Anti-Islam march in German city of Dresden

[Morakot]

However, when considering the vehicle in which Islam spreads, its Shar'ia fabric that is as equally binding on believers as non believers,

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

(Skip the first 40 sec of prayer in Arabic)

Edited December 17, 2014 by Morakot

[empireboy]

Its about time that we Europeans recognise the threat caused by Islamic extremist AND American Christain extremists.

Stop with the foolish talking points. Radical Islam dwarfs the problems caused by any other religion. There is no legitimate comparison.

Would you not say that the Christian Crusades were a "legitimate comparison" where several hundred thousand Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and knocked off an estimated 2,000,000 people?

ALL Big Religions have their extremists and they are ALL guilty of unspeakable hideous crimes against humanity!!!

[Steely Dan]

Didn't Merkel once say multiculturalism had failed in Germany?

she did but in context of "we must try harder."

I think most westerners think it pretty trying, due of course to the usual suspects who try to impose their own uniformity whilst hiding behind liberal belief in diversity.

[The manic]

Its about time that we Europeans recognise the threat caused by Islamic extremist AND American Christain extremists.

Stop with the foolish talking points. Radical Islam dwarfs the problems caused by any other religion. There is no legitimate comparison.

Would you not say that the Christian Crusades were a "legitimate comparison" where several hundred thousand Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and knocked off an estimated 2,000,000 people?

ALL Big Religions have their extremists and they are ALL guilty of unspeakable hideous crimes against humanity!!!

Nonsense. The people who refer to the crusades, usually unwittingly influenced by muslim propaganda, forget that you cannot compare events of one thousand years ago to current issues. The main enemy of freedom and rationality is Islam. And it is happening now.

[The manic]

United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7% and they got Muhammed to #1 spot in baby boys names this year.

Ukistan you mean?

[Ulysses G.]

Its about time that we Europeans recognise the threat caused by Islamic extremist AND American Christain extremists.

Stop with the foolish talking points. Radical Islam dwarfs the problems caused by any other religion. There is no legitimate comparison.

Would you not say that the Christian Crusades were a "legitimate comparison" where several hundred thousand Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and knocked off an estimated 2,000,000 people?

I would say that was something like 1,000 years ago and has VERY little to do with the problems the world faces TODAY.

[Saradoc1972]

However, when considering the vehicle in which Islam spreads, its Shar'ia fabric that is as equally binding on believers as non believers,

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

Thanks for the link, I have just watched that video, had so far only read about it.

It probably needs an explanantion (for everyone else at least), that "Sharia" is not some kind of islamic criminal code, that only is a small part of it, but literally means "the path to be taken" in archaic Arabic.

It contains the five pillars of Islam (pray 5x, Shahada, Hadj, alms, feasting) and is a bit like an Islamic Catechism, but mostly about conducting your own life in the right way. Hence, Muslims can't very well distance themselves from that.

Part of the problem, from my point of view, as most non-muslims think Islam=Sharia, which they fear. On the other hand it's hard for Muslims to separate those ancients texts from their personal Islam when taken at face value.

Responding to your earlier post I'd have to say we totally lack that sort of public declaration in Germany.

This is exactly what I am missing everytime there is a major incident in the world or some foiled bomb or assassination plot in Germany (things have been relatively quiet here so far apart from people going to Syria and possibly returning).

We have no shortage of squabbling Muslim organisations, I am still making up my mind about them, so I'll get back to that later. For the time being it looks a bit like "Life of Brian".

What they are apparently totally steering clear of is condemming the acts of other Muslims as "unislamic", as in: barbaric, but intrinsically an Islamic problem.

Any statement will read something like "We Muslims condemn every kind of racism and violence, no matter from which side."

When pressed by the press (that's what they're there for, hence the name) to comment on ISIS and what's going on in Syria there have only been thight-lipped statements, this was nothing to do with Islam at all.

So why do they appear in all those talk-shows, if they're done after one minute?

Q: "Do you distance yourself from those acts committed by Muslims?"

A: "I don't need to distance myself from something I was never close to to begin with."

(Orginal text from a high-profile talkshow on a state tv channel with Aiman Mazyek, chairman of Zentralrat der Muslime)

That Central Council of Muslims is one of the bigger organisations and quite liberal, this chairman is very level-headed and educated.

I was well aware of the "muslim patrol incident" and the "ginger taliban" before and followed that event avidly, to see what these guys would get in court, more from a criminalist's point of view.

I doubt he'd have gone to prison in Germany, and certainly not for that long. Job well done.

We had a bit of our own German version in Wuppertal in September, but there were no threats, no shivs, and no non-muslims involved. Just some guys with scraggly beards wearing vests labelled "Sharia Police" [in English] stepping up to apparent Muslims admonishing them not to consume alcohol. (has happended to me, too, but those wore white clothes and called themselves physicians)

Nothing much happened, guys just had their identities checked by police, never heard from again. Big public outcry up to the chancellor, probably a huge PR success for those salafists.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Saradoc1972

[The manic]

However, when considering the vehicle in which Islam spreads, its Shar'ia fabric that is as equally binding on believers as non believers,

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

Thanks for the link, I have just watched that video, had so far only read about it.

It probably needs an explanantion (for everyone else at least), that "Sharia" is not some kind of islamic criminal code, that only is a small part of it, but literally means "the path to be taken" in archaic Arabic.

It contains the five pillars of Islam (pray 5x, Shahada, Hadj, alms, feasting) and is a bit like an Islamic Catechism, but mostly about conducting your own life in the right way. Hence, Muslims can't very well distance themselves from that.

Part of the problem, from my point of view, as most non-muslims think Islam=Sharia, which they fear. On the other hand it's hard for Muslims to separate those ancients texts from their personal Islam when taken at face value.

Responding to your earlier post I'd have to say we totally lack that sort of public declaration in Germany.

This is exactly what I am missing everytime there is a major incident in the world or some foiled bomb or assassination plot in Germany (things have been relatively quiet here so far apart from people going to Syria and possibly returning).

We have no shortage of squabbling Muslim organisations, I am still making up my mind about them, so I'll get back to that later. For the time being it looks a bit like "Life of Brian".

What they are apparently totally steering clear of is condemming the acts of other Muslims as "unislamic", as in: barbaric, but intrinsically an Islamic problem.

Any statement will read something like "We Muslims condemn every kind of racism and violence, no matter from which side."

When pressed by the press (that's what they're there for, hence the name) to comment on ISIS and what's going on in Syria there have only been thight-lipped statements, this was nothing to do with Islam at all.

So why do they appear in all those talk-shows, if they're done after one minute?

Q: "Do you distance yourself from those acts committed by Muslims?"

A: "I don't need to distance myself from something I was never close to to begin with."

(Orginal text from a high-profile talkshow on a state tv channel with Aiman Mazyek, chairman of Zentralrat der Muslime)

That Central Council of Muslims is one of the bigger organisations and quite liberal, this chairman is very level-headed and educated.

I was well aware of the "muslim patrol incident" and the "ginger taliban" before and followed that event avidly, to see what these guys would get in court, more from a criminalist's point of view.

I doubt he'd have gone to prison in Germany, and certainly not for that long. Job well done.

We had a bit of our own German version in Wuppertal in September, but there were no threats, no shivs, and no non-muslims involved. Just some guys with scraggly beards wearing vests labelled "Sharia Police" [in English] stepping up to apparent Muslims admonishing them not to consume alcohol. (has happended to me, too, but those wore white clothes and called themselves physicians)

Nothing much happened, guys just had their identities checked by police, never heard from again. Big public outcry up to the chancellor, probably a huge PR success for those salafists.

Who elected this muslim council? Not me. Who elected the muslim parliament? No one.

Who elected the so called community leaders? No one. Was the local indigenous

community consulted when they built the Salafist Mosque in the East End?

What is not understood is how muslims trade and peddle power back and forth between the democracies they live and the muslim autocracies from where they originated. Local pakistani councillors in the UK use their power to support their relatives back in pakistan and vice a versa. It happens in east end of London. It happens in the middle east with the Palestinians getting jobs for their own and receiving political benefits back home. Islam is a scourge, a blight, a cancer and it must be cut out off our society.

[arjunadawn]

However, when considering the vehicle in which Islam spreads, its Shar'ia fabric that is as equally binding on believers as non believers,

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

(Skip the first 40 sec of prayer in Arabic)

I had not yet but will honor your post and watch this.

Shar'ia law is binding upon non muslims. In fact, Shar'ia is entirely predicated upon the relationship of muslims with muslims, muslims with non muslim believers of "the book," and muslims with non believers in anything. If one were to remove those who you suggest Shar'ia does not apply, there would not be Shar'ia. Shar'ia is the working mechanism of the divine plan in the dar al harb, house of war and the dar al salam, house of peace. Shar'ia is seen as the divine mandate of Al Lah. To suggest, even remotely, that inherent in Islam is the machinery to apply its tenets only to its own believers belies self evident truth obvious for 1400 years! Shar'ia as an ideology is applicable to every single creature on earth.

If you meet or hear muslims stating Shar'ia is only an innocuous internal mechanism for muslim's interactions with muslims they are lying! They are not deceiving, they are lying. There has never been an example in history where Shar'ia was the singular law of the land in which it did not also apply to kafirs. Throughout the world today much ado about the horrors inflicted upon the innocent is solely Shar'ia based; this is among the endless sources for justifying the terrible horrors inflicted upon others. The mass persecution of christians around the world today, nearly constituting genocide, is entirely predicated upon Shar'ia. Nonsense? I think not! Shar'ia is much more dangerous than either national socialism or communism, or really any despotism, because it operates under the color of religion and cloaks all its authority in revelation and divine mandate. Thus, the modern world is unarmed because the title "religion" increasingly affords a leeway to Islam which is only responded to with further aggression, and the room afforded Islam's "uniqueness" is occupied by the war-like expansion of the Shar'ia termplate. Shar'ia does not seek equality among peoples. Shar'ia seeks supremacy!

[Saradoc1972]

Who elected this muslim council? Not me. Who elected the muslim parliament? No one.

Who elected the so called community leaders? No one.

They are actually elected, believe it or not, as opposed to Protestant bishops or the Pope.

They actually are a private-law association and far from the status of the two big churches under public law.

Hence, every Muslim is free to feel represented by them, donate money to them, join them as a member, ignore them, or leave them at whim.

The obvious problem is that they don't represent all Muslims, not even all German Muslims, and only have 20,000 members (and possibly a lot more followers)

and then there is DITIB, firmly controlled by the Turkish government, then there is the Islamic Council, and of course the... you name them. Bit like "Life of Brian", as I wrote.

[arjunadawn]

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

(Skip the first 40 sec of prayer in Arabic)

Ok, I watched this video until 1/2 mark. The speaker brings up the question quite early, does shar'ia apply to non muslims. After considerable dissembling and digression he still has not answered the question at 9+ minutes, but only talks idly about proper payment for destroying a kafir's goods. Its really a false question because Shar'ia is wholly applicable to muslims and non muslims alike. Asking the question implies freedom, or some sort. There is no freedom. Islam does not mean "Peace;" this is fallacious and Arabic muslims have allowed the idea to continue because it is not impolite. Islam means "submission." Islam and Salam do not derive from the same Arabic etymology. Islam is submission!

The idea that Shar'ia is not binding on non muslims is so totally false as to be mischievous or "gaslighting" (the psyops/misinformation campaign made popular in politics where a non truth is repeated often enough that it is accepted as true). One can pontificate endlessly about the various mechanisms upon which non muslims are treated or compensated in a Shar'ia society, and compulsion in religion (as this speaker has done to the 9+minute mark), but the fact remains there is both compulsion in religion in Shar'ia, a chaste system or tiered society, and slavery.

How can any ideology that has as a core tenet slavery be suggested as not applying to non muslims? This is so utterly absurd as to be an indefensible position. Non muslims are coerced by having to pay a tax to not be a muslim; but this is not sufficient. The shar'ia/scripture makes clear they are to pay the tax in such a way as to be made to feel "subjugated/humiliated." But those who are even afforded the option to practice their own religion, under duress, are only christian and jews, in a really shar'ia compliant society. Everyone else is forced to convert or die; period. This is the only option for Buddhists and Hindus, and others. Only "people of the book" are afforded the various forms of taxed civil status. How utterly indefensible in the 21st century!

How on earth could anyone dissemble this horrific ideology into a rational faculty of civil society.

The OP byline regarding "...Anti-Islam..." is insulting to all reasoned minds in the world. Why must people be anti- anything? Why cant the Germans simply be pro-rationalists, or Pro-Reason, or Anti-Slavery, or Anti-coercion, or Anti-death cult, or Pro-German? Why must the byline insidiously impugn the motives of those who oppose such darkness by suggesting a religious overture? Shar'ia marches in Germany in a manner that will be quite familiar to older Germans. It has the same coercive nature and universal calling, the same camaraderie and the same demonization of the "other." I dare say Germans are keenly aware how dangerous Shar'ia is. In a society where even the Chancellor has openly declared "Immigration has failed" it is incredulous that liberal architects of Eurabia continue to peddle the nonsense of fraternity and equality of cultures.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

[Morch]

Its about time that we Europeans recognise the threat caused by Islamic extremist AND American Christain extremists.

Stop with the foolish talking points. Radical Islam dwarfs the problems caused by any other religion. There is no legitimate comparison.

Would you not say that the Christian Crusades were a "legitimate comparison" where several hundred thousand Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and knocked off an estimated 2,000,000 people?

ALL Big Religions have their extremists and they are ALL guilty of unspeakable hideous crimes against humanity!!!

Trying to think about unspeakable hideous crimes against humanity committed in the name of Buddhism. Should be an anecdotal one, at least, if not quite the murderous routine which might be associated with some of the other "big" (how does this go, btw? "My religion is bigger than yours"?) religions.

[Saradoc1972]

Ok, I watched this video until 1/2 mark. The speaker brings up the question quite early, does shar'ia apply to non muslims. After considerable dissembling and digression he still has not answered the question at 9+ minutes, but only talks idly about proper payment for destroying a kafir's goods. Its really a false question because Shar'ia is wholly applicable to muslims and non muslims alike. Asking the question implies freedom, or some sort. There is no freedom. Islam does not mean "Peace;" this is fallacious and Arabic muslims have allowed the idea to continue because it is not impolite. Islam means "submission." Islam and Salam do not derive from the same Arabic etymology. Islam is submission!

[snip]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

First of all, thanks for that link. Helps me with the thorough research on Islam, multi-culti, integration in Germany, and all the sidelines of these topics I've been doing over the last three weeks. Always nice to see foreign nations' takes on German politics and especially Merkel's universal drivel.

I'd have to say only watching 1/2 of a rather short video sounds like a rather short attention span, and I don't like all the SHOUTING in that post and all the name-dropping.

Thing is, Islam might be about submission, depending of what you make of it. But: if you are living in any country there are laws. Everywhere. And you have to "submit" to them, or else.

The "or else" might be less intimidating in non-Muslim states, but still. So Islamic law (they don't really hold with nation states when there should be the ummah in a dar al salam) is not all that different, apart from lacking all the good ideas western civilisations have given birth to when formulating universal declarations of human rights, e.g. the European Court of Human Rights or the German basic law, which along with democracy are, according to some - certainly not all - people calling themselves Muslims, incompatible with their interpretation of Sharia (meaning the portion pertaining to what a pre-medieval civilisation thought constituted a crime and the proper punishment for it).

There have been non-Muslim countries through the ages levying taxes on people of a deviating denomination and subjecting those people to different sets of law. Believe me, I'm German.

Laws are, even when in this case they are divine laws, what you make of them. The German basic law or constitution (Grundgesetz, short GG) starts with 17 articles defining basic rights, a couple of them unalienable human rights for everybody, some of them pertaining to German citizens, but apart from the utterly untouchable Art.1 GG ("Die Würde des Menschens ist unverletzlich" - "human dignity shall be unviolable" - do follow that link!!), all of those Grundrechte are in a Spannungsverhältnis (relationship of tension). Meaning, they are curbed by each other, just how much and in what way is defined by a judge or court.

So, e.g. and very much on topic, if a Muslim family decides their daughters will not take part in a school's swimming tuition (all that naked flesh and the boys) and sexual education (no need for that once they've been married off aged 15 to some cousin to henceforth be confined to his house), a German judge might decide that decision had to be honoured in the light of Art. 4, Art. 6 par. 1 and 2 sentence 1 , Art. 7 par. 1 GG over Art. 6 par 1 sentence 2 and Art. 7 par. 2 GG. Obviously enough that isn't the case, and the authorities will send the police to get the poor things out of there. At least in theory, and not without some lengthy attempts at mediation first.

(I sincerely advocate a massive clampdown here in Germany, no matter what and all the clamour about it. Jugendamt, prison, show them who's boss according to Sharia's tenet to follow the law outside an islamic society, they can still claim taquiyya before their god.)

Hence, an ideal islamic state could -in theory- define it's laws in a way where all dhimmis (i.e. Jews and Christians) pay the same "infidel tax" muslims pay as a "war tax" and build some sort of analogy for atheists and apostates by a lenient exegesis of Muslim holy texts. And there might -in theory again- be no need for a war tax at all. And apart from Iran, the vast majority of Muslim states don't chop off limbs and maybe have abolished the death penalty. Unless the central government holds no sway over certain territories, like in Pakistan or Lybia, Somalia or Nigeria, where law is down to radical Muslim stone-age criminal gangs.

Actually, Jews where delighted to pay that tax and enjoy at least some rights and protection in Islamic territories since the medieval times, as opposed to living in fear in Christian territories. Islam was somewhat of a "model society" during the middle-ages and some time after in terms of human rights, freedom of faith, science and the exchange of ideas! Unfortunately, after that just about everything went wrong.

Well, it never was to be, it hardly ever is going to be, including laicist states such as Turkey and Indonesia, Islam being as missionary a religion as can be, and that is why IMHO radical, salafist Islam has to be kept out of Germany and Europe at all costs. Moderate Muslims as such never were a problem, especially when they fled their home countries to escape that very Sharia we're talking about. The problem is discerning them from radicals and those prone to radicalisation when you only can look at someone's forehead and not beyond.

Islam as a world religion has to a large degree failed to evolve and is hence at least a serious problem to integration of foreign nationals, in some cases it's utterly incompatible to democracy and modern humanist values.

With regard to that video (and that moderated version of Sharia) I'll actually come to your aid in my next post after doing some more reading.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Saradoc1972

[arjunadawn]

Ok, I watched this video until 1/2 mark. The speaker brings up the question quite early, does shar'ia apply to non muslims. After considerable dissembling and digression he still has not answered the question at 9+ minutes, but only talks idly about proper payment for destroying a kafir's goods. Its really a false question because Shar'ia is wholly applicable to muslims and non muslims alike. Asking the question implies freedom, or some sort. There is no freedom. Islam does not mean "Peace;" this is fallacious and Arabic muslims have allowed the idea to continue because it is not impolite. Islam means "submission." Islam and Salam do not derive from the same Arabic etymology. Islam is submission!

[snip]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

First of all, thanks for that link. Helps me with the thorough research on Islam, multi-culti, integration in Germany, and all the sidelines of these topics I've been doing over the last three weeks. Always nice to see foreign nations' takes on German politics and especially Merkel's universal drivel.

I'd have to say only watching 1/2 of a rather short video sounds like a rather short attention span, and I don't like all the SHOUTING in that post and all the name-dropping.

Thing is, Islam might be about submission, depending of what you make of it. But: if you are living in any country there are laws. Everywhere. And you have to "submit" to them, or else.

The "or else" might be less intimidating in non-Muslim states, but still. So Islamic law (they don't really hold with nation states when there should be the ummah in a dar al salam) is not all that different, apart from lacking all the good ideas western civilisations have given birth to when formulating universal declarations of human rights, e.g. the European Court of Human Rights or the German basic law, which along with democracy are, according to some - certainly not all - people calling themselves Muslims, incompatible with their interpretation of Sharia (meaning the portion pertaining to what a pre-medieval civilisation thought constituted a crime and the proper punishment for it).

There have been non-Muslim countries through the ages levying taxes on people of a deviating denomination and subjecting those people to different sets of law. Believe me, I'm German.

Laws are, even when in this case they are divine laws, what you make of them. The German basic law or constitution (Grundgesetz, short GG) starts with 17 articles defining basic rights, a couple of them unalienable human rights for everybody, some of them pertaining to German citizens, but apart from the utterly untouchable Art.1 GG ("Die Würde des Menschens ist unverletzlich" - "human dignity shall be unviolable" - do follow that link!!), all of those Grundrechte are in a Spannungsverhältnis (relationship of tension). Meaning, they are curbed by each other, just how much and in what way is defined by a judge or court.

So, e.g. and very much on topic, if a Muslim family decides their daughters will not take part in a school's swimming tuition (all that naked flesh and the boys) and sexual education (no need for that once they've been married off aged 15 to some cousin to henceforth be confined to his house), a German judge might decide that decision had to be honoured in the light of Art. 4, Art. 6 par. 1 and 2 sentence 1 , Art. 7 par. 1 GG over Art. 6 par 1 sentence 2 and Art. 7 par. 2 GG. Obviously enough that isn't the case, and the authorities will send the police to get the poor things out of there. At least in theory, and not without some lengthy attempts at mediation first.

(I sincerely advocate a massive clampdown here in Germany, no matter what and all the clamour about it. Jugendamt, prison, show them who's boss according to Sharia's tenet to follow the law outside an islamic society, they can still claim taquiyya before their god.)

Hence, an ideal islamic state could -in theory- define it's laws in a way where all dhimmis (i.e. Jews and Christians) pay the same "infidel tax" muslims pay as a "war tax" and build some sort of analogy for atheists and apostates by a lenient exegesis of Muslim holy texts. And there might -in theory again- be no need for a war tax at all. And apart from Iran, the vast majority of Muslim states don't chop off limbs and maybe have abolished the death penalty. Unless the central government holds no sway over certain territories, like in Pakistan or Lybia, Somalia or Nigeria, where law is down to radical Muslim stone-age criminal gangs.

Actually, Jews where delighted to pay that tax and enjoy at least some rights and protection in Islamic territories since the medieval times, as opposed to living in fear in Christian territories. Islam was somewhat of a "model society" during the middle-ages and some time after in terms of human rights, freedom of faith, science and the exchange of ideas! Unfortunately, after that just about everything went wrong.

Well, it never was to be, it hardly ever is going to be, including laicist states such as Turkey and Indonesia, Islam being as missionary a religion as can be, and that is why IMHO radical, salafist Islam has to be kept out of Germany and Europe at all costs. Moderate Muslims as such never were a problem, especially when they fled their home countries to escape that very Sharia we're talking about. The problem is discerning them from radicals and those prone to radicalisation when you only can look at someone's forehead and not beyond.

Islam as a world religion has to a large degree failed to evolve and is hence at least a serious problem to integration of foreign nationals, in some cases it's utterly incompatible to democracy and modern humanist values.

With regard to that video (and that moderated version of Sharia) I'll actually come to your aid in my next post after doing some more reading.

If my bolding and underlining is interpreted as shouting I will stop this practice; I think I do it often. I don't SHOUT, however. While my posts annoy many people I do try and divorce emotion. It seems like a fair critique of my post though because if one person like you thinks this, then it is fair to say I m missing my intention by bolding and underlining and others are likely turned off as well (I think I just tried to ID critical points this way). I generally think of all CAPS as shouting, but your point is taken well. My effort to watch the film was less a short attention span and more incredulity as I already know that Shar'ia applies to all irrespective of any comments otherwise. Your post is most excellent and informative; also a keen perspective. Thank you.

[Steely Dan]

However, when considering the vehicle in which Islam spreads, its Shar'ia fabric that is as equally binding on believers as non believers,

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

(

of prayer in Arabic)

I had not yet but will honor your post and watch this.

Shar'ia law is binding upon non muslims. In fact, Shar'ia is entirely predicated upon the relationship of muslims with muslims, muslims with non muslim believers of "the book," and muslims with non believers in anything. If one were to remove those who you suggest Shar'ia does not apply, there would not be Shar'ia. Shar'ia is the working mechanism of the divine plan in the dar al harb, house of war and the dar al salam, house of peace. Shar'ia is seen as the divine mandate of Al Lah. To suggest, even remotely, that inherent in Islam is the machinery to apply its tenets only to its own believers belies self evident truth obvious for 1400 years! Shar'ia as an ideology is applicable to every single creature on earth.

If you meet or hear muslims stating Shar'ia is only an innocuous internal mechanism for muslim's interactions with muslims they are lying! They are not deceiving, they are lying. There has never been an example in history where Shar'ia was the singular law of the land in which it did not also apply to kafirs. Throughout the world today much ado about the horrors inflicted upon the innocent is solely Shar'ia based; this is among the endless sources for justifying the terrible horrors inflicted upon others. The mass persecution of christians around the world today, nearly constituting genocide, is entirely predicated upon Shar'ia. Nonsense? I think not! Shar'ia is much more dangerous than either national socialism or communism, or really any despotism, because it operates under the color of religion and cloaks all its authority in revelation and divine mandate. Thus, the modern world is unarmed because the title "religion" increasingly affords a leeway to Islam which is only responded to with further aggression, and the room afforded Islam's "uniqueness" is occupied by the war-like expansion of the Shar'ia termplate. Shar'ia does not seek equality among peoples. Shar'ia seeks supremacy!

The testimony of an infidel is not permissible under Sharia. Blasphemy laws are frequently applied to Christians throughout the Muslim world. Even so called moderate Malaysia has barred non Muslims from using certain words. The list of examples of Sharia being given universal jurisdiction are indeed endless.

[The manic]

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

(

of prayer in Arabic)

Ok, I watched this video until 1/2 mark. The speaker brings up the question quite early, does shar'ia apply to non muslims. After considerable dissembling and digression he still has not answered the question at 9+ minutes, but only talks idly about proper payment for destroying a kafir's goods. Its really a false question because Shar'ia is wholly applicable to muslims and non muslims alike. Asking the question implies freedom, or some sort. There is no freedom. Islam does not mean "Peace;" this is fallacious and Arabic muslims have allowed the idea to continue because it is not impolite. Islam means "submission." Islam and Salam do not derive from the same Arabic etymology. Islam is submission!

The idea that Shar'ia is not binding on non muslims is so totally false as to be mischievous or "gaslighting" (the psyops/misinformation campaign made popular in politics where a non truth is repeated often enough that it is accepted as true). One can pontificate endlessly about the various mechanisms upon which non muslims are treated or compensated in a Shar'ia society, and compulsion in religion (as this speaker has done to the 9+minute mark), but the fact remains there is both compulsion in religion in Shar'ia, a chaste system or tiered society, and slavery.

How can any ideology that has as a core tenet slavery be suggested as not applying to non muslims? This is so utterly absurd as to be an indefensible position. Non muslims are coerced by having to pay a tax to not be a muslim; but this is not sufficient. The shar'ia/scripture makes clear they are to pay the tax in such a way as to be made to feel "subjugated/humiliated." But those who are even afforded the option to practice their own religion, under duress, are only christian and jews, in a really shar'ia compliant society. Everyone else is forced to convert or die; period. This is the only option for Buddhists and Hindus, and others. Only "people of the book" are afforded the various forms of taxed civil status. How utterly indefensible in the 21st century!

How on earth could anyone dissemble this horrific ideology into a rational faculty of civil society.

The OP byline regarding "...Anti-Islam..." is insulting to all reasoned minds in the world. Why must people be anti- anything? Why cant the Germans simply be pro-rationalists, or Pro-Reason, or Anti-Slavery, or Anti-coercion, or Anti-death cult, or Pro-German? Why must the byline insidiously impugn the motives of those who oppose such darkness by suggesting a religious overture? Shar'ia marches in Germany in a manner that will be quite familiar to older Germans. It has the same coercive nature and universal calling, the same camaraderie and the same demonization of the "other." I dare say Germans are keenly aware how dangerous Shar'ia is. In a society where even the Chancellor has openly declared "Immigration has failed" it is incredulous that liberal architects of Eurabia continue to peddle the nonsense of fraternity and equality of cultures.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

Thank you again for informative explanation of the negative impact of Islam on all who it touches on-not least of all the muslims who are brainwashed and lock stepped through rote learning, including amplified 'tapping techniques' - heart and head hitting while endlessly repeating nonsense into pseudo mystical view of the world. The issue is quite simple:we need a society based on reason not revelation.

For an interesting read on the subject The book Years of Salt and Rice is a good insight into the misery Islam has caused. It's by Kim Stanley Robinson and though it is fiction is a great read and full of insights. People often refer to the 'Golden Age of Arab Culture' and indeed there might have been one but Islam was responsible for its downfall. There is no future for western nations if Islam is allowed within our borders. We are Dhimmis and Kaffirs to them.

[arjunadawn]

Thank you again for informative explanation of the negative impact of Islam on all who it touches on-not least of all the muslims who are brainwashed and lock stepped through rote learning, including amplified 'tapping techniques' - heart and head hitting while endlessly repeating nonsense into pseudo mystical view of the world. The issue is quite simple:we need a society based on reason not revelation.

For an interesting read on the subject The book Years of Salt and Rice is a good insight into the misery Islam has caused. It's by Kim Stanley Robinson and though it is fiction is a great read and full of insights. People often refer to the 'Golden Age of Arab Culture' and indeed there might have been one but Islam was responsible for its downfall. There is no future for western nations if Islam is allowed within our borders. We are Dhimmis and Kaffirs to them.

I have often heard some form of a term regarding a "golden age" of Islam as well; or, of their great gifts to the sciences, arts, etc., that Islam brought the modern world. Indeed, it is suggested that were it not for Islam nothing would have survived the dark ages of the western world. This point is nearly drilled into the student of the western world. Is it true? I do not find it true at all. In fact much of what is considered Islamic is/was not at all but rather belonged to other cultures, superior or defeated or both. Islam has had some remarkable lights, but this does not constitute a golden age in a manner, say, we would call the Age of Reason, or Enlightenment.

I will not labor the point but nearly everything the Islamic world offers the modern world is a residual... a decaying artifact of a superior culture it previously invaded, co-opted, suffocated, and killed as host. From Persia to the libraries of Baghdad, from the Moor lands to Hindustan, all the golden age of islam offers the world are the products of its victims. In virtually every case the host once infected dies, labor ceases, invention and creativity wane, and only war advances. Think its not true? Think I generalize? Nope!

One prime reason is Islam dissuades initiative; Islam abhors personal risk and mostly Islam loathes freedom. We are not free nor should we be in Shar'ia. We are, quite literally, "Slaves" of Al Lah. This dialectic informs all social and individual choices in a Sharia compliant community. Freedom- personal freedom cannot exist in an object subject Al Lah- Human world.

I will tell this story again: Years ago I asked my local adviser, Hussein, "Why every day do I see so many Yemenese people getting hit by cars?" It was by this second week in Yemen a disease. Every day I would see dozens of people struck, dead, maimed, and uncared for after being struck by cars, buses and trucks.

He nervously laughed and told me that in Yemen, Islam is processed in a way where if they were to look left and right, they would be questioning or attempting to thwart the will of "the god." You mean, just to look is challenging Al Lah," I asked. Yes, he laughed, somewhat more enlightened then his neighbors. Inshal lah (Allah Willing) they will step into traffic and not be hit. If they are hit, they were meant to be. If you help, you are thwarting the world of Al Lah. (Sounds an awful lot like the old Hindu concept of karma and caste). This is freedom restricted at the most fundamental level; this is a "slave" for Al Lah.

The Germans clearly want the trains to stop at crossings and be on time!

[The manic]

Thank you again for informative explanation of the negative impact of Islam on all who it touches on-not least of all the muslims who are brainwashed and lock stepped through rote learning, including amplified 'tapping techniques' - heart and head hitting while endlessly repeating nonsense into pseudo mystical view of the world. The issue is quite simple:we need a society based on reason not revelation.

For an interesting read on the subject The book Years of Salt and Rice is a good insight into the misery Islam has caused. It's by Kim Stanley Robinson and though it is fiction is a great read and full of insights. People often refer to the 'Golden Age of Arab Culture' and indeed there might have been one but Islam was responsible for its downfall. There is no future for western nations if Islam is allowed within our borders. We are Dhimmis and Kaffirs to them.

I have often heard some form of a term regarding a "golden age" of Islam as well; or, of their great gifts to the sciences, arts, etc., that Islam brought the modern world. Indeed, it is suggested that were it not for Islam nothing would have survived the dark ages of the western world. This point is nearly drilled into the student of the western world. Is it true? I do not find it true at all. In fact much of what is considered Islamic is/was not at all but rather belonged to other cultures, superior or defeated or both. Islam has had some remarkable lights, but this does not constitute a golden age in a manner, say, we would call the Age of Reason, or Enlightenment.

I will not labor the point but nearly everything the Islamic world offers the modern world is a residual... a decaying artifact of a superior culture it previously invaded, co-opted, suffocated, and killed as host. From Persia to the libraries of Baghdad, from the Moor lands to Hindustan, all the golden age of islam offers the world are the products of its victims. In virtually every case the host once infected dies, labor ceases, invention and creativity wane, and only war advances. Think its not true? Think I generalize? Nope!

One prime reason is Islam dissuades initiative; Islam abhors personal risk and mostly Islam loathes freedom. We are not free nor should we be in Shar'ia. We are, quite literally, "Slaves" of Al Lah. This dialectic informs all social and individual choices in a Sharia compliant community. Freedom- personal freedom cannot exist in an object subject Al Lah- Human world.

I will tell this story again: Years ago I asked my local adviser, Hussein, "Why every day do I see so many Yemenese people getting hit by cars?" It was by this second week in Yemen a disease. Every day I would see dozens of people struck, dead, maimed, and uncared for after being struck by cars, buses and trucks.

He nervously laughed and told me that in Yemen, Islam is processed in a way where if they were to look left and right, they would be questioning or attempting to thwart the will of "the god." You mean, just to look is challenging Al Lah," I asked. Yes, he laughed, somewhat more enlightened then his neighbors. Inshal lah (Allah Willing) they will step into traffic and not be hit. If they are hit, they were meant to be. If you help, you are thwarting the world of Al Lah. (Sounds an awful lot like the old Hindu concept of karma and caste). This is freedom restricted at the most fundamental level; this is a "slave" for Al Lah.

The Germans clearly want the trains to stop at crossings and be on time!

When I first came to Saudi drivers were forbidden to have car insurance as was considered to be pre-empting the 'will of god.' Now insurance is mandatory for expats and my basic insurance is for third party, blood money, fire and theft.

[arjunadawn]

Its about time that we Europeans recognise the threat caused by Islamic extremist AND American Christain extremists.

Stop with the foolish talking points. Radical Islam dwarfs the problems caused by any other religion. There is no legitimate comparison.

Would you not say that the Christian Crusades were a "legitimate comparison" where several hundred thousand Christians became crusaders by taking a public vow and knocked off an estimated 2,000,000 people?

ALL Big Religions have their extremists and they are ALL guilty of unspeakable hideous crimes against humanity!!!

This is utterly fallacious; It is on its face a lie, but even when probed, this assertion cannot be defended. In one epoch of jihad alone, the Second Jihad, and easily estimated 100,000,000.00 people were slaughtered; no other religion even comes close to this number and this was just one passing age in Islam's ghastly course. I come up with the 100 million because the estimates vary between 90 million and 120 million, consistently. This is just the slaughter by jihad in the subcontinent. There has not be its equal under any god before or since, and this is just one conservative epoch of the islamic Juggernaut that has begun and continued with only one respite since 632CE. I have not even figured numbers from the late 7th century to the 11th, or 19/20th century (which are negligible).

The further vacuous assertion that the crusades, which were themselves a final response to 400 years of penetrating aggression, slavery, raids, and forced conversions into Europe proper, were analogous to the horrors of jihad is absurd. In fact, what the crusades responded to, and ostensibly failed, were the very raids that continued right up until the 17th century when a decisive victory finally went the European way and repulsed Islamic advances into Vienna. Only a comic book version of history could so totally invert reality.

In disclosure I have zero use for either or any religion. I find them all repugnant to god, but this is the only place and time I have ever noted this specifically here on these forums. I wish to remain focused on the substance- Islam does not have an equal in slaughter- period! The self loathing version of the crusades espoused so often always has a few singular defining characteristics: Other than saying christian crusaders were bad no one can ever offer facts. When? Why? What impetus? Which battle? Which result? Only the vague bad christian meme. It is beyond intellectual dispute that the muslims were enslaving and slaughtering peripheral and direct state players aligned with the European sphere of influence. This is called "cause for war-' bellicosity.

If one looks at a map of islam in 7th century, overlays an 8th century map, overlays another, then another century map showing Islamic raids it is nearly incredible that Europe did not respond sooner. They were left with virtually no choice and the sacking of their women, crops, and textiles still continued. As the Second Jihad acted west a consider portion marched from Constantinople directly into Europe, and also acting out the reconquesta on the Moorish front with further penetration through Austria, etc. Come on, wake up. It was total jihad war and this was still hundreds of years after the crusades sought to stop the islamic hemorrhage.

For a further point to plot on a map, you are now in what can reasonably be called the Age of the Third Jihad (you thought all of this was new?).

[Morakot]

community consulted when they built the Salafist Mosque in the East End?

What mosque would that be? You mean the one Whitechapel Road? Got any evidence that this is supposed to be "Salafist"? Hard to believe such nonsense.

What is not understood is how muslims trade and peddle power back and forth between the democracies they live and the muslim autocracies from where they originated. Local pakistani councillors in the UK use their power to support their relatives back in pakistan and vice a versa.

I presume you live in Thailand. Do you go back to your country of origins and support your relatives over there? What is wrong with that? Quite normal for first generation immigrants.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Morakot

[Morakot]

However, when considering the vehicle in which Islam spreads, its Shar'ia fabric that is as equally binding on believers as non believers,

Nonsense! This is not a mainstream view for most Muslims. Sharia law is not binding for non Muslims.

Discussed at lengths; see the view of the Iman Shams Adduha Muhammad of Ebrahim College London on this point:

(Skip the first 40 sec of prayer in Arabic)

I had not yet but will honor your post and watch this.

Shar'ia law is binding upon non muslims. In fact, Shar'ia is entirely predicated upon the relationship of muslims with muslims, muslims with non muslim believers of "the book," and muslims with non believers in anything. If one were to remove those who you suggest Shar'ia does not apply, there would not be Shar'ia. Shar'ia is the working mechanism of the divine plan in the dar al harb, house of war and the dar al salam, house of peace. Shar'ia is seen as the divine mandate of Al Lah. To suggest, even remotely, that inherent in Islam is the machinery to apply its tenets only to its own believers belies self evident truth obvious for 1400 years! Shar'ia as an ideology is applicable to every single creature on earth.

If you meet or hear muslims stating Shar'ia is only an innocuous internal mechanism for muslim's interactions with muslims they are lying! They are not deceiving, they are lying. There has never been an example in history where Shar'ia was the singular law of the land in which it did not also apply to kafirs. Throughout the world today much ado about the horrors inflicted upon the innocent is solely Shar'ia based; this is among the endless sources for justifying the terrible horrors inflicted upon others. The mass persecution of christians around the world today, nearly constituting genocide, is entirely predicated upon Shar'ia. Nonsense? I think not! Shar'ia is much more dangerous than either national socialism or communism, or really any despotism, because it operates under the color of religion and cloaks all its authority in revelation and divine mandate. Thus, the modern world is unarmed because the title "religion" increasingly affords a leeway to Islam which is only responded to with further aggression, and the room afforded Islam's "uniqueness" is occupied by the war-like expansion of the Shar'ia termplate. Shar'ia does not seek equality among peoples. Shar'ia seeks supremacy!

Are you some hard line Muslim fundamentalist? You sound like one, unlike the moderate Iman in the video.

[Naam]

When I first came to Saudi drivers were forbidden to have car insurance as was considered to be pre-empting the 'will of god.' Now insurance is mandatory for expats and my basic insurance is for third party, blood money, fire and theft.

please no fairy tales or urban myths which are rehashed in expat circles! third party insurance was mandatory even when i lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for expats as well as Saudis.... and that was 40 years ago (1974-1980).

[Steely Dan]

community consulted when they built the Salafist Mosque in the East End?

What mosque would that be? You mean the one Whitechapel Road? Got any evidence that this is supposed to be "Salafist"? Hard to believe such nonsense.

What is not understood is how muslims trade and peddle power back and forth between the democracies they live and the muslim autocracies from where they originated. Local pakistani councillors in the UK use their power to support their relatives back in pakistan and vice a versa.

I presume you live in Thailand. Do you go back to your country of origins and support your relatives over there? What is wrong with that? Quite normal for first generation immigrants.

About half the Mosques in the UK taught extremist views and the biggest Mosque in Spain has an ex-Gitmo detainee doing likewise. The links to these are easily found in case you want to fall back on asking for proof.

[arjunadawn]

Are you some hard line Muslim fundamentalist? You sound like one, unlike the moderate Iman in the video.

I think this is an odd but fair question: Am I actually a muslim extremist/fundamentalist? After all, I assert that moderate speakers are really unorthodox (I imply they are not devout. I stand by this). I assert constantly on these forums that if we just listen to what is said by those we call extremists, and compare to the scriptures, we can easily determine who is actually citing legitimate koranic and hadith sources.

I am not muslim. I am aware that my posts actually seem anti muslim. I always police my comments to ensure few personal commentaries exist in my posts. I am most definitely Islamophobic, in the truest sense of the world. I don't dabble in hate or such inferior emotions. I am subject to fear however, and I fear Shar'ia. The notion that a muslim is moderate is a total fabrication of a western mind (some may be practically but they also know they cannot scripturally defend this). Islamic peoples do not define themselves, per se, as moderate. This is a convenient tool for the west to deny the unimpeachable truth that Islam is aggressively expanding once more in its timeless jihad, the previous shackles of Ottoman and Strongmen leaders having evaporated.

If you travel to Shar'ia compliant countries you will not find moderate muslims, this useless label of the west. Why? Because they will be dead! Islam does not have a mechanism for "moderation" or partial application of koranic and Shar'ia law (though some countries do variously apply its mandates, yes). When you listen to the jihadists they will nearly always cite scripture. When you listen to this speaker here, or the CAIR mouthpieces in America working for the Muslim Brotherhood, they will always dissemble, digress, obfuscate, or otherwise cite koranic passages lacking correct abrogation context. Example:

It is not uncommon for "moderate" muslims to cite a passage whereby they cite that to kill one is like the whole world was killed (paraphrase). But do you know the context? This is a law applying to Jews under the Shar'ia, it is not a binding rule upon muslims. Islam is totally created in a historical narrative which is basically broken into three divisions- Tolerance, Defensive Jihad, Offensive Jihad. These three divisions reflect the historical context of the difficult life of new islam in Mecca, the fact that other meccans opposed them and they were not strong, yet. When they re-consolidated in Medina they began defensive aggressive actions, later when strong, they offensively stormed Mecca and slaughtered the inhabitants. Thus the three phases that continue to act as a road-map toward global jihad. Migration jihad, tolerance, defensive jihad ("we are victims"), and offensive jihad when the numbers increase.

When you read the koran however, it becomes ambiguous to an uninformed person because the suras are not placed chronologically, rather they are placed by size. However, what happens when one sura passage is in conflict with another? The principle, as outlined by the prophet, takes precedence- abrogation. Al Lah reserves the right to correct or modify previous injunctions. Thus, the earlier "tolerance" citations evident in the koran as Islam sought and fought for equality in Mecca are later superseded by the "offensive" jihad citations evident later, when they had numbers and began conquest. This abrogation is often cited in the "sword" sura as an example, but there are many. So, by the time the prophet passed the koran existed as a very effective military road-map to expand, insinuate into a population, claim persecution, and then argue defensive jihad, then offensive jihad. This formula has been repeated endlessly for 1400 years, excepting in the cases where overwhelming offensive power was already possessed, and then they just invaded and destroyed the host.

You or others many not like my "take" on history and current events but I remain mostly dispassionate in my posts and rarely address (if ever) the underlying questions about the validity of their faith; it is simply unrelated to my concerns and none of my business. I don't care who worships what/who. For this reason I have no problem with muslims, per se. It is the ideology incumbent upon others for which I object- shar'ia.

I went back and watched this video until roughly 11.30. The point of the video was to what? suggest Shar'ia does not apply to non muslims. When he asserts non muslims are taxed, or their wine is taxed, he is clearly refuting the notion that Shar'ia is for muslims only. So, this speaker, while clearly charismatic and agreeable, clearly dissembles but most concede, Shar'ia applies to all people. Just go to numerous muslim countries during Ramadan and drink a bottle of water at high noon and tell me Shar'ia is for muslims!

[mitsubishi]

Germany is waking up at last!

I don't have an issue with Islam, but I do have an issue with it being in Europe!

I and a lot of other people will be glad when the Islamic people are back in Arabia where they belong!

Edited December 18, 2014 by mitsubishi

[Steely Dan]

Germany is waking up at last!

I don't have an issue with Islam, but I do have an issue with it being in Europe!

I and a lot of other people will be glad when the Islamic people are back in Arabia where they belong!

Too right it is, and as the following link citing Danish TV observes it is the middle classes who are demonstrating. This is vital as they are far harder to dismiss as some mythical right wing fringe. Let's hope for more, lots more.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/12/danish-tv-on-german-anti-islamization-demo-german-middle-class-demonstrated

[Steely Dan]

Thank you again for informative explanation of the negative impact of Islam on all who it touches on-not least of all the muslims who are brainwashed and lock stepped through rote learning, including amplified 'tapping techniques' - heart and head hitting while endlessly repeating nonsense into pseudo mystical view of the world. The issue is quite simple:we need a society based on reason not revelation.

For an interesting read on the subject The book Years of Salt and Rice is a good insight into the misery Islam has caused. It's by Kim Stanley Robinson and though it is fiction is a great read and full of insights. People often refer to the 'Golden Age of Arab Culture' and indeed there might have been one but Islam was responsible for its downfall. There is no future for western nations if Islam is allowed within our borders. We are Dhimmis and Kaffirs to them.

I have often heard some form of a term regarding a "golden age" of Islam as well; or, of their great gifts to the sciences, arts, etc., that Islam brought the modern world. Indeed, it is suggested that were it not for Islam nothing would have survived the dark ages of the western world. This point is nearly drilled into the student of the western world. Is it true? I do not find it true at all. In fact much of what is considered Islamic is/was not at all but rather belonged to other cultures, superior or defeated or both. Islam has had some remarkable lights, but this does not constitute a golden age in a manner, say, we would call the Age of Reason, or Enlightenment.

I will not labor the point but nearly everything the Islamic world offers the modern world is a residual... a decaying artifact of a superior culture it previously invaded, co-opted, suffocated, and killed as host. From Persia to the libraries of Baghdad, from the Moor lands to Hindustan, all the golden age of islam offers the world are the products of its victims. In virtually every case the host once infected dies, labor ceases, invention and creativity wane, and only war advances. Think its not true? Think I generalize? Nope!

One prime reason is Islam dissuades initiative; Islam abhors personal risk and mostly Islam loathes freedom. We are not free nor should we be in Shar'ia. We are, quite literally, "Slaves" of Al Lah. This dialectic informs all social and individual choices in a Sharia compliant community. Freedom- personal freedom cannot exist in an object subject Al Lah- Human world.

I will tell this story again: Years ago I asked my local adviser, Hussein, "Why every day do I see so many Yemenese people getting hit by cars?" It was by this second week in Yemen a disease. Every day I would see dozens of people struck, dead, maimed, and uncared for after being struck by cars, buses and trucks.

He nervously laughed and told me that in Yemen, Islam is processed in a way where if they were to look left and right, they would be questioning or attempting to thwart the will of "the god." You mean, just to look is challenging Al Lah," I asked. Yes, he laughed, somewhat more enlightened then his neighbors. Inshal lah (Allah Willing) they will step into traffic and not be hit. If they are hit, they were meant to be. If you help, you are thwarting the world of Al Lah. (Sounds an awful lot like the old Hindu concept of karma and caste). This is freedom restricted at the most fundamental level; this is a "slave" for Al Lah.

The Germans clearly want the trains to stop at crossings and be on time!

The whole notion of a so called Golden age is suspect. Indeed I would go further and suggest that far from saving classical civilization from the dark ages it was Islamic conquest that stopped trade in the Mediterranean and hence brought on the dark ages. Whether or not there was a period of tolerance it is totally obliterated come the Wahabi and Salafist movements, which have been allowed to infest Europe and are eating away at its fabric like termites.

Recommended reading; Mohammed and Charlemagne revisited - Emmet Scott.

[The manic]

community consulted when they built the Salafist Mosque in the East End?

What mosque would that be? You mean the one Whitechapel Road? Got any evidence that this is supposed to be "Salafist"? Hard to believe such nonsense.

What is not understood is how muslims trade and peddle power back and forth between the democracies they live and the muslim autocracies from where they originated. Local pakistani councillors in the UK use their power to support their relatives back in pakistan and vice a versa.

I presume you live in Thailand. Do you go back to your country of origins and support your relatives over there? What is wrong with that? Quite normal for first generation immigrants.

A stupid comparison.

I do not have the right to vote in Thailand or stand in elections. Nor is my family a tribe nor does Manchester have unelected village headmen and mullahs in the indigenous community from which I originate. Nor are most jobs given based on 'wasta' rather than merit.You have not travelled much, seen less and know absolutely nothing about the workings of muslim communities and how they subvert all around them.

Edited December 18, 2014 by The manic

[The manic]

Salsfism is not illegal in the UK. The Saddam Hussein mosque in Whitechapel is attended by Salafists, including mullah hate mongers, but the most famous Salafist mosque is the one that was built nearby the olympic stadium and was frequently in camera shot to degrade the UK in the eyes of the world much to the amusement of all muslims who were sending out the message loud and clear. The building of all mosques has been curtailed in Switzerland and the height of minarets limited. In Norway the Atheist society is allowed to broadcast outside of mosques 5 time a day an amplified message which proclaims:'There is no such thing as god and there is no such thing as prophets who talk to god'. This balances out the dreadful muslim call to prayer. I believe in the UK all mosque building should be curtailed and a brick tax put on all mosques that do get permission to limit there size.

[arjunadawn]

The whole notion of a so called Golden age is suspect. Indeed I would go further and suggest that far from saving classical civilization from the dark ages it was Islamic conquest that stopped trade in the Mediterranean and hence brought on the dark ages. Whether or not there was a period of tolerance it is totally obliterated come the Wahabi and Salafist movements, which have been allowed to infest Europe and are eating away at its fabric like termites.

Recommended reading; Mohammed and Charlemagne revisited - Emmet Scott.

I think you are correct. It would be wrong to say nothing useful occurred during these days but by and large cultures that were subsumed into the islamic fold stopped thriving. Trade was strangled and considerable efforts were made to avoid the islamic world, thus effectively reversing great cultural trade that had existed in the roman era, and previously.

The sheer amount of cultural destruction caused by the Islamic jihads is simply mind-numbing; my argument can rest solely on what they did to India et al- it is so horrible that Hollywood could hardly duplicate the debauchery and slaughter in fiction. I cannot state this without also noting christians did no better in some areas. But the point is not in historical who done its rather what is relevant today? As smarter people have noted here christianity has undergone a sort of reformation, and thus became relatively divorced from the State. A reformation in Islam, if it exists today, is reforming along first causes, first principles, and orthodoxy, not moderation. This is a dangerous and frightening emergence for a post enlightenment world based, somewhat, on the secular, and separation of church and state. In any event, the threat is not just to Germany, not just to Europe, or not even western civilization alone. All civilization is under duress at this time and insofar as good or bad publicity is publicity nonetheless, the rise of mainstream islamic orthodoxy will continue to grow as social media expands and the global economy proves increasingly absurd and useless to elevate estranged peoples to economic self sufficiency.