More rubbish from Skybird.
Simple question, how many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of different versions of sharia are there?
As you outline it you are talking complete bollox again.

Crikey!!....is this debate still going on? :o

Religion aside, it's time to return Europe to europeans.

People don't surrender their pride in who, and what, they are just because they move to another land. This can hold true even after many generations. And even after the original language is lost.

:haha::har:

Yep :yawn:
And it will go on until we have all been consumed by the spread of Islam, then there will no infidels left to argue against...... oh by the powers of Allah!,
Looks like they already got to me. (damn my Liberal ways - i didnt even notice!)
Now if you'll excuse me I have six wives to buy hibjabs for and a mosque to construct on a front lawn near you....

Salaam suckers!

JU_Abdul_Bilal_Khaseeb_88

Whether one considers their religion, or not,:

Get them TF out . . .yesterday!

"Time to return yurop to europeans" who's to decide on that then? those who agree with you perhaps ? Finns consider themselves as europeans. finns consider themselves as nordic, but if you say finns are scandinavian there are swedes to tell you otherwise..

"Who's to decide on that then?"
The people who still hold a majority in their own lands.
Having ones country taken away is bad enough, giving it away is unthinkable.

Finns are european.
Finns are nordic.
Finns are NOT scandinavian.
For once this dane agrees with the swedes. That in itself is amazing.

Skandinavien = Danmark, Norge, Sverige.

Snestorm, your rhetoric borders on extreme nationalism, something that we Europeans have decided to put away in cold storage for as long as humanly possible. Let them come, I have no problems with immigrants, as if we look far enough into the past, we are all immigrants of sorts which changed the culture in the areas we inhabited. Yet those were different times, now we know how we can live together. The main point of this debate was the difference of values and how Muslim communities, at least a part of them, actively support the idea of turning Europe into a Shari'ah governed zone and how Islam is far from being a tolerant religion.

For all the stary-eyed individuals as Skybird calls them, go look at the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. That should give you a pretty good indication of how different we are and why we dislike the idea of our values being turned into (radical) islamic ones.

http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/do...rislam1990.htm

the critical passages:

I think this just confirms what I said about the total claim of shariah that I described in postings above, yes?!

There are a lot of positive things said in that declaration also, but you have to balance them against the comntext of the shariah (see the red-printed articles 24 and 25), and you have to realise that many of those signing this declaration at the time when signing it, and before, and afterwards, acted against the principles they so heroically voiced, and that many declarations of liberties and good things are in total oppositon to demands by Shariah and the Quran if you read the articles isolated and out of conetxt of the shariah, or they get limited in their scope and put into relation by the Quran, without the declaration explicitly mentioning that.

In principle you can delete that misleading declaration of Human Rights in Islam, and set up the Quran in it's place. the whole thing is just this - a deception to please the western useful idiots and lure them a bit more.

Skybird,

I agree with you on many points. I simply think that you slamming the auther and calling the article "biggotted" was where you went wrong.

Your right in that Islam cannot be changed by those of us outside. If we could, we obviously would have by now. It is true that only those INSIDE the faith must question it and move it forward. But for a european writer to have the testicular fortitude to say "screw political correctness" and lay out WHY Muslims are not being accepted - because of the obvious problems in their religion, is one heck of a good thing.

We agree it won't do any good in the theology. But to even say it in the PC euro world as it exists, publicly and in writing - shows two important things. The stranglehold of political correctness toward Islam is weakening, as well as that the dissatisfaction and education about what islam truly espouses is growing in Europe. These two things are what will ultimately lead to an awakened public willing to refuse to allow such teachings that violate its standarnds of decency.

As for conflict - I know what I know. But I question things, so that I know more. Its simply the easiest way to learn. I thank you because its VERY rare that I get called someone who seeks common ground, as I am known to just "plow ahead" way too often. But then again, discussion is one thing, decision making another, and to lead in any capacity we have to be able to put away discussion and act. But thats neither here nor there.

And what are the chances of our values being turned into even mild islamic ones let alone radical ones?
Is it none, none, none or errrr.....none?

Where is this stranglehold ?
The only real issue which muddies the debate on Islam is about the hate filled bigots who as skybird says flood every group that criticises the religion, and of course people like Skybird himself who ruins his points by contradicting himself and making crazy leaps of connection that cannot be connected...... and of course simply making things up which don't stand even a cursory examination.

I think I'll hang on to my nationalism.
"The Global Village" doesn't look very appealing.

Just for the record.
I'm not an EU supporter, and I'm opposed to adopting the euro.

We agree on many things, and disagree on others, also, on some things we necessarily must and will fight against the other's team. But as long as you understand that I do not wish to personally attack you, this strong disagreement must not make us personal enemies. I indeed think you are an intelligent person, because you show quite some creativity in your efforts of trying to bring together things that are opposites and - as I see it - cannot be brought together, since they are mutually exclusive. I of course do not agree with the claimed outcome of your thought experiment, obviously, but think that somewhere inside of you, you are aware, in some way, of the contradictions in religion's/creationism's position, and thus you try to bring reason into it by trying to merge it with science. A dumb religious nuthead would not do that, but would be satisfied with just deafening his ears, stopping to think, and be happy to just blindly believe and preach his dogma. Like that - you are not, it seems to me. that's why we can come along together, even when totally disagreeing on some things.

When calling that auhtor bigott, maybe that was a bit too personally aimed and aggressive indeed,, and I should leave it to saying that I see him as naive, and in cionflict with some basic ideas of the ideology that he, as it seems to me, just glosses over, comfortably ignoring aspects of it that nevertheless as integral parts of it. Anyhow, if taking both postings I had about that, it should become clearer what I mean. I refuse to form a final opinion on him, becasue I simply do not know enough of him, his usual work, and his record. I am just very aware that there are so many spokesmen that are presented and accepted as "moderates" and "liberals" and ´"well integrated in our societies' structures", but are indeed representing extrmist groups. Practically all spokesman of Muslim organisations we have in Germany, are like that, and they get accepted by politicians as "ndialogue" partners, thus they are accepted top represent the so-called moderate and integrated muslims as well - becasue they do in no way object to these radical sspeaking in the name of "all muslims" in Germany.

and that passiveness and phlegma makes "moderates" as guilty as the "radicals", and makes them directly suporting "radical" Islam by not hindering it.

In Austria and then Germany, it initially was only a small handful of thugs that took over the country in the thirties. but theyx acted with that intimidating behavior that most people did not dare to stand up against them, and later, many chose to simply let things run. They were no Nazis by cinviction, but thex also did not nothing to stop them while there still was time. These "Mitläufer" imo are as guilty as those beign active Nazi members. It compares to failure to give assistance, which now is a punishable offence in Germany.

:DL

See my sig... :yeah: