The future of europe?/Islam threads (Merged)

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by STEED

It struck me as bit in cuckoo land that bit of news.

Mentioned in the JPost article is Imam Dr. Abduljalil Sajid, of the UK Muslim Council for Religious and Racial Harmony. You can read a bit about his opinions in this article.

"Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Khosrau will be ruined, and there will be no Khosrau after him, and Caesar will surely be ruined and there will be no Caesar after him, and you will spend their treasures in Allah's Cause." He called, "War is deceit'."
Mohamad, Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52: Fighting for the Cause of Allah (Jihaad), Number 267

Suggested reading for these Christian, Jewish and Eurocrat conference participants: Stop accommodating and tell the truth.

[bradclark1]

Originally Posted by The Avon Lady

Sounds like you enjoyed Syrianna.

When will this old myth stop?

It's Not the Economy, Stupid: What the West Needs to Know about the Rise of Radical Islam (article from 1995!)

God and Mammon: Does Poverty Cause Militant Islam?

Saudi Columnists: Urbanization and Development in Southern Saudi Arabia, Not Poverty, Led to September 11

Arab Columnists: Terrorists are Motivated by Cultural and Religious Factors, Not Poverty

Terrorists' backgrounds defy conventional wisdom

Does poverty breed jihad?

Poverty and terror: two questions for Alain Gresh

Researchers probe motives of suicide bombers

Affluent Genocide

Nope, never even watched, read Syrianna. Don't even know what it's about and I'm too lazy to find out.
What I said doesn't mean I believe that is the sole factor. I'm not that stupid, but I'm willing to bet that that is the reason for maybe 60% or more of radicals. I'm sure as heck not saying to set them up in socialist heaven. It wouldn't do any good anyway.
This is what I believe and I'm not trying to change anyones mind. I can't say what I believe the fix would be because then this thread would be locked. I believe in fighting fire with fire.

[Yahoshua]

You might as well give up Scandium......because it seems apparent now that unless you actually go to these Arab countries and see for yourself how they practice their Islamic teachings, you will not understand Islam until you're on the receiving end of a 3 round burst.

I can vouch for Avon Lady as she lives in Israel (haven't met her in person though), and I have been to Israel myself. I even lived there for 3 months and I can absolutely agree with what evidences she ahs posted thus far. I (used to) own an english copy of the Q'uran printed in 1993, and after reading about 30 Surahs I can absolutely tell you that this is a violent, backwards charging religion that is intent on absolute domination. Not to mention that witnessing the aftermath of a bus bombing on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem can sure explain a thing or two about the illegitimacy of the PA, and Islam as a whole.

[caspofungin]

can't... take... anymore...

Originally Posted by Yahoshua

I can vouch for Avon Lady as she lives in Israel

what does that have to do with anything? I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and probably know more Muslims than any 2 people on this board, but apparently whatever I have to say on the topic isn't worth hearing...

Not to mention that witnessing the aftermath of a bus bombing on Ben Yehuda street in Jerusalem can sure explain a thing or two about the illegitimacy of the PA, and Islam as a whole.

yeah, and it also explains a lot about the occupation of a nation, the oppression, ill-use, and consequent resistance of those people, right or wrong, and has more to do with politics than religion.

But to look at the correlation from the other direction: how many of the world's 1.2 billion Muslims are linked (directly or through financial ties etc) to acts of Islamic terrorism?

good question. how many are, and how many aren't? but i guess it's easier to tar all 1.2 billion with the same brush, as long as it justifies treating them in a way that the west would never condone treating it's own.

****it. these threads always degenerate into the same slanging match. no one's going to change their opinion, so why are we even bringing this *****up?

[scandium]

Agreed. I'm already getting tired of the "discussion" in these threads that seem to serve little more for some then an opportunity to incite hatred and intolerance. Having myself already been attacked with everything from "being educated by pedophile priests" to a terrorist sympathizer, I'm done with participating in these threads.

Since there is absolutely no moderation going on in these threads, no matter what is said or how outrageous, they are beginning to appear more and more as an asylumn with the lunatics in charge, and they can have at it.

[CCIP]

Alright, I think I'll do a slightly more moderate form of my pledge not to participate in political discussion (that I made a couple of years ago and failed) -

I will boycott all threads that even hint at going into this issue, divide people broadly along any religious lines, or quote Koran/Jihadwatch/whathaveyou. It's the only way I can see of not propagating this, since I obviously don't possess any great and supernatural powers of logical persuasion to stop them.

[Yahoshua]

Gee Caspo, maybe you should watch this flash viceo: http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/~davoudo/israel.html and this one: http://www.conceptwizard.com/conen/conflict_2.html to see who is actually occupying who.

And if you can't seem to understand how violent Islam is after having lived in Saudi Arabia (Friday beheadings anyone?) then how will you understand anyone else?

Another flash video: http://www.conceptwizard.com/terror/a1.html and another: http://www.conceptwizard.com/imagine/imagine_n.html

And yes, I'd rather paint all Moslems with the same brush because I'm tired of tying to filter out the individuals. Moslems = Islam. And Islam is bent on dominating EVERYTHING. Including me.

So if they want to join the 21st century I want them to do it themselves and do so peacefully. Otherwise they can keep playing "Saddam, Saddam" 'till kingdom come. And if one of them so much as screams to the media about their "oh so horrible occupation under Israel" WHY do they come to Israel for jobs i it's so horrible? WHY is Israel the ONLY nation in the Middle East that doesn't have problems with aqcuiring enough food for their civilians?

If Islam is so peaceful, then why in the world does practically every person you can ask on the planet, know what the word "Jihad" means?

And yes your input is worth hearing but it oesn't mean I have to agree to it.

And just an FYI the bus bombing aftermath I saw was #10 on the terror list (if that was the one near Ben Yahuda Street).

And for good measure: http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html AND... http://www.conceptwizard.com/trial/trial.html

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by caspofungin

can't... take... anymore...

Inhale. Exhale.

what does that have to do with anything?

I pretty much agree. In this day and age, one does not have to be in Israel to live and learn about Islam.

I've lived in Saudi Arabia and Sudan, and probably know more Muslims than any 2 people on this board, but apparently whatever I have to say on the topic isn't worth hearing...

Now I disagree.

yeah, and it also explains a lot about the occupation of a nation,

There never was an Arab nation named Palestine. There was, however, a Jewish one.

the oppression,

That's what happens when you declare a never-ending war and continue attacking for decades. Boo damn hoo.

ill-use, and consequent resistance of those people, right or wrong, and has more to do with politics than religion.

It has to do with both. Which does it have to do with more? Toss a coin in the air. I write this to you from wakf proclaimed territory.

On the other hand, here's a case for stating it mostly has to do with Islam: Tell The Children the Truth. Site is run by or affiliated with Muslims, BTW.

good question. how many are, and how many aren't? but i guess it's easier to tar all 1.2 billion with the same brush, as long as it justifies treating them in a way that the west would never condone treating it's own.

I'll post this again:

Let us assume that the estimate, given by one , that 10-15% of Muslims are terrorists or potential terrorists. One does not know how this figure is arrived at. Ali Sina and other defectors from Islam, whom I trust, consider it to have the percentages backwards, for they suggest that 85-90% of Muslims might become potential terrorists, or supporters of similar acts, or would be ready to harm non-Muslims in other ways, in the conduct of Jihad. Who knows, really -- and how could we ever be certain? But even the gleeful behavior of masses of Muslims all over the world, after 9/11, or the numbers of people naming their sons "Osama," or the kinds of things routinely said and applauded at meetings of Muslim nations, or the kinds of demands made on Infidel societies by Muslims now living in their midst, or the behavior of Muslim pressure groups to limit the power of Infidels to undertake reasonable security measures (including, precisely, profiling to target not a race, or an ethnic group, but the adherents or potential adherents of the ideology of Islam), and the enormous efforts to conduct Da'wa by every conceivable and sly means, including the rewriting of textbooks to transform the history of Infidel lands, and to target the most vulnerable members of society(prisoners, immigrants, schoolchildren) for the conduct of Da'wa -- all of this should give any Infidel who has studied the theory and practice of Islam, considerable pause.

But suppose that the lowest estimate -- 10% of all Muslims -- were in fact somehow true? No, let us make that figure 5% -- only 5% are potential terrorists. Then what? If one out of 20 Muslims allowed into the Western world holds to these ideas, where are we then? Or what if one of the other 19 picks them up from that one? We have no way of insuring that every single Muslim will forever and ever be immune to such appeals.

That being the case, it is a matter of obvious prudence for Western governments to study carefully the question of Muslims migration to the Western world. Even if the figure of “only” 10% is accurate, we would be mad to continue to allow in and give citizenship to such a pool of people without a moment’s hesitation or examination or consideration. Infidel governments should not allow their policies to be dictated by fear of offending, or by believing their own absurdities -- no one should continue to mouth the kind of absurdities about the religion of "peace" and "tolerance" that we have had to endure in the past.

Prudence demands that risks be minimized. And time is running out.

From Pseudo-symmetries and moral equivalences



It's a "war on terror," and those "terrorists" are a "handful of extremists." No, they're slightly more than a "handful of extremists." Now they're ten percent, and now potentially 50 percent, or if we are to believe the ex-Muslims, the keen apostates, more like 80% or more of those who take Qur'an and Hadith seriously support acts of terror. And then, of course, we are not entitled, are we, to even discuss Da'wa and the demographic conquest of Western Europe -- even if such matters are discussed openly, with great anticipation and pleasure, at Muslim websites. That would not be possible.

Who's crazy? Who's schizophrenic? Is it Moussaoui? Is it Al-Sharbi? Or is it those Infidels who are still unwilling to look at the teachings of Islam -- the Infidels who are still too paralyzed with fear of what they might find out and who thus remain incapable of even beginning to study the texts of Islam, and to discover what caused the 1350-year history of Islamic conquest and subjugation and then codified oppression of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and indeed everyone under their control who was not a Muslim.

Who is crazy? Is it Al-Sharbi, or those who are discussing his case who will tell us that he's just "one more nut case, like Moussaoui"?

From Who's crazy?

these threads always degenerate into the same slanging match. no one's going to change their opinion, so why are we even bringing this **** up?

Actually, western opinion of Islam is changing. And it will change more the more people study Islam, its legal writings and its history.

Will enough infidels do so and make a change in the world? We can only hope.

[aaken]

There never was an Arab nation named Palestine. There was, however, a Jewish one.

My history is a little bit rusty...wasn't the jewish nation destroyed by the Romans in the first century? After that time, for how long there hasn't been a jewish nation in the middle east?

Coming back to Europe's future, I suppose in most of european countries there is a thing called law. If some morons break it, they should, theoretically, go to jail, independently from their religion/skin color/sex. Also, in Europe there is freedom of religion, it's been a constitutional right for quite some time now, in quite a few countries. The partial or total abrogation of such right, in my view, is not an answer to any problem. Just like I don't think it's an answer to get a gun and ammo. Gun and ammo to do what? Start an ethnical/religious cleansing? How charming! I bet that one must be quite an entertaining show!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by aaken

My history is a little bit rusty...wasn't the jewish nation destroyed by the Romans in the first century? After that time, for how long there hasn't been a jewish nation in the middle east?

Your history sounds fine to me! Before the Romans destroyed our country, they named it "Palaestina." Arabs can't even pronounce the name correctly ("P" is difficult, if not impossible for most Arabs to pronounce) and they're forced to mispronounce it as "Falastin."

We Jews have never given up our claim to Israel. As Menachem Begin reminded Israel's own Parliament:

"We were granted our right to exist by the God of our fathers at the glimmer of the dawn of human civilization four thousand years ago. Hence, the Jewish people have an historic, eternal and inalienable right to exist in this land, Eretz Yisrael, the land of our forefathers. We need nobody's recognition in asserting this inalienable right. And for this inalienable right, which has been sanctified in Jewish blood from generation to generation, we have paid a price unexampled in the annals of nations."

You may lump it, if you wish.

Coming back to Europe's future, I suppose in most of european countries there is a thing called law. If some morons break it, they should, theoretically, go to jail, independently from their religion/skin color/sex. Also, in Europe there is freedom of religion, it's been a constitutional right for quite some time now, in quite a few countries. The partial or total abrogation of such right, in my view, is not an answer to any problem. Just like I don't think it's an answer to get a gun and ammo. Gun and ammo to do what? Start an ethnical/religious cleansing? How charming! I bet that one must be quite an entertaining show!

This is what the other side has planned for you. Go ahead, sit back and relax. Just play wait and see, if you insist on not investigating what you're being tolerant of - your own society's demise.

[Skybird]

Since it was asked in two parrallel threads why these threads are there and why one should want to be so "intolerant" and criticise Islam and prefer ignorrance over "multi-culti", I suggest the following as an answer. By content it could have been from me, I agree with it very much.

I have massively criticised Bush and Neocons and the gap between American ideals and reality of American policy in earlier years. I was heavily attacked for that, but no one ever threatened to hurt or to kill me. I have criticised Christian sects and churches repeatedly and substantially, but never someone gave me reason to think he might visit me with a knife between his teeth.

It is no hobby for me, but in this forum we do speak abiut these things as well, and when in my real life I get asked, or someone tells nonsnes on these things in my presence, I do not let it go by untreated. It is important, it is about what I call my home in a wider understanding, and the future of our culture. You can expect that in my mothertongue I am more flexible and competent to express my thoughts. And more clearly.

As I have indicated earlier this year, in January I received the first paper/mail-letter ever where I was cursed for my "lies" and "attacks" and "distortions" of Muhammad and Islam, and was warned to let it be else my life may be shorter than I expect. Obviously it has come from a Muslim not from this board, since none here knows my adress, but some Muslim who happened to hear me and knows me from my real life. In February, I received the second of such a letter. I feel honoured. Usually you read in the newspaper about such things happening. Or is intimidating more regular today, even intimidation by our own governments? The editor of the conservative Brussel Journal, with whom I agree sometimes, sometimes not, is threatend with prosecution for the second time within weeks. First he was accused of racism and inhuman intolerance when criticising the pro-Islam policy of the EU, now they try to silence him with accusing him of violating his responsebility to edcuate his youngest children, because he is practicing home-teaching, which is allowed in Belgium, although rarely practiced. His two or three older children currently have made it as far as up to university. Obviously he cannot have tought them too bad. State controllers have tested them, and found them to be fully educated.

I am not afraid of this mail I received, it just justifies my opinion on Islam, and has risen my alert status a bit, and made me even angrier of the stupidity of people embracing Islam and mixing up tolerance with submission, multi-culti with Islam, racism with civilizational self-defense. That I get called a fascist some weeks ago, an intolerant and bigot, a phobic and whatever it is, I am used to. I got called by the same names whan I attacked the Iraq war in 2003. And back then the general atmosphere here was much more aggressive, and much hotter.

And just for the record, the old members do already know this, but there are some newcomers that have not stayed long enough to have red aboiut me in the past: I know a little bit about Islam by own experience. I lived and worked half a year in Iran, half a year in central and east Anatolia, and for another couple of months I have travelled several other Muslim countries. I red more than just three or four books about Islam, my shelf is nicely covered with stuff about it'S history, sociology, policy, and aboiut Koran, Hadith and the biography of Muhammad, the historically true figure I mean. If you think I just snap up some headlines and mirror them, and express some frustration about the EU, you are wrong. I attack Islam not becaue I do not know it. I attack it just exactly because I have learned about it.

Stop accommodating and tell the truth

Jihad Watch Board Vice President Hugh Fitzgerald offers an alternate plan to dhimmi governing officials:



A state policy of trying in every way to accommodate Muslims, including the policy of not offending them -- or rather, not doing anything that they could conceivably claim offends them -- is madness. It is obvious that Muslim groups, Muslim spokesman, Muslim individuals, are trying to force the Western world not to see what is in front of it. When appeals to the Idols of the Age ("Everyone Wants the Same Thing," "Everyone Is Exactly Alike") don't do it, other methods are chosen. These include murder of the outspoken (Pim Fortuyn or Theo Van Gogh) which unfortunately tends to make some Infidels suspicious of Muslims. It includes threats of murder, which unfortunately do not always work (Geert Wildres, Ayaan Hirsi Ali). It includes lawsuits and threats of lawsuits, including those the State brings (the trial of Oriana Fallaci). It includes outrage and hints of economic repercussions (Arab governments might pull those glossy ads), which can cause critics to lose their jobs (Will Cummins at The Telegraph).

The main thing is to shut those Infidels up, to force them to watch every word.

But this is madness. This is not only wrong, this is the very opposite of what should be done. Everywhere Infidels should demonstrate, repeatedly, ostentatiously, that they have studied the Qur'an and Hadith, and that they have read a sufficient amount about Jihad-conquest and the subjugation of non-Muslims, over 1350 years, so that they cannot be fooled. The mere presence of a single Infidel who knows what he is talking about at one of those Mosque Outreach sessions, can destroy its value to the Muslims who are attempting to inveigle the unwary Infidels. Knowledge is everything; knowledge and the ability to articulate. Those Infidels who wish to carefully regulate the language in which Islam is discussed, because they have been told to do so by apologists for Islam (in many cases, Muslim propagandists and agitators; in other cases, non-Muslim collaborators; in still other cases, simpletons in positions of authority) are simply choosing to deny what Islam teaches, what attitudes it clearly inculcates, and what has been the perceived behavior of Muslims, animated by the immutable texts, from Spain to the East Indies over 1350 years. One can ignore all that and keep hoping and wishing, or one can decide to pull the pillow off of one's head and face the day, however disturbing it may be. The most intelligent thing to do is for Muslims to be put constantly on the defensive, to be constantly made aware that non-Muslims no longer will accept the nonsense about a "religion." Call it a belief-system with elements of worship and a great deal of everything else -- a political system, a social system -- one which is based on a clear division of the Universe between Believer and Infidel. Let Islam be criticized, let Islam be mocked. There will be a gigantic campaign, by Muslims -- there is such a campaign, uncoordinated, spontaneous, by all kinds of Muslims everywhere, to protect the Faith from those who do not discuss it exactly as Believers think they should -- which is exactly in the way that Believers do. But as Ali Sina says, constant mockery, constant awareness of Islam as a totalitarian system, an awareness displayed on every occasion by Infidels, will force certain changes, not least among Muslims of good will and open mind -- or at least stop the onward march of Islam.


Muslims are intent on remaining in the Lands of the Infidels and indeed on swelling their own ranks and power until they will not have to worry about what Infidels think at all. But at this point they still have to worry. They have to worry about whether or not the Infidels will come to their senses sufficiently, will look into history, and will look simply around the world to see how non-Muslims are treated in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, in Iran and Sudan, in Pakistan and Bangladesh and Indonesia, in Malaysia and Afghanistan, and everywhere that Islam prevails and has not been systematically contained either by local despots (Ataturk in Turkey, Bourguiba in Tunisia) and their successors, or opposed by a very large and powerful non-Muslim population (the Maronites in Lebanon until recent decades).

Tell the truth about Islam. Tell it all the time, in different keys. Show that you know what you are talking about. Modify, at times, the way you tell those truths to fit the audience you have, but keep it up. That is the way to make Infidels safer. And it is also the way to hold out hope for those people who, born into Islam, yet not liking it, wishing to escape from it, secretly hope the Infidels will limit its influence, will force changes upon it or at least the perceived need for change to the teachings, and thus the texts, of Islam.

To limit what is said, to be so solicitous of those who do not wish us well, who wish us, our laws, our customs, our understandings, our freedoms, ill, who in many cases are delighted with whatever suffering they can inflict on Infidels anywhere, is crazy. We should worry not about offending Muslims, but about whether or not we have effectively conveyed to them that we understand Islam, and that we understand that it is only those Muslims who do not accept its full teachings -- that is, the bad Muslims -- with whom we can conceivably coexist. And that furthermore we cannot always tell which Muslim is a lax, unobservant, "bad" Muslim, and which is not, nor which children or grandchildren of "bad" Muslims will revert, for one reason or another, to the original, full-bodied, dangerous version.

To engage in self-censorship, to prevent Islam from being freely discussed using terms that are neither obscene nor vicious but only, unfortunately, grimly accurate, to worry about offending Muslim sensibilities, which only promotes (in advance of and in the absence of Muslim rule) the dhimmi mentality, the very theme of Bat Ye'or's Eurabia -- all this will do nothing to protect Infidels. It will do nothing to modify the beliefs of Muslims, nor to encourage the camp of those Muslims who wish that other Muslims would recognize the dangers of what Islam teaches, and work to somehow modify it. If Infidels will not tell the truth about Islam, those would-be "reformers" within Islam will have no one to point to, no way of creating the necessary atmosphere of defensiveness and alarm which is the only thing likely to force at least some Muslims to realize, and then to admit to, some of the dangers and faults of Islam.

Too many people say they get easily bored by something if it is repeated. Too many just stanad in silence and prefer to followe their every day routine, assuming all will be good, the others will care. Too many people think it is not up to them to stand up against aggression, and defend what one is calling "home" and "civilization"

Too few defenders to win this confrontation with Islam, therefore.

[The Avon Lady]

Bah! I linked to that article yesterday!:rotfl:

[aaken]

I'm not disputing the fact that you've never given up your claim on Israel, nor I'm disputing the right of anybody to exist. But, although the arabs who were previously living over there have never been a nation, I don't think that displacing them (in part or in toto) and occupying the land that, for any reason, they thought it was theirs, has had a good effect on their mood.
Needless to say, whatever claim they may have, it doesn't justify the use of terrorism on their part. On the other hand, if kids start throwing rocks and you blast them with tank fire, it's not exactly polite.

But back to Europe.
European countries have been subject to a flow of immigration (legal and illegal) from other european countries and from non european countries . The main reason for that, I suppose, it's economical. People trying to move to places where they may enjoy better life style, earn more money, and so on. Since in Europe we do have freedom of religion, freedom of association and so on, it's normal that the immigrants (part of which eventually become citizens of their host countries) are allowed to pray whatever God they may like. it's normal as well that they bring part of their culture in the host countries. If this is not in contrast with the laws of the host country, I don't have a problem with that.
And I don't think the fact that in Saudi Arabia christians are not allowed to pray their God is an excuse to do the same in Europe.
As for the demise of my society...well...in the middle ages parts of Europe were invaded by muslims (and by anybody else as well), in some parts there was also a somewhat pacific co-existance of christians and muslims (like in south Italy during the reign of the Emperor Frederic the second), in other parts there was no co-existance. Still, most of the countries in Europe survived, evolved and ... eventually here we are today.

[Skybird]

Somehow you are always a second ahead of me.

Any chance that you do play chess...?

Wanted to have done it yesterday, but football was against it.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by aaken

I'm not disputing the fact that you've never given up your claim on Israel, nor I'm disputing the right of anybody to exist. But, although the arabs who were previously living over there have never been a nation, I don't think that displacing them (in part or in toto)

There were not displaced in 1947, when the UN partitioned the country and Israel accepted it, with all it's disadvantages.

They were displaced in 1948, when the Arabs declared war and attacked the Jewish State. They were then kept displaced by the Arabs themselves, who used them as a tool of misery against Israel for 20 years and no one in the world batted an eyelid about them.

and occupying the land that, for any reason, they thought it was theirs, has had a good effect on their mood.

The Arabs again threatened to push the Jews into the sea, mounted their troops, tanks and air forces against Israel. They lost. We won. Too bad.

In a sane world, the lesson would be crime does not pay. Not so with the Arabs against the Jews.

In any case, it was the Arabs who refused to negotiate and "recognize" Israel for another decade.

Reminder: the PLO, with its charter to destroy Israel, was founded in 1964 - 3 years before any Israeli had a foothold in Judea, Samaria or Gaza.

You reap what you sow.

Needless to say, whatever claim they may have, it doesn't justify the use of terrorism on their part. On the other hand, if kids start throwing rocks and you blast them with tank fire, it's not exactly polite.

This is a lie.

But back to Europe.
European countries have been subject to a flow of immigration (legal and illegal) from other european countries and from non european countries . The main reason for that, I suppose, it's economical. People trying to move to places where they may enjoy better life style, earn more money, and so on. Since in Europe we do have freedom of religion, freedom of association and so on, it's normal that the immigrants (part of which eventually become citizens of their host countries) are allowed to pray whatever God they may like.

So put Abu Hamza back in the Finsbury Mosque for all I care!

it's normal as well that they bring part of their culture in the host countries. If this is not in contrast with the laws of the host country, I don't have a problem with that.

Bingo!

Is Sha'aria law "in contrast" with European laws? Yes or no? (Skybird, no sarcastic remarks, please! )

Is Jihad law "in contrast" with European laws?

You will learn the hard way that the democracy and libertarian society that you so love and cherish (justifiably so), will be eaten away from within.

And I don't think the fact that in Saudi Arabia christians are not allowed to pray their God is an excuse to do the same in Europe.

Are Christians trying to forceably or cunningly rule over Saudi Arabia and then harshly subjugate its population afterwards and kill those that continue to resist?

Where is the comparison? Learn, learn, learn what dhimmitude is, what jizyah is, how they were employed in countries overrun by Islam.

As for the demise of my society...well...in the middle ages parts of Europe were invaded by muslims (and by anybody else as well), in some parts there was also a somewhat pacific co-existance of christians and muslims (like in south Italy during the reign of the Emperor Frederic the second), in other parts there was no co-existance. Still, most of the countries in Europe survived, evolved and ... eventually here we are today.

Thanks to the Crusades. Otherwise, indeed you would not likely be on this forum or this forum may not have existed for that matter. What we discuss is Haram.