When they stop killing us,, maybe then I'll give them some consideration,,,I thought about it,, Nope ain't going to happen,,, sorry,, maybe we ought to play a new game called cowboys and muslims, that's what they want, we tried to be nice,,, Obama bowed and apologized his butt off,, gave them tons of money,, and they took it as weakness and that's where we are at now,,, all they understand is strength and the sword,,,,if any don't understand that I got a thread for that dissorder.

Plenty, unless you think those missions were to turn them into exact copies of ourselves.

Y'know perhaps that is Germany's problem with the Turks. They're never going to morph into blond, lederhose wearing schnitzel eaters so to you they aren't assimilated into German culture but being American has very little to do with dress or diet or even religion. We are a real multicultural nation, not a mono-cultural nation with some foreign seasoning.

Here's a thought
 

I keep hearing this thing called the new world order:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm: So the muslims are going to go along with a one world government,,.. governed by whom ???????:hmmm::hmmm::hmmm: Ruled by the UN maybe,,,.. but why would we have to walk on egg shells around the muslims,,, no not the UN,,.. who's rise-ing up in the world,,.. why are some in this government think muslim law would be a good thing here in the states,, and who,, boooooo ed god at the DNC, and who had 3 days of color me muslim in advance of the opening of DNC..,, kind of makes pennies on the dollar,,, that they didn't want to admit this was a terrorist attack....:har::har::har:

I was careful to say "clear choice." In other words, these people would know the difference between the two systems. A large number of Muslims have no say what so ever in what happens to them. That is a totalitarian system by nature. They have no choice, nor do they have a voice. A better question to ask would be, if you were a Muslim living in the U.S. would you want to immigrate to Yemen or Pakistan? I think the answer would be "no thanks".

I don't think it's a mistake. I think it's true. People have been drawn to the West for a long time. It's because of the freedom and yes material standards but mainly because here you can do whatever you want with your life. Of course if you do not know the difference..... What I'm saying is if they knew the difference the choice would be obvious. There is no possibility of Sharia law being implemented in the U.S. or here in Canada in the foreseeable future. Our countries are far too multicultural for that to happen.

I would not be so presumptuous as to say that every one would want the same way of living. I would say, though that it's human nature to move toward the light, not the dark. If you're a parent, what do you want for your children?

As to how a person is influenced, that is the individual's responsibility. A healthy dose of mindless TV, beer and internet surfing works wonders in keeping the mind clear.:D

Hell, I'm just guessing,, there is so much dissimformation out there, got to follow the lies, they can't cover up and hold them accountable for,, that's the way to the truth.

The way to the truth is to read one of your poats and work on the basis that the opposite is true.
Simple isn't it.:yeah:

You do not understand it. They see the difference, for the most. And they want Sharia over freedom, because in their thinking not only is Allah's will to be rated higher as man's will, but Sharia is the way to guarantee and protect the way to real freedom - the freedom of Islam. Sharia provides the toolkit by which the individual is assisted and directed to not stray off the right path, you cannot separate it from Quran. An Islam without Sharia is unthinkable because that is an Islam that rejects a major part of Allah's will. An Islam without Sharia is something, anything - but not Islam. Mind you, only a small part of Sharia is what we in the West perceive as kind of a penalty code. Most of it is a recommendation of what to do and what to avoid. The penalty thing is kijust one aspect of it, but an integral one.

It depends. Some see themselves as a spearhead. Some enjoy Amerian liberties - to use them to spread Islam: that would be what mostly is happening in Europe, that Western freedom is turned against Europe to spread Islam and by that destroy freedom and replace it with Sharia-defined freedom. What you call freedom that you offer them to chose for - to them is an invitation to advance. What you see as your generosity and nobleness to them is a sign of weakness and a promise that you will fall soon.

You can understand this only when you are able to step out of the context of your own cultural identity that limits the viewing angle of yours so that you think your side is the one that automatically everybody would chose. You are wrong there.

Yes. That is why they want your country to go. Sharia is more important than freedom in Western understanding, or the values of the American constitution. America grants more freedoms to people, than many other countries, it even accepts scientology as a religion and still defends the freedom of Nazism to be voiced and spread openly despite the historic experience with it. Because this is so, Islam in America so far has met no opposition, and thus could slowly grow in numbers and influence. The row over the ground zero mosque was a first signal since, a small signal still, of things to come. When Islam has grown big enough in the US, it cannot avoid to meet even American limits to what America can afford to tolerate. And then your peaceful and tolerant multiculti-side-by-side living with it will come to an end. You will meet the same conflicts we increasingly meet in Europe. You just meet them with a delay, for in America Islam started later, and had more initial freedom to grow in.

You need to learn, urgently, that "freedom" and other culkturaes and fredom in your understanding are the sme words, but attgributed with different meanings. Like in Islam there is tlak of tolerance for the peop,e of the book as well, but a tolerance that takes it for granted that the to-be-tolerated behave submissive, obedient, with an obligation to dsicriminate them to let them feel their infeirority due to rejecting Allah. But they call that tolerance nevertheless. Same with freedom.

I linked it several times now, even a comparison side-to-side with the UN pen dant: Have you ever read the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam? It is the Islamic counter-blueprint to the UN Declaration of Human Rights. If after reading that you still think that freedom means the same in both spheres, then I cannot help you.

Ever asked that a Palesitnian parent who take pride from and boast into the camera that their son, 16, has blown himself up in an attempt to kill Israelis? For tgrue devout Muslims, the best for thei chidlren is not this rotten, corrupted Wetsern freedom, but obedience to Allah, and obeying Sharia and folowing the Quran.

And I stress it again: mainstream Islam, globally, is that Islam that indeed bases on Quran and Sharia, most Muslims worldwide follow this idea. The West in its hopeless self-gloriofaction totally overestimates its own attractiveness as an alternative.

In the nineties, I had a very good impression of how things were in Iran, because I had been there several times, and for many months, privately. That was after the initial energy of the youth revolt in the 90s had faded out a bit. In the Western media there was the perception that these people wanted Western freedom and democracy, but when Washington realised that so far-reaching a copying of Western culture they did not want at all, it no longer voiced any support for the movement, and as a result the regime could deal with them and leading the situation into one in which it slowly died by draining its energy. What back then many Westerners did not understand is that the young people back then wanted pragmatic access to new media, to internet, a press not controlled by the state - and Sharia as foundation of Iranian society. They explicitly did not want the whole package that Washington demanded them to accept to install. - It is like this in many other places, u-crank. The young ones wanted more freedoms - including the freedom from the West selling them its own package.

If they would have gotten their way, maybe today the situation with the nuclear program would be a different one - one that saw the ultraconservative regime having died, and the conflict solved though negotiations indeed. Today, that has no chance anymore. We let it worsten, without reacting while there may have been time. Only because Washington wanted the young ones to buy the full American culture package. Which they refused. And so here we are today.

The same in Turkey today, another place where I have spend quite some time and of which I know a little bit. You have the huge cities in Turkey where you have stronger Western influence and more will to live by Kemalist ideas of secularism, but that probably has faded. Such a Turkey could coexist with Europe peacefully, and both sides would benefit from trade. However, most Turks live not in these few metropoles, but in small cities, villages and rural places. And you maybe have no clue how arch-conservative and ultra-orthodox these places are for the most. It went so far that basic rules of hospitality - which formally plays a very important role in the ME - where just met when we arrived in some of these places or travelled through, balancing closely on a thin red beyond which laid open hostility, making the politeness as icy as that of an arctic glacier. That means little in Europe, since such social norms play not that role anymore over here, but in the ME formal hospitality towards strangers coming by is in high esteem. It's a bit complex to explain. And maybe it now has changed anyway after two wars since 2003.

that is naive if you leave it to that. To some degree, we are masters of our fate, yes. But we are also exposed to influence that we are not aware of in everyday life, we get brainwashed, manipulated and fed selected information, we walk on paths the education of our parents have opened (ore not), and school, and youth experiences. We may be free within certain borders our former life until today has defined. But if you think these borders and limits have been open to us to define them as we want from all beginning on, then you are wrong.

You should never forget that Islam is no tolerant ideology, but the ideology of conquerors, serving the purpose to justify the violence inflicted by Muhammad in a bit to secure his power and influence, and to delete opposition to him by declaring criticism of him as heresy and a violation of a divine will. The language Islam thus speaks and understands, is that of force, and totalitarian unity.

western politiians and philantropists don't understand this, or do not want to understand this - because they then would need to understand that their own instruments: negotiating and talking and meaning it well - is rendered as helpless in the face of being challenged by Islam. And so we fall back, step by step, and we mean it well when we fall back another step, and we wonder why the other side always advances instead of stopping, taking the space we just have cleared.

Or is it that we understand it all to well, act on the grounds of feat and intimidation, and fall back because we realize that we are no longer masters in our own houses? ;) "Tolerance" easily can become the choice of those so weak that their only choice left is to suffer what they must and make themselves believe they do it not because they are weak, but because they want it.

Well I think I do understand, but we were talking about a hypothetical situation. Reality would be some what different because the difference can not be readily explained to all these people.

Sharia law in its strictest sense is not universally practised in all Muslim nations. Clerics, Imams and jihadists in Muslim nations and in the West may lobby for it but it is not the rule of law. Turkey for example is a secular nation. Others have a mixture of Islamic and Constitutional Law. Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt for example.


No doubt ,in some cases this is true. Again I would say it is the hardcore jihadists who think and act along these lines. The average Muslim who immigrates is probably doing so to get away from these people and to find a better life. Not all Muslims are jihadists and in the West not all Muslims want or practice sharia law. As the_tyrant said in post #74 "I do not consider the majority of so proclaimed "muslim" youth in the west to be real believers.' They adapt very quickly as do other immigrants.

I would say that yes, Europe has a more obvious problem in regards to Muslim extremists because of your immigration policies. To many people from nations that just happen to be Muslim. Canada has a much more balanced approach to immigration. The current number of Muslims is about 2.8% of the Canadian population. In the U.S. it's around 1%. Not exactly a tidal wave. Are there trouble makers among that group? No doubt but we also have Sikh extremists, Quebec separatists and disgruntled Vancouver Canucks hockey fans. There is trouble in the world I tell ya.

Am I worried? Not really. For one thing, here in Canada, Atheists make up about 30% of the population. I'm counting on you guys to keep those really crazy religious types of all stripes at bay. Do your job!:haha:

Well take the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount away from Christian scripture - and then claim that what is left is still "Christianity". Then take away Sharia from Islam and claim what is left is Islam still. It is not.

It is., in several states, and also it is the only authority in Islam that is accepted as a legal basis - other laws are seen as corrupted. That'S why socvalled "radical Islamists" fight against such states - form an Islamic POV, they are correct. This differentiation between Islam, Islamism, moderate and fundamentalist Islam, is deception and is misleading, these differences were not made up until just short time ago. Saudi Arabia first introduced them to the world to deflect opposition and criticism to Islamic terror. That was in the 70s already. In the present. Erdoghan has been the last prominent who in a public outburst of rage told the West to finally shut up and stop differentiating between moderate and radical Islam - this would be an offense to any Muslim, and a crime against Islam.
Turkey for example is a secular nation. Others have a mixture of Islamic and Constitutional Law. Pakistan, Indonesia and Egypt for example. before WWII, these terms were almost unknown. Academics talked of it as Muhammeddanism simply, which is the most precise label I know.

Also, I tell you again, most Muslims worldwide want state and legislation and jurisdiction based on Sharia. This opinion is the mainstream opinion in this 1.5 billion members of the Ummah.

Also, Turkey is no longer a secular state like it tried to become under Attatürk. Erdoghan has set back the clocks by several hundred years. State offices and administration turned more orthodox again. Females have widely withdrawn from serving in higher public offices, the scarf is more widespread again. Th supression and discrimination of Christian churches has increased. The military is loosing its stand against the religious. So much for secularism in Turkey. The good news from this backfall of theirs is that it has become >relatively< silent in the EU about Turkish EU membership.

that impressions is wrong in that our sociological studies of third generation immigrants in Germany and England prove the opposite. A growing share of them is more orthodox and radical than their first generation grand parents who arrived 60 years ago. In England, it is comparable, also founded by according statistics that I have linked to repeatedly in the past years. It is like this in Sweden. In Denmark. In Holland.

Also, do not think in so simple cliches as if every member of Islam actively decides to go out for conquering the West. The conquest of Islam in the West is more carried by the general attitude of the crowd, a general expectation for the future, a certainty of mind that things will go this way, and that it is good this way and Allah wants it and will have his way one way or the other. See it more subtle. There are the programmed Terminator-type of people, too, yes. But they are not the majority. The silent majority not being like them but still indirectly supporting the same goal by their passivity to ban terrorists in their middle and their general mindset that awaits the West turning Islamic - is an even greater problem.

Doe snot compare.

In some European countries, Muslim names are ranking on first place of the lists for popular baby names. Because there are now more Muslim babies born than in any other migrant or native group. the number of converts also rises constantly, although their total number is not relevant- but since concerts tend to be even more radical about their new belief than "originals", their mindset is a problem.

There will come a day when you have run out of time. And then your kids will not have anything to laugh about at all.

Not all people claiming to be Muslim, are bad people. But not everybody is indeed Muslim. The problem I have, starts when Muslims being okay and indeed behaving well and not being conform with the bad and negative in Quran and Sharia, nevertheless insists to be Muslim and "islamic" - although they live their live in violation of what defines Muslims as Muslim: Quran and Sharia. I do not take all people going to church as Christians, too. Muslims not living by the Quran'S rule, are already apostates, and shall be killed if they do not regret and return to the Ummah in full. And their claim to nevertheless be Muslim means they deny and hide that state of apostacy they are already in. When I then tell them they are apostates, from my point of view that is a compliment, maybe. For them, it is an offense - and by acting like this they give Islam a positive face that Islam by its real grim face does not deserve to be supplied with.

"The religion of permanent offence" :)

All this talk about Islam has made Google's ads go crazy

http://i.imgur.com/oHX3L.png

Okay. I get it. I understand what you are saying. I may not believe it in its entirety but I get it. It is not necessary to keep driving the same nail.

Reread what I was saying. I am agreeing with you in regards to Muslim population growth in Europe. My point was about U.S. and Canada and there is quite a difference. Statistics Canada says that we are at 2.8%. In the U.S. it is currently around 1%. Europe is around 6%.

I'm sorry but I don't think you have the authority to make these judgements. In fact I don't think any one can. In regards to God, what one believes about themselves is all that matters. No Pope or Mullah or guru can tell one what 'special group' they belong or don't belong in. That is the definitive difference between religion and a personal faith. They may set certain rules for belonging to that 'group' but if the believer disregards them they are meaninglessness. Calling some one an apostate is simply that. Name calling. If a Muslim wishes to be known as a moderate who are you to say he is not? I would encourage him to be so. At that point what the Ummah thinks is irrevelent. The Roman Church tolerates other non Catholic denominations but believes that they are the one true church. No offence but I don't care what they think. I only care what God thinks.

Sorry, radio's getting a little loud.

Come on Skybird, time is running out on a lot of things. Global warming, spread of nuclear weapons, population growth, economic meltdown. Stop worrying, lets have a drink.

Oh, I think it is, since just before that reply you again relativised the importance of "fundamentalism".

I said the Us is lacking behind, and will go where Europe is today, with a delay. Because the numbers right now may be what they are, with local variations of sometimes huge values, but the future-related important thing is the demographic dynamic: birth rates and migration rates. Currently there are around 2.6 million Muslims living in the US, in 2030 this numbers is expected to be beyond 6.4 millions. In Europe, it depends on the place you look. Some countries will be predominantly Muslim before the end of this century. There are metropolitan hotspots, where this is the case even today or will become the case much earlier than by the end of this century.

If there is any non-draconic counterstrategy, then it is trying to assist kind of a sexual revolution, and uprise of female Muslims against the dictate of the patriarchat. Statistically, in Muslim countries the countries with the highest level of education amongst females are the countries with the lowest score of births per woman (2.5). The mean birth rate of women in the lower 60% of Muslim countries where females have access to less education, rates above 5.0. Needless to say, since the supremacy and wanted-by-Allah superiority of man is anchored in the Quran, any such social revolution necessarily will need to accept that this confronts Islam at its very heart and bottom, and either sees Islam being turned into something new, or sees the social upraise collapsing., And Islam has been, historicall.,y, more successful and more ruthless in letting opposition collapsing by force, than the catholic church.

We have had these conflicts in the Christian world. And we should not spare Islam to go the same way. There are no shortcuts through this conflict.

Terms and labels are not arbitrary, they have a fixed meaning, and I have a problem with people trying to reinvent the meaning of terms and names, or picking a term for something they want to label as that, but ignoring what the term really means. The historic concept called as Islam, has such a certain and relatively clearly defined set of meaning, and a basis from which it emerges. You cannot just pick that part, chose what you want ignore the rest and then claim what you then have is nevertheless "Islam". I cannot claim that a humanistic racism for example is possible or that it should be left to people to claim they are that, only to give racism a good name. Some terms simply do not make sense. Humanistic racism. Liberal tyranny. Democratic fascism. Moderate Islam. From Quran and Sharia stems a tradition that Muhammad wanted to be anything ut "m,oderate". It is a totalitarian conception and idea, from A to Z. And so whether a Muslim indeed is Muslim in the meaning of being in conformity with that, or not, is not up to him to decide, but is a relatively objective question that must be answered by implying the rule of Quran and Sharia and compare his thinking and acting to it. And if such conformity is not there, or too small, then he is not Muslim in Quranic meaning. Same with Christians. I compare Jesus teachings to how people usually act and behave in everyday life, and then I see little Christian qualities in our societies. There are the churches with their own interests that puts them against Jesus teachings, and then there is the sentimental tradition of people remembering their childhood and what it was like to celebrate christmas in decembre. And so they run once a year into the church, and it seems that on this day Christianity is blossoming, and united with both Jesus teachings and the church. Some days later the daily survival fioght begins again, jobs and careers, decisions to be made, and all this usually in explicit violation of Jesus' teachings. So I say: most people you see at churches during Christmas, are not Christian at all. They wallow in emotional memories, and want to transport this tradition to their children, now tat theyx have families of their own. I do not even call them foul on that. I have very good memories of Christmasses in my family myself, when I was young and still lived with my families, and I am thankful for these memories. But don't think I am any Christian because of that.

In the end, it should make you think that even Muslims themselves, socalled moderate as well as socalled fanatics, often speak out against separating Islam into these two groups, formally. Not only Erdoghan does like this, many of the ordinary people on the street do as well. And who are you and who are we to tell them that they are this or that type of Muslim? There is only one Islam. There are different churches, even different bibles - but there is only one Islam. Muhammad'S Islam, that is. One Quran (although in the very early times there have been several version that were opportunistically altered by local leaders to abuse iot for bolstering their personal power in that region), but there is just one Allah, one Quran, and one Sharia. And Islam not recognizing this, is not Islam.
Sorry, radio's getting a little loud. So when you call it by its name, then treat it is right that and not as something different - this is no democracy where people are free to chose.

I am not worrying for myself, since my life's zenith already is behind me, but I worry for the now young ones and the inhumane burden we load upon their shoulders. Also, I am allergic against stupidity that refuses to learn, this really gets me into arms, and mankind seems to love making the same mistakes over and over and over again, with so much infancy and insanity spreading everywhere and even right before my housedoor. Rest assured, I enjoy the life I live, very much retreated now and calm, but being able to live the way I want, and while not being rich, still living at nobody else's cost and not depending on state and wellfare, which I also would not accept, btw. And there are so many other things running hopelessly wrong about which we usually never speak in the GT forum anyway and that have nothing to do with environment or Islam. When then thinking about the young daughters of good friends of mine, or the young ones in general, I am sad but at the same time feel a tremendous, just furor in my soul. And on occasions when does not stay deep inside, but comes to the surface, I am no pleasant company, but an extremely angry man.

By 2030 the projected population of the U.S.A. will be 360,000,000. If any group who number even 10 million can dominate or control that many people then something is wrong with that society. In relation to the entire population it is an insignificant amount. I do not see any reason to be alarmed.

Yes I understand that situation as being different.

Agreed and there are other possibilities. Communication is being revolutionized constantly. The ability of a hierarchy to dominate by rhetoric and fear may be broken by a technological breakthrough. Of course that works both ways.

I cannot speak for Islam as, one, I am not a Muslim and two, I do not know a great deal about that religion. I am only now beginning to study up on it and in some ways you are responsible.:)

I must however clear up a misconception you may have concerning Christianity. True Biblical Christianity is not defined by the denomination or church that you belong to. There is no document that you can sign, no oath you can swear or no pronounced blessing you can receive that will make you this Christian. It does not depend on your behaviour, intelligence or for that matter any other circumstances. It is a spiritual condition that one arrives at by faith in one fact. That Jesus of Nazareth is the Redeemer. Period. What happens after that is up to the individual, but nothing changes that fact. Regrettably, some individuals and organizations behaviour is less than perfect and can give the wrong impression, and cause great harm but it does not change the singular requirement for being a Christian.

As well some individuals and organizations may say that there is more to it than that but a simple reading and understanding of the New Testament proves that approach wrong. It is an attempt by these groups to control individual believers and although may have some temporal authority they have no real spiritual power. True Biblical Christianity is a spiritual condition not an earthly position.

This, I would regrettably admit, is true.

Most of us feel this way at times. If I did not, I would question my humanity.