments by all countrys, and most are contradictory.

I hate the E.U ive never supported it, i will never support it, the sooner it goes the better.

[STEED]

I hate the E.U ive never supported it, i will never support it, the sooner it goes the better.
That makes two of us.
:up: :yep: :up: :yep: :up: :yep: :up: :yep: :up: :yep:

[Kapitan]

A sobering though steed for you.

We might have to one day pay Euro tax :o

[JamesT73J]

Does this mean that this guy and some Israelis don't like Europe, or may not visit us?

Sounds like a good deal to me.
No problem. You're born there and you'll die there (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010816.php).

Live long and prosper.

You know, call me a cynic, but I wouldn't consider a site titled 'jihadwatch' to be the definitive, objective authority on the state of Muslim communities in Europe, anymore than I consider the suggestion that we're going to hell in a camelhair-weave handbasket as anything more than hysterical rhetoric by rather dull people with nothing better to do.

[The Avon Lady]

Does this mean that this guy and some Israelis don't like Europe, or may not visit us?

Sounds like a good deal to me.
No problem. You're born there and you'll die there (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/010816.php).

Live long and prosper.

You know, call me a cynic, but I wouldn't consider a site titled 'jihadwatch' to be the definitive, objective authority on the state of Muslim communities in Europe, anymore than I consider the suggestion that we're going to hell in a camelhair-weave handbasket as anything more than hysterical rhetoric by rather dull people with nothing better to do.
As I like to say:

Good luck Europe!

You're not a cynic. :nope: You're an ostrich. :yep:

I don't care if you want to close your eyes to the editorial and commentary content on JW's site but for heaven's sakes read the news items they link to, usually from established and accredited news agencies, with all of their faults.

If you've got something to refute against them, go ahead and spill it out.

I have a better idea. Study Islam. Read the Quran, Sunnas and Hadiths. Ignore me. Ignore JW. Ignore Skybird and other posters here. But do yourself a favor and get wise. Here's your starting point:

USC MSA Compendium of Muslim Texts (http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/). This site at the University of Southern California is sponsored by the Muslim Students Association in the US.

You have no more excuses. What you don't know will hurt you.

[Skybird]

I have a better idea. Study Islam. Read the Quran, Sunnas and Hadiths. Ignore me. Ignore JW. Ignore Skybird and other posters here. But do yourself a favor and get wise.

I agree with AL here, James. what AL or me is saying is not that important. Form your own opinion, don't just copy the opinion of others. That also means: do not simply copy opinions of mainstream medias which are far from being unbiased in this question but mimic a sociological motivation to make a stand "pro" Islam. Don't pick for small pieces of info about Quran or Hadith or whatever, that are ripped out of context, but do a substantial study of it. There also is a lot of academical analysis on Islam, which maybe is even more needed for a beginning, since the material is so diverse and self-contradictory. I was confused and was led to false conclusions in the bginning, 13, 15 years ago, I admit. Those academical works that are able to proove their conclusions by refering to evidence and historical facts you can re-check yourself are the ones you can trust, to some degree.

Do you think I travelled and worked in the Middle East that much because I am fascinated by the Orient? Far from that! I hate the area, really. But since I first learned about Islam, I felt threatened by it, almost by instinct, so I sat down and learned about it, and then wanted to see for myself, at location. Later it was also a lot of money involved, admitted, but that is something different. First, it seemed that my initial sentiments were not justified and that it all is better than what I feared. But later, now, that I have more distance to all that diverse input, and do not concentrate anymore on the actual single experience and prioritize it no more over the background of information already accumulated, but see it all in one big context, I had to massively correct my first (before travelling) and my second (during travelling, and some years after) conclusions. My motivation to find out about Islam simply is no fascination for the Orient, but an attitude like "know your enemy". As I see it you probably do not know enough about it to form an opinion on whether you would want to see it as friendly or hostile to your society. So indeed, AL is right, do yourself a favour: start to learn, and trust nobody. you will not hear much positive about Islam from me, that is true. but keep in mind: you also will not hear much negative about Islam from Muslims and their representatives. Islam is extremely weak in terms of critical self-evaluation and self-honesty.

It was a stoney road for me to come to my final complete rejection of Islam. I had been positive baout it, I had been neutral about, I have been (and still are) negative aboput it. Do you think you can come to a comparable substantial evaluation with lesser effort?

I makde some assumptions about how much you have studied Islam. If these are incorrect, please tell me and accept my apology then.

[STEED]

A sobering though steed for you.

We might have to one day pay Euro tax :o

There's more to it than meets the eye :shifty: check your PM box :yep:

[Kapitan]

red and understood finding now.

[JamesT73J]

It was a stoney road for me to come to my final complete rejection of Islam. I had been positive baout it, I had been neutral about, I have been (and still are) negative aboput it. Do you think you can come to a comparable substantial evaluation with lesser effort?



You're quite right Skybird. You know far more than I do, and what's more you know everything about my life and background.

Please accept my humble apology!

[CCIP]

I'm not a fan of Jihadwatch and I would side with you on being wary of it as a sole source of my information on the 'islamic threat' - but having come down more or less the same stony road as Skybird to the same realization - and what he is calling for is quite correct. I've had my awakening moment with the whole Danish debacle - and I think it's not too selfish of Sky or myself to suggest that others look at this issue as objectively as possible, and soon. Not through Jihadwatch, perhaps, but at least as AL said - from the horse's mouth.

I think it's safe to say that your life and background is not something that Skybird knows. But your life and background really don't have any influence on the facts here.

[Abraham]

@ The Avon Lady:

You can't do my posting with a few one and two liners, an occasional three liner and one four liner and get away with it.
:D
@ The Avon Lady:
If somebody greets you in a Western country like Holland by streching out his/her hand and you refuse to take that hand for reasons of modesty, you are making a mistake. Whether it concerns a Muslim man or woman is not the determaning factor for my claim.
I fully agree with you. In fact, I would shake that person's hand if it will avoid embarrassing or insulting him, as that is much much greater prohibition in this case.
I am glad that you would shake that person's hand. But I want to make sure that my argumentation is not directed at you personally but is nothing more than my opinion of a clash between a modern society and cultural/religious attitudes based on - in my view - archaïc rules.

My point, however, was that you should not attribute this case to Islam's viewing women as inferior. You have other proofs for that but not here.
You are fighting a point I did not make. I did not say that the limitation for the Muslin girl to shake the hand of any 12+ year old (Dutch) male is proof of inferiority of women in Islam. I said it is proof of disdain for the dominant culture of the host country, i.e. Holland. Which is not nice towards the Dutch. Realise that you might create the impression of being rude or even superior towards the autochtone population.

The mistake is that, while the rule that has been given in your religion, may be very valid within the timeframe and/or within the society in which it is generally accepted, you - as a new immigrant - have moved to a new society, with another culture and you have to think hard whether that is acceptable for you and - if not - how far you will compromise without shutting yourself up in your own subculture.
Even assuming I would not shake someone's hand under the circumstances, it is farfetched to state that such an act alone indicates I am intraverted within my own subculture. That is a totally unproportional description.
The problem is not your - or better: one's single act, the problem is the attitude behind it which may pop up in any interaction with autochtones depending upon the interpretation of one's own cultural and/or religious mores. The only logical consequence I see are: a) possible offensive behaviour towards autochtones; b) compromising one's religious interpretations; c) withdrawing into one's subculture.
All these attitudes can be found in cultural/religious minorities in Holland.

I know this kind of problems can pop up within Judaïsm as well as in Islam. However, there it is - if I am well informed - not only a matter of modesty but also of cleanness and hygiene. That had its merits, 2.500+ years ago in the desert, but those rules are archaïc an sometimes offensive.
I have never heard this one. Logically, that would mean that same-gender handshakes should be forbidden, too. This is certainly not the case in Judaism. Please enlighten me if you find a source for this explanation in Islam.
I was talking about "this kind of problems", I did not mean same-gender shaking hands but todays cultural and/or religious interpretations of age old commands, conflicting with another (dominant) culture. I am explicitly using the word "interpretation" because the Torah, the Tenach, the New Testament and the Qur'an were given/written in a timeframe that shaking hands did have a different meaning than it does today in Holland, that Jewish and Muslim minorities were not living in a modern European culture and that Jacob dreamt of a ladder towards heaven and not of an elevator. If one decides to adhere to 1.400 year old rules or 2.500+ year old rules one cannot escape the necessety of interpretation. This quote from Aish.com is proof that this is one of more possible interpretations: True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.
The operative words are clearly "permit" and "choose". The next quote was ment by me as an example of this.

I once knew a stewardess with KLM who was asked by a fundamental (male) Jewish passenger if she had her period, otherwise he did not want to be served by her.
The gentlemen is either a super holyman or he's cracked out of his wits. This never happens in all of the circles I am involved in, including what you call "fundamental" ones.
I am surprised about your reaction on this example. I would certainly not include the possibility of "a holyman" (with or without the adjective "super"). I also would not say "cracked out of his wits" if the guy is strictly obedient to his religion. I would just suggest to fly El Al, they might have a solution for his problem.

My reaction: go hich hiking or fly El Al.
On El Al, they'd let him starve. And other strictly Orthodox Jewish passenger's, knowing how out of line this is, would be disgusted and pipe up and tell him so.
Your words

Nobody ordered you to fly KLM, but if you do, you accept the local norms.
I think I've responded to this point of norms and your case of abnorms.
(Although religious Jews sometimes prefer to fly KLM to enjoy non-kosher food, not having ordered a kosher meal beforehand but blaming KLM for a mess up in order to justify themselves with their friends. KLM countered those tactics by keeping scores of extra kosher meals on Tel-Aviv-Amsterdam-New York flights.) :D
An observant Jew who wants to eat non-kosher food is really wasting the opportunity by jumping with excitement over an airline meal. Poor fella!
First of all, I want to say that my two KLM examples are documentated and found their way to internal KLM-instructions.
I also want to stress that culturally or religiously weird or "abnormal" behaviour (in Dutch eyes on board of KLM) is quite common on intercontinental flights with many cultures on board and is therefor not just a problem with observant Jews.

This kind of behaviour, whether based on religion or archaic customs, is often considered very offending if not discriminatory by the autochtones, who are reaching out to help newcomers integrate in our society.
As far as I know, especially the Jews are masters in strechting the interpretation of those rules in such ways that they are not to much hindered in their daily live by these rules themselves, in the proces circumvening their original intention. To give an exemple: observant Jews are not allowed to make fire or light during the Sabbath. When my father was young (in the early thirties of last century) he and his friends went to Jewish families on Friday nights and earned a few dimes by switching on the light in their houses.
In this case, the rules might and might not have been stretched. Furthermore, this ruling is based on other existing rules.
Rules, rules, rules...
Nowadays modern wigs have replaced old time veils
There is a strong opinion whether wigs are permissable or not but either way, it is not a question of stretching rules and laws but rather whether permissable or not.
Wouldn't you call that a matter of interpretation?
and electronics has come to the help of the observant Jews. Hotels in major Israeli cities have a "Sabbath-elevator" which is set to stop at each floor so you can get in and out without pressing - and lighting - a button (or having to resort to the stairs).
Once again, no stretching of laws here - rather their application.
Streching the application of rules? Fine with me.
While this may sound funny, opportunistic or even hypocritical to some, observant Jews are fully justified to set their own religious parameters and shouldn't care about world opinion.
However, a problem arises when one decides to settle in a different country and culture and especially when one interacts with the autochtone population. Because not observing the dominant rules of normal behaviour is a statement: I moved to and am now living in your culture, but my own culture forbids me to follow your cultural rules. In other words, my culture is superior and I don't accept your culture as dominant.
Well, Jewish history in Europe speaks for itself. In some places, especially in but not limited to Eastern Europe, strictly Orthodox Jews were often limited to living in Ghettos.
But for the most part, even such Jews were farmers and tradesmen once they were permited to be. And they never worked en-masse on a basis of any religious commandments to overthrow or usurp a government.
Which is again something I was not stating.

Watch me jump to Islam's defence! :yep:
I am not surprised that you do...
I may on this point give my views regarding this subject on the three great monotheïstic religions - warning people who don't know yet that I an convinced Christian (Protestant) - so probably not fully objective - but who is objective on these subjects anyway.
Fundamental/Orthodox/Extremist Judaïsm is the foe of modernity as much as Fundamental/Orthodox/Extremist Islam is, be it with one major exception that you (TAL) already indicated: the Jews "never worked en-masse on a basis of any religious commandments to overthrow or usurp a government." You formulated this line very carefully to make sure I can live with it and I can. You mean to say - if I may - that Islam has a much more missionary approach towards other cultures then Judaïsm, which is not missionary at all but - more passively - sees itself as an example for the world at large.
Both Judaïsm and Islam, which was heavely influenced by Judaïsm by early - and rather positive - contacts with Jews, are heavely depending upon sets of rules or commands that either formed or reflected but certainly strenghtened and codified the social mores of those times. As Skybird has argued (concerning Islam, and in other wording) that the strictest interpretation is the most valid one, but at the same time excludes a step into modernity.
Other than Judaïsm and Islam, Christianity is a religion without sets of rules. Christ formulated all the rules of the Old Testament into the first and major command: "Love God above all" and the second: "And thy neigbour like yourself", which means: "because in the eyes of God he is equal to you". All Christian behaviour, manners, rules etc. are considered man made interpretations of Christian mores within a certain time and place. Of course I know that there are Fundamental/Observant/Extremist Christian groups, but they are always small, never accepted by any major church or by Christian philosophical or theological thinking. They tend to be extreme conservatives and as much an enemy of modern society as their Jewish and Muslim counterparts, with whom they have at least their fundamentalism in common.
The absence of archaïc rules gives Christianity a great flexibility of inetrpretation of what God expects from mankind.
Christianity has however its missionary drive in common with Islam, which has often been exploited by Western imperialism - although Christ never gave any indication that Christianity should fight for worldly power or use the sword, but on the contrary subservancy towards the State as long as it did not actively fight Christianity. Combined with the absence of strict rules gives this the posibility to Christianity to exist if different cultures all over the world without the necessity to fight and dominate those cultures. That is in my view a fundamental difference with Islam, but I would be interested to hear Skybirds opinion about my analysis.

Well, you really have a problem then, because you are offending another ethnic group or culture. Integrate or move back, too bad.
All this for a handshake. Tsk. Tsk.
Exactly my words when I read this Aish.com True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.
OK, this was a cheap shot, but I couldn't let the opportunity pass to be sarcastic. The real problem is of course not the handshake, but the attitude behind it - as I remarked earlier.

By the way, the link you gave clearly states the archaïc, sexually induced, male dominant view on the "problem" of normal physical contact between men and women (weird that neither the fundamental Judaïsme nor the Islam takes the possible sexual tangent of physical contact between men and men into account! In those cultures men to men contacts can be quite intense, embracing and often kissing is considered acceptable. This is in my view proof of the male-dominant background of those rules).
Once again, your claim is faulty. We women also greet with hugs and kisses.Once again, you are fighting a point I did not make. I did not say that "you women" did not hug and kiss. Please do, just as your men. In your culture it's socially acceptable.

Furthermore, once upon a time the world wasn't full of homosexuals, as it is today - certainly not the Jewish world. Laws were not enacted when there was no concern for them.
Oh no, Ma'am. The world is not "full of homosexuals", they are percentage-wise a small minority. And while I may agree with you that there are circles where homosexuality is en vogue, or that some can make a choice for a homosexual or bisexual lifestyle, you will agree with me that a substantial number of homosexuals were born and will die that way - as homosexuals. And I dare to say that the percentage of those homosexuals is probably equal all over the globe, with all races and in all times, including Cana'an in Byblical times. As far as that is concerned I can't believe the ancient "Jewish world" was any different than the non-Jewish world. Whether these old time Jewish homosexuals had the opportunity to practice homosexuality is of course another question.
You surprise me by saying in this context: "Laws were not enacted when there was no concern for them." There are as far as I know a number of references to homosexuality (Sodom, Gomorrah, even David & Absalon perhaps) in the Old Testament and practising homosexuality was forbidden. If you can agree with this it undermines your own statement.

Every time an Orthodox man or woman distances him or herself from even the most non-erotic forms of physical contact, he or she is reminded that what is forbidden in this instance is promoted elsewhere - i.e., within the exclusive context of marriage.

Every act of distancing is also an act of drawing close to one's spouse.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning.

True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning.

True, shaking hands is a pretty innocuous form of contact, and for that reason some Orthodox religious authorities permit it in the business context. But the same claim of innocuousness is made for kissing and hugging in many circles. Rather than stepping onto a slippery slope and leaving the matter to subjective determinations about the erotic content of any particular act, many Orthodox Jews choose to simply avoid any physical contact.

Those who observe the ban convey the message that "the erotic element is excluded from our relationship." Far from showing a lack of "dignity and respect" for those of the opposite gender, observance of the ban reflects a determination to treat members of the opposite sex with the utmost respect - as everything but objects of sexual desire. Judging from the proliferation of sexual-harassment charges in work settings and elsewhere, many women would prefer precisely such relationships ... but are not asked", I would like to add.
Demanding women not to do certain things and cover themselves up to a certain degree is a typical male-dominant easy way out-rule. The problem clearly lies with men who are obviously susceptable to hit the "slippery slope" of "disrespect" and even possible "sexual harrisment" when seeing an unveiled woman or touching het in "even the most non-erotic form".
Poor Jewish and Muslim men, what should we do about them. I guess those religions should come up with some drastic rules for men to behave, for instance a ban on looking at attractive women. The problem is that unless you resort to Burka's and Niqfa's or whatever garbage bag-style of clothing, women still can be attractive to men, and often want to be so. Sexual attractiveness is created by G-d, God, Allah and any denial of this sexual tension only serves to magnify sexual frustration.
I mean I can honestly say that - ostentably contrary to the men the quote reflected upon - I can shake a man's or a woman's hand with the most non-erotic thoughts...
:D
Yet G-d put limitations on many things. This is a decree to enforce such limitations, plain and simple.
If that is what you believe, that's fine. Still I would not say that "(t)his is a degree (by God) to enforce such limitations..." but that it is a human interpretation of God given limitations. I can agree that modesty is a virtue. I can not agree that the Bible therefor forbids a social handshake in the modern Western society. That this would serve to remind us "that what is forbidden in this instance is promoted elsewhere - i.e., within the exclusive context of marriage" makes me say: "All this by a handshake. Tsk. Tsk."

You don't believe in modesty? Fine? But your intollerant view of those that do is just that - intollerant.
You suggest that I don't believe in modesty. To use the words you often ask others: "what are your sources?" My posting over the last 15 months on this forum? You have any further knowledge of my personality? I don't think so. Actually I may be more modest than you think, which makes your bald statement "Your intollerant view of those that do (believe in modesty) is just that - intollerant" litterally a non-sense prejudice (no offense intended).

Anyway, I hope that our argument will not make you refuse my hand if I would ever happen to meet you, whether in Israel or elsewhere...
:D

[Skybird]

It was a stoney road for me to come to my final complete rejection of Islam. I had been positive baout it, I had been neutral about, I have been (and still are) negative aboput it. Do you think you can come to a comparable substantial evaluation with lesser effort?



You're quite right Skybird. You know far more than I do, and what's more you know everything about my life and background.

Please accept my humble apology!

You fool. Can't you even read the complete set of paragraphs in a thread?

I made some assumptions about how much you have studied Islam. If these are incorrect, please tell me and accept my apology then.

Hehe, and I still do not like DW. Hope you get a headache from knowing that.

[Skybird]

And concerning that website, it may be interesting to know who the guy is that is running that site:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Not the worst guys to run such a project, I would assume.

[Abraham]

And concerning that website, it may be interesting to know who the guy is that is running that site:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/spencer/

Not the worst guys to run such a project, I would assume.
Thanks Skybird. I knew JW but never checked Spencer.

[TteFAboB]

For once, Skybird is not alone:

Am I "anti-Muslim"? Some time ago here at Jihad Watch I had an exchange with an English convert to Islam. I said: "I would like nothing better than a flowering, a renaissance, in the Muslim world, including full equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies: freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, equal employment opportunities, etc." Is all that "anti-Muslim"? My correspondent thought so. He responded: "So, you would like to see us ditch much of our religion and, thereby, become non-Muslims."

In other words, he saw a call for equality of rights for women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, including freedom of conscience, equality in laws regarding legal testimony, and equal employment opportunities, as a challenge to his religion. To the extent that they are, these facts have to be confronted by both Muslims and non-Muslims. But I make no apologies: it is not "anti-Muslim" to wish freedom of conscience and equality of rights on the Islamic world -- quite the contrary.

[JamesT73J]

It was a stoney road for me to come to my final complete rejection of Islam. I had been positive baout it, I had been neutral about, I have been (and still are) negative aboput it. Do you think you can come to a comparable substantial evaluation with lesser effort?



You're quite right Skybird. You know far more than I do, and what's more you know everything about my life and background.

Please accept my humble apology!

You fool. Can't you even read the complete set of paragraphs in a thread?

I made some assumptions about how much you have studied Islam. If these are incorrect, please tell me and accept my apology then.

Hehe, and I still do not like DW. Hope you get a headache from knowing that.

Skybird,

The trouble is the focus on Fundamentalism. Most Muslim communities are nothing like this. There are problems with integration, and there are certainly attitudes related to the strict and literal interpretation of the Koran that are absolutely bat**** insane.

But...they are thankfully in the minority. At college (I work at one), many of the younger (16-19) students from fairly strict (I'd go as far as saying 'intolerant') Islamic families are actually pretty rebellious, because the stimulation is all around them: Pretty girls / boys, nice cars, parties, the bling lifestyle. They see it, they like it, and they want in. A lot of the girls come into college purely so they can dress how they like and do the things any 18yr old could do. This is exactly how it starts, and this is where the degradation of some of the dafter attitudes will start.

Having spent the first 10 years of my life in the Gulf, I despair at some of the ****e being spouted in the name of God, it's totally depressing. I also had a long (7yr!) relationship with an Indian girl from a pretty conservative background, so I know all about tolerance. To some people, one Indian girl is much the same as any other person with dark skin, and you have to experience prejudice on both sides of the fence to really understand why I feel the way I do.


Cheers


James

[Skybird]

James,

Usually I do not focus so much on the single individual, the kind and friendly Muslim neighbour next door, but I focus on Islam as a global, historical actor, a historical force, with a self-dynamic that directly is linked to that. So you and me are looking at it from different perspectoives, or approach it on different levels. For the most I judge it on the basis of the history it (Islam) has gone through, and the way of behavior it has shown during that, and still does.

For that reason I cannot agree with you. I could adress several points of your reply in detail now, but I already have written about them repeatedly in recent months since one year or so. Starting with the argument that fundamentalism is something different than the real Islam, closing with observations concerning offsprings of immigrant families and their role in the schools, and crime statistics (at least in Germany). Please understand that I do not go into all this AGAIN. So I cut it short and say: I cannot agree with you, and I do not have that relaxed attitude of yours towards Islam anymore (I once had). We simply can't afford it.