The problem is not that nations are not Tolerant - The problem is that Tolerance is being exploited by Extremist ideals in an act move in and take over.

Just look at Thailands South and how they take advantage of Thai Tolerance everyday, killing monks, innocent children, all because Thailand gave them an inch and now they want to take the mile.

The 2nd half of your post is rubbish, however I agree that you may be right about extremists.

Where you fail to understand, is that extremists are only a small minority of Muslims. The moderate Muslims and the every-2nd-Friday Muslims should not be tarred with the same brush.

untill they start demonstrating and fighting against the extremists,they are tarred with the same brush,if they did not want the hardliners in their schools and mosques they would throw them out

Good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots.

Besides being unsure why the two options are reduced to tolerant or bigots, I find it odd that the people protesting intolerance, barbarism, sex slavery, pedophilia, sex mutilation, inequality, oppression, bias, murder, beheading, disfigurment (all koranic virtues)- are being labled themselves "bigots."

I could be mistaken and please forgive me if incorrect, but since the article roughly suggests people who protest the barbarism of Shar'ia insinuating itself in mordern post enlightenment Europe under the color of equality are "anti-islam" I pressumed you meant they were "bigots." Regarding the entire issue: I read your post in a vacumm and agree totally, ..."good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots" yet cannot for the life of me see where any deliberating mind assumes those who protest the bigotry are "bigots" and those who are bigots (by their own constant admission) are "tolerant." Just a different take on your post, SS; nothing personal.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse in order to be provocative. From this and other, similar threads, I interpret two types of accusations from the one's labelled bigots or islamophobe. There may be more but the ones that stand out for me are (1) that people who commit the violent and criminal acts that you referenced i.e. pedophilia, genital mutilation etc do so because they are muslim and, (2) that because some people who are muslim committed these acts then all muslims either commit these acts or support them (or do not actively oppose them).

This reductionism is dangerous. It gets in the way of clear, thoughtful and deliberative analysis of causation and consequences of what are complex geo-political, socio-economic and religious-cultural-ideological issues.

This is the bigotry to which I and many others respond. It is anti-intellectual, generally driven by racism and often espoused by the low information, older generation underclass who mix it with general sentiments of lack of political representation. I stand with those who oppose the criminal acts that you describe. I do not subscribe to the hysteria of the anti-immigrant bigots who insist that these acts are generated by a belief system, which incidentally I also oppose as not consistent with my humanist values.

Tolerance requires that we respect diversity. Clearly those arguing for tolerance are not supporting any criminal or abusive actions by anyone of any belief system as you suggest.

I am hardly trying to be provacative. It is quite clear I am consistent. It should not be the case in a sane world where because my point view is not the same as yours I am provacative; how utterly ad hominen. I also make no accusations- I state fact. Each item I mentioned are koranically mandated and/or fatwa enforced from hadith and/or exegiss or tribal. Since the the link to cause and effect is so blatantly obvious, this can hardly be called an act of reductionism. Its primary cause and effect; not much mental gymnastics required to listen to the citations used to authorize horrific acts around the world in the name of god, refer to those citations in the various scriptures, look up a fatwa or two based on Bhukari or other islamic exegisis, and note a patent, inescapable connection. Hardly provacative on the part of the observor; hardly recuctionist.

The circuitous commentary of the second paragraph simply argues the same drivel of the establishment politicians that plunge us ever deeper into the morass of cultural relativity. It is simply confounding that a society that allows in the weak, the harmed, the forgotten, and those who just desire employment opportunity, a chance at equality which is absent back home, and a bit of freedom, are then required to subsume their society into an alien tribal ideology bent on such pre enlightment mores as to be totally barbaric and anathema to modernity. Because people protest the destruction of their own culture they are intolerant? These people have hardly been intolerant for a generation or two as to allow this fiasco of an upstart, insurgent culture to develop... why now? Is it because of skyrocketing rape, muslim immigrants overflowing european jails, no go areas of people who's family have been there for hundreds of years, antisemetism, demands for parallal courts? Are these the intolerant acts that compel a people to scream "enough? The people who have permited assimilation at every turn are now intolerant because... because they protest their own rape?

• "I interpret two types of accusations from the one's labelled bigots or islamophobe. There may be more but the ones that stand out for me are (1) that people who commit the violent and criminal acts that you referenced i.e. pedophilia, genital mutilation etc do so because they are muslim and, (2) that because some people who are muslim committed these acts then all muslims either commit these acts or support them (or do not actively oppose them)."

I dont have not been labeled. I do declare i am fearful of Islam, yes, but labeled? Who would be assigned such a role to label others, and why on earth would anyone prefer to "label" others? Seems a bit juvienile. The following two points are absurdly transparent false logic; indeed, sophmoric logic examples. It is beyond dispute that the guiding scriptures of islam are violent. A greater than 50% of the Koran is focused on bad toward others. The combined hadith and exegisis make apparent pedophilia is accepted. Indeed, a fatwa last week from the number one sunni religous leader in the world actually turns the presumption that one can marry a girl at 6 on its head by suggesting that there is indeed no age at which a man could not marry a girl. In fact, all the girl must be able to do is suffer the weight of a man upon her then intercourse may began. This is foundational texts of those who's culture eurpoeans are rejecting granting equality to- good for them.

I never suggested all muslims commit such acts and trying to tease that point from my post or any others is just fraudulent. It is the underlying scritural ideology which facilitate and enable believers to remain societally stunted in growth to the 7th century, if they choose to be orthodox. The frequent polls taken on varying aspects of the "silent majority" of muslims around the world suggest a much darker narrative than what you espouse.

Intolerance? How ridiculous this word would be used upon those who have opened their hearts and their purse to others and who, now, only want to stop being abused and marginalized in thier own lands. Anti intellectual? It is my opinion that those who have a contrary view from me are... but I dont say it, do I?

i dont complete my ad hominen thoughts! I remain rather fixed on what I believe and why, opposed to suggesting a clinical malady must infect those who disagree with me or suggesting other deficiencies of character or mind or motive. When posts need to impugn either the intellect or capacity of others their position is made untenable by default.

Good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots.

Besides being unsure why the two options are reduced to tolerant or bigots, I find it odd that the people protesting intolerance, barbarism, sex slavery, pedophilia, sex mutilation, inequality, oppression, bias, murder, beheading, disfigurment (all koranic virtues)- are being labled themselves "bigots."

I could be mistaken and please forgive me if incorrect, but since the article roughly suggests people who protest the barbarism of Shar'ia insinuating itself in mordern post enlightenment Europe under the color of equality are "anti-islam" I pressumed you meant they were "bigots." Regarding the entire issue: I read your post in a vacumm and agree totally, ..."good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots" yet cannot for the life of me see where any deliberating mind assumes those who protest the bigotry are "bigots" and those who are bigots (by their own constant admission) are "tolerant." Just a different take on your post, SS; nothing personal.

Because, as I've said in previous posts, the protests are a guise for the bigotry. Merkel, the churches, and the protest protesters recognise this.

They may be, SS; they may all be bigots (and in some location it may be plainly mixed). But isnt it possible good honest people are just sick and tired of various problems they see manifest in their community. Isnt it possible they are not bigots? Indeed, it was Merkel who started this nonsense a few years ago when she and other leaders affirmed quite clearly that the great liberal experiment in immigration has failed. This cannot be a coniveient point to ignore.

Good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots.

Besides being unsure why the two options are reduced to tolerant or bigots, I find it odd that the people protesting intolerance, barbarism, sex slavery, pedophilia, sex mutilation, inequality, oppression, bias, murder, beheading, disfigurment (all koranic virtues)- are being labled themselves "bigots."

I could be mistaken and please forgive me if incorrect, but since the article roughly suggests people who protest the barbarism of Shar'ia insinuating itself in mordern post enlightenment Europe under the color of equality are "anti-islam" I pressumed you meant they were "bigots." Regarding the entire issue: I read your post in a vacumm and agree totally, ..."good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots" yet cannot for the life of me see where any deliberating mind assumes those who protest the bigotry are "bigots" and those who are bigots (by their own constant admission) are "tolerant." Just a different take on your post, SS; nothing personal.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse in order to be provocative. From this and other, similar threads, I interpret two types of accusations from the one's labelled bigots or islamophobe. There may be more but the ones that stand out for me are (1) that people who commit the violent and criminal acts that you referenced i.e. pedophilia, genital mutilation etc do so because they are muslim and, (2) that because some people who are muslim committed these acts then all muslims either commit these acts or support them (or do not actively oppose them).

This reductionism is dangerous. It gets in the way of clear, thoughtful and deliberative analysis of causation and consequences of what are complex geo-political, socio-economic and religious-cultural-ideological issues.

This is the bigotry to which I and many others respond. It is anti-intellectual, generally driven by racism and often espoused by the low information, older generation underclass who mix it with general sentiments of lack of political representation. I stand with those who oppose the criminal acts that you describe. I do not subscribe to the hysteria of the anti-immigrant bigots who insist that these acts are generated by a belief system, which incidentally I also oppose as not consistent with my humanist values.

Tolerance requires that we respect diversity. Clearly those arguing for tolerance are not supporting any criminal or abusive actions by anyone of any belief system as you suggest.

I am hardly trying to be provacative. It is quite clear I am consistent. It should not be the case in a sane world where because my point view is not the same as yours I am provacative; how utterly ad hominen. I also make no accusations- I state fact. Each item I mentioned are koranically mandated and/or fatwa enforced from hadith and/or exegiss or tribal. Since the the link to cause and effect is so blatantly obvious, this can hardly be called an act of reductionism. Its primary cause and effect; not much mental gymnastics required to listen to the citations used to authorize horrific acts around the world in the name of god, refer to those citations in the various scriptures, look up a fatwa or two based on Bhukari or other islamic exegisis, and note a patent, inescapable connection. Hardly provacative on the part of the observor; hardly recuctionist.

The circuitous commentary of the second paragraph simply argues the same drivel of the establishment politicians that plunge us ever deeper into the morass of cultural relativity. It is simply confounding that a society that allows in the weak, the harmed, the forgotten, and those who just desire employment opportunity, a chance at equality which is absent back home, and a bit of freedom, are then required to subsume their society into an alien tribal ideology bent on such pre enlightment mores as to be totally barbaric and anathema to modernity. Because people protest the destruction of their own culture they are intolerant? These people have hardly been intolerant for a generation or two as to allow this fiasco of an upstart, insurgent culture to develop... why now? Is it because of skyrocketing rape, muslim immigrants overflowing european jails, no go areas of people who's family have been there for hundreds of years, antisemetism, demands for parallal courts? Are these the intolerant acts that compel a people to scream "enough? The people who have permited assimilation at every turn are now intolerant because... because they protest their own rape?

• "I interpret two types of accusations from the one's labelled bigots or islamophobe. There may be more but the ones that stand out for me are (1) that people who commit the violent and criminal acts that you referenced i.e. pedophilia, genital mutilation etc do so because they are muslim and, (2) that because some people who are muslim committed these acts then all muslims either commit these acts or support them (or do not actively oppose them)."

I dont have not been labeled. I do declare i am fearful of Islam, yes, but labeled? Who would be assigned such a role to label others, and why on earth would anyone prefer to "label" others? Seems a bit juvienile. The following two points are absurdly transparent false logic; indeed, sophmoric logic examples. It is beyond dispute that the guiding scriptures of islam are violent. A greater than 50% of the Koran is focused on bad toward others. The combined hadith and exegisis make apparent pedophilia is accepted. Indeed, a fatwa last week from the number one sunni religous leader in the world actually turns the presumption that one can marry a girl at 6 on its head by suggesting that there is indeed no age at which a man could not marry a girl. In fact, all the girl must be able to do is suffer the weight of a man upon her then intercourse may began. This is foundational texts of those who's culture eurpoeans are rejecting granting equality to- good for them.

I never suggested all muslims commit such acts and trying to tease that point from my post or any others is just fraudulent. It is the underlying scritural ideology which facilitate and enable believers to remain societally stunted in growth to the 7th century, if they choose to be orthodox. The frequent polls taken on varying aspects of the "silent majority" of muslims around the world suggest a much darker narrative than what you espouse.

Intolerance? How ridiculous this word would be used upon those who have opened their hearts and their purse to others and who, now, only want to stop being abused and marginalized in thier own lands. Anti intellectual? It is my opinion that those who have a contrary view from me are... but I dont say it, do I?

i dont complete my ad hominen thoughts! I remain rather fixed on what I believe and why, opposed to suggesting a clinical malady must infect those who disagree with me or suggesting other deficiencies of character or mind or motive. When posts need to impugn either the intellect or capacity of others their position is made untenable by default.

I'm afraid that your arguments will go over the head of most Thaivisa members. Let's put it simply: it is impossible to be tolerant of intolerant people. Or it should be.

There are no go areas in London, the police won't go there, 'incorrect' clothing leads to threats, the police are afraid to act on cases of paedophilia and honour beatings/killings, celebrating Christmas is an insult, .... Islamophobia: an irrational fear of Islam. My fear isn't irrational and I am not frothing at the mouth. Being against the islamisation of Europe is not racist, nor is it based on bigotry or stupidity. If you let the peoples of these countries decide, they would stop immigration, forbid Islamic schools, oblige immigrants to make efforts to learn the language of the place you chose to go to. I go to Saudi? That's it, no alcohol for a year or two, I know that.

Mind you, this is very similar to expats in Thailand that immediately seek out expat concentrations, complain about the food and refuse to learn Thai.

We could write pages about the Islamic view of women in society and its intolerance( to put it mildly) of different sexual orientation.

Because, as I've said in previous posts, the protests are a guise for the bigotry. Merkel, the churches, and the protest protesters recognise this.

By your way of thinking, any protests against Islam and Muslims, however legitimate, are immediately labelled racist, bigotry or Islamophobia.

Maybe it's time to change the record.

I got practically kidnapped in Bangladesh by a Muslim from Egypt, who 'converted' me to Islam. Spent the whole day in mosque, learning the Muslim prayers. They rinse their mouth with the same water, in which they bath the feet, first thing I faked among others. Escaped in the evening and left the town with the early morning train. During nine month in Bangladesh they tried to convert me three times a week. A wealthy businessman and factory owner even offered his niece and a partnership provided I convert. Well, if all cords snap, maybe I walk down that road...

You might like this one, some of you.

Europe and Germany in particular are to an extent still haunted by the rise of the Nazis, it is understandable they are acutely aware of the threat of history repeating itself. This has to a large degree disarmed Europeans of their most basic survival instincts when faced with an alien hostile and totalitarian invader. An israeli was attacked by Arabs in Berlin the other day, and so indeed history indeed threatens to repeat itself, but with an inverted twist where the aggressor dons the clothes of the victim.

As with John Carpenters film 'The Thing', what appears to be something as innocuous as a dog hides some unimaginable horror. Little wonder people are anxious to see dogs and not something from their wurst nightmares.

Europe and Germany in particular are to an extent still haunted by the rise of the Nazis, it is understandable they are acutely aware of the threat of history repeating itself. This has to a large degree disarmed Europeans of their most basic survival instincts when faced with an alien hostile and totalitarian invader. An israeli was attacked by Arabs in Berlin the other day, and so indeed history indeed threatens to repeat itself, but with an inverted twist where the aggressor dons the clothes of the victim.

As with John Carpenters film 'The Thing', what appears to be something as innocuous as a dog hides some unimaginable horror. Little wonder people are anxious to see dogs and not something from their wurst nightmares.

...same as the UK had a guilty conscience about colonialism. They are now paying the price.

The problem is not that nations are not Tolerant - The problem is that Tolerance is being exploited by Extremist ideals in an act move in and take over.

Just look at Thailands South and how they take advantage of Thai Tolerance everyday, killing monks, innocent children, all because Thailand gave them an inch and now they want to take the mile.

The 2nd half of your post is rubbish, however I agree that you may be right about extremists.

Where you fail to understand, is that extremists are only a small minority of Muslims. The moderate Muslims and the every-2nd-Friday Muslims should not be tarred with the same brush.

You are right! They shouldn't be - but they are! But don't fooled into thinking that the extremists are a small minority. I'm not saying they are a silent majority, but the whole Muslim threat to world peace is a Muslim problem, and if, as people like you believe, the vast majority of Muslims are moderates and peace loving, then the problem can and will only be resolved by Muslims.

The Brits do not tolerate Islam. We want them out of our country.

Good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots.

Besides being unsure why the two options are reduced to tolerant or bigots, I find it odd that the people protesting intolerance, barbarism, sex slavery, pedophilia, sex mutilation, inequality, oppression, bias, murder, beheading, disfigurment (all koranic virtues)- are being labled themselves "bigots."

I could be mistaken and please forgive me if incorrect, but since the article roughly suggests people who protest the barbarism of Shar'ia insinuating itself in mordern post enlightenment Europe under the color of equality are "anti-islam" I pressumed you meant they were "bigots." Regarding the entire issue: I read your post in a vacumm and agree totally, ..."good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots" yet cannot for the life of me see where any deliberating mind assumes those who protest the bigotry are "bigots" and those who are bigots (by their own constant admission) are "tolerant." Just a different take on your post, SS; nothing personal.

Because, as I've said in previous posts, the protests are a guise for the bigotry. Merkel, the churches, and the protest protesters recognise this.

These Muslims are not bigots, right? They celebrate diversity, right? They celebrate freedom of religion in their own countries, right? They celebrate freedom of speech in their own countries, right? They easily accept the culture, food, laws and religions of the countries they immigrate to, right?

Balderdash.

Europe and the rest of the world will one day open there eyes and hopefully it will not be too late.

http://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/02/06/pew-fertility-rate-for-muslims-and-non-muslims-in-europe/

Muslims are like wolves and are peaceful as loners but once in a pack they lash out at all non-believers and attempt to force their beliefs on others. (Sharia law for example)

I do not dislike anyone but stating occurrences that are happening under everyone's nose.

It is also occurring in America even to the point of government protected training grounds.

http://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/domestic-terrorism/terrorist-training-camps-in-the-us/660940716001/

Decide for yourselves.

Where you fail to understand, is that extremists are only a small minority of Muslims.

The moderate Muslims and the every-2nd-Friday Muslims should not be tarred with the same brush.

I say this term 'moderate' implies a failed, semi observant, half hearted, wishy washy, limp wristed cherry picking lapsed extremist. It is that - 'every second friday' fellow you refer to, which yes makes up the bulk of those out there clinging to the identity of 'Muslim'. In other words, the mass who haven't got what it takes to commit to the uncompromising amibitious conditions and dictates of Islam. We find them nice to get on with (and they, with us) precisely because a common sense / common humanity wins over the bull doo doo. Everyone likes someone who is easy going / flexible, hence why the bulk of those labelling themselves Muslim are indeed pleasant. Islam was never meant to be flexible and easy going with other ideologies. It fully intended to 'be' the one ideology, globally, eventually. Of the ones who do obey what is demanded of them, in other circles they would be regarded as cult members. All the 'moderate' bulk out there, non issue. It is that cult army, growing in popularity globally, which should be our focus of concern. "Don't blame Islam, the majority of Muslims are good people" or similar, could be said to be an unwillingness to recognise that cult army.

On a related note, this was in the news recently:

'Brave German Woman' Heidi Mund protests against invitation of a Muslim Imam to church to give call to prayer

I am confused.

30,000 protested against anti Islam, (which i a double negative) or 30,000 protested against islamisation and a small number protested against the anti islamisation protests?

Depending on the city demonstrators were protesting against anti-Islamic / immigrant movement PEGIDA. However, in Dresden the majority were pro PEGIDA, should be noted Dresden has a history of support for the 'right wing'.

You might like this one, some of you.

Where I worked, one department had a contract draughtsman. He wasn't paid by the company but by an agency. He was a muslim. He amongst other things, demanded that the office toilet was his prayer room, and that no one could use it during those times. Because of the attitude he took, at those times he was praying. The incidence of the lads being caught short increased sharply. He complained, and was told the devout christians on site had to make their own arrangements in their own time, and they were company employees. Own time AKA lunch time. He was praying on company time.

Europe and Germany in particular are to an extent still haunted by the rise of the Nazis, it is understandable they are acutely aware of the threat of history repeating itself. This has to a large degree disarmed Europeans of their most basic survival instincts when faced with an alien hostile and totalitarian invader. An israeli was attacked by Arabs in Berlin the other day, and so indeed history indeed threatens to repeat itself, but with an inverted twist where the aggressor dons the clothes of the victim.

As with John Carpenters film 'The Thing', what appears to be something as innocuous as a dog hides some unimaginable horror. Little wonder people are anxious to see dogs and not something from their wurst nightmares.

...same as the UK had a guilty conscience about colonialism. They are now paying the price.

I had an Aussie here who had been teaching English on S Yorkshire. He told me Colonial history, at least in certain areas is not being taught anymore.

Good to see the tolerant outnumber the bigots.

Who are the bigots? People who defend their culture and tradition in their own homeland?

Unfortunately, if you live in Europe and stand up for your culture and traditions. You are labelled a bigot, racist is normally thrown in there too.

Muslim's are in other European Countries for a reason. They have freedom of speech and westernised culture and benefits not available 'where they come from'. Call me a bigot if you like but you will be confusing me with someone who gives a shiite. (no pun intended).

A baiting post has been removed.

Please stay on topic.

Edit: Replies and responses have also been removed.

I am confused.

30,000 protested against anti Islam, (which i a double negative) or 30,000 protested against islamisation and a small number protested against the anti islamisation protests?

Depending on the city demonstrators were protesting against anti-Islamic / immigrant movement PEGIDA. However, in Dresden the majority were pro PEGIDA, should be noted Dresden has a history of support for the 'right wing'.

Wondering how the relationship between demonstration attendance patterns (and/or scope) and the numbers of immigrants in specific area. Do places with with higher figures of Muslim immigrants see more demonstrations against them or for them? (well, maybe not "for them", but anti-anti-Muslims). Another thing of interest would be how many of the anti-PAGIDA demonstrators are immigrants.

I am confused.

30,000 protested against anti Islam, (which i a double negative) or 30,000 protested against islamisation and a small number protested against the anti islamisation protests?

Depending on the city demonstrators were protesting against anti-Islamic / immigrant movement PEGIDA. However, in Dresden the majority were pro PEGIDA, should be noted Dresden has a history of support for the 'right wing'.

Wondering how the relationship between demonstration attendance patterns (and/or scope) and the numbers of immigrants in specific area. Do places with with higher figures of Muslim immigrants see more demonstrations against them or for them? (well, maybe not "for them", but anti-anti-Muslims). Another thing of interest would be how many of the anti-PAGIDA demonstrators are immigrants.

Watch for reports of assault or arson linked to the demonstration, that should help answer your last question.

Where you fail to understand, is that extremists are only a small minority of Muslims.

The moderate Muslims and the every-2nd-Friday Muslims should not be tarred with the same brush.

I say this term 'moderate' implies a failed, semi observant, half hearted, wishy washy, limp wristed cherry picking lapsed extremist. It is that - 'every second friday' fellow you refer to, which yes makes up the bulk of those out there clinging to the identity of 'Muslim'. In other words, the mass who haven't got what it takes to commit to the uncompromising amibitious conditions and dictates of Islam. We find them nice to get on with (and they, with us) precisely because a common sense / common humanity wins over the bull doo doo. Everyone likes someone who is easy going / flexible, hence why the bulk of those labelling themselves Muslim are indeed pleasant. Islam was never meant to be flexible and easy going with other ideologies. It fully intended to 'be' the one ideology, globally, eventually. Of the ones who do obey what is demanded of them, in other circles they would be regarded as cult members. All the 'moderate' bulk out there, non issue. It is that cult army, growing in popularity globally, which should be our focus of concern. "Don't blame Islam, the majority of Muslims are good people" or similar, could be said to be an unwillingness to recognise that cult army.

It seems that there is not much of an argument regarding extremists (or "devout", "observant", "orthodox", "practicing", "zealots"), other than, perhaps, their relative numbers among Muslims. Assuming this group (or groups) is beyond the reach of reasoning - it makes them less interesting as a prospect for any possible future solution. That's more of a big stick thing.

The issues discussed are usually more to do with the group described above, and tend to be governed by views seeing it as potential (or, for some, actual) threat, a passive herd, or good folk wishing nothing that to live ordinary lives. Obviously people have different personal experiences regarding this (which could mean that things are not that uniform).

If the view presented in the quoted post is to be accepted, it raises a question of whether this group could be relatively easily turned about and be corrupted by secular ways, or if their Muslim affiliation makes them "damaged goods" and beyond salvage, as the religious imperative will always win when push comes to shove.

The nature of democracies often prevents them from taking up long term goals which may, or may not, bear fruit somewhere down the line. Democracies, at least nowadays, are more about short term effects and presentable results. As such, tackling these sort of issues (in whichever fashion) is rarely more than an exercise in garnering favorable public opinion and political power.

Where you fail to understand, is that extremists are only a small minority of Muslims.

The moderate Muslims and the every-2nd-Friday Muslims should not be tarred with the same brush.

I say this term 'moderate' implies a failed, semi observant, half hearted, wishy washy, limp wristed cherry picking lapsed extremist. It is that - 'every second friday' fellow you refer to, which yes makes up the bulk of those out there clinging to the identity of 'Muslim'. In other words, the mass who haven't got what it takes to commit to the uncompromising amibitious conditions and dictates of Islam. We find them nice to get on with (and they, with us) precisely because a common sense / common humanity wins over the bull doo doo. Everyone likes someone who is easy going / flexible, hence why the bulk of those labelling themselves Muslim are indeed pleasant. Islam was never meant to be flexible and easy going with other ideologies. It fully intended to 'be' the one ideology, globally, eventually. Of the ones who do obey what is demanded of them, in other circles they would be regarded as cult members. All the 'moderate' bulk out there, non issue. It is that cult army, growing in popularity globally, which should be our focus of concern. "Don't blame Islam, the majority of Muslims are good people" or similar, could be said to be an unwillingness to recognise that cult army.

It seems that there is not much of an argument regarding extremists (or "devout", "observant", "orthodox", "practicing", "zealots"), other than, perhaps, their relative numbers among Muslims. Assuming this group (or groups) is beyond the reach of reasoning - it makes them less interesting as a prospect for any possible future solution. That's more of a big stick thing.

The issues discussed are usually more to do with the group described above, and tend to be governed by views seeing it as potential (or, for some, actual) threat, a passive herd, or good folk wishing nothing that to live ordinary lives. Obviously people have different personal experiences regarding this (which could mean that things are not that uniform).

If the view presented in the quoted post is to be accepted, it raises a question of whether this group could be relatively easily turned about and be corrupted by secular ways, or if their Muslim affiliation makes them "damaged goods" and beyond salvage, as the religious imperative will always win when push comes to shove.

The nature of democracies often prevents them from taking up long term goals which may, or may not, bear fruit somewhere down the line. Democracies, at least nowadays, are more about short term effects and presentable results. As such, tackling these sort of issues (in whichever fashion) is rarely more than an exercise in garnering favorable public opinion and political power.

To quote Daniel Greenfield, moderate Islam is what liberals believe most Muslims believe, it doesn't actually exist. Whether Muslims are prepared or not to live within the framework of a secular democracy is a complexed question to answer. One thing is for sure, apparent assimilation is on the decline with time and numbers. To illustrate this the unemployment rate of Muslim men and women in the UK was about 8% and 15% a few decades back, whereas recently it was 50% and 75% respectively.

http://10news.dk/daniel-greenfield-moderate-islam-is-our-new-religion/

I wasn't allowed to edit my post but I wanted to add regarding bigotry, though I despise it, it's not a one way street.

indeed it is the bigotry of part of the Muslim communities in these countries, who show a lack of respect for the faith of their host country. which is causing these problems. If they want their Sharia Laws let them go live in a country that has these laws.

Ah one problem with that is, their native countries don't want them either.

Like it or not Sharia law is coming to the EU. Just a matter of time.

I wasn't allowed to edit my post but I wanted to add regarding bigotry, though I despise it, it's not a one way street.

indeed it is the bigotry of part of the Muslim communities in these countries, who show a lack of respect for the faith of their host country. which is causing these problems. If they want their Sharia Laws let them go live in a country that has these laws.

Ah one problem with that is, their native countries don't want them either.

Like it or not Sharia law is coming to the EU. Just a matter of time.

Much as I feel that minorities seem to get it all in the UK, I think sharia law coming to the UK has two hopes and. One of them is Bob

Where you fail to understand, is that extremists are only a small minority of Muslims.

The moderate Muslims and the every-2nd-Friday Muslims should not be tarred with the same brush.

I say this term 'moderate' implies a failed, semi observant, half hearted, wishy washy, limp wristed cherry picking lapsed extremist. It is that - 'every second friday' fellow you refer to, which yes makes up the bulk of those out there clinging to the identity of 'Muslim'. In other words, the mass who haven't got what it takes to commit to the uncompromising amibitious conditions and dictates of Islam. We find them nice to get on with (and they, with us) precisely because a common sense / common humanity wins over the bull doo doo. Everyone likes someone who is easy going / flexible, hence why the bulk of those labelling themselves Muslim are indeed pleasant. Islam was never meant to be flexible and easy going with other ideologies. It fully intended to 'be' the one ideology, globally, eventually. Of the ones who do obey what is demanded of them, in other circles they would be regarded as cult members. All the 'moderate' bulk out there, non issue. It is that cult army, growing in popularity globally, which should be our focus of concern. "Don't blame Islam, the majority of Muslims are good people" or similar, could be said to be an unwillingness to recognise that cult army.

It seems that there is not much of an argument regarding extremists (or "devout", "observant", "orthodox", "practicing", "zealots"), other than, perhaps, their relative numbers among Muslims. Assuming this group (or groups) is beyond the reach of reasoning - it makes them less interesting as a prospect for any possible future solution. That's more of a big stick thing.

The issues discussed are usually more to do with the group described above, and tend to be governed by views seeing it as potential (or, for some, actual) threat, a passive herd, or good folk wishing nothing that to live ordinary lives. Obviously people have different personal experiences regarding this (which could mean that things are not that uniform).

If the view presented in the quoted post is to be accepted, it raises a question of whether this group could be relatively easily turned about and be corrupted by secular ways, or if their Muslim affiliation makes them "damaged goods" and beyond salvage, as the religious imperative will always win when push comes to shove.

The nature of democracies often prevents them from taking up long term goals which may, or may not, bear fruit somewhere down the line. Democracies, at least nowadays, are more about short term effects and presentable results. As such, tackling these sort of issues (in whichever fashion) is rarely more than an exercise in garnering favorable public opinion and political power.

To quote Daniel Greenfield, moderate Islam is what liberals believe most Muslims believe, it doesn't actually exist. Whether Muslims are prepared or not to live within the framework of a secular democracy is a complexed question to answer. One thing is for sure, apparent assimilation is on the decline with time and numbers. To illustrate this the unemployment rate of Muslim men and women in the UK was about 8% and 15% a few decades back, whereas recently it was 50% and 75% respectively.

http://10news.dk/daniel-greenfield-moderate-islam-is-our-new-religion/

Lissos- I think your post is brilliant! I have gone back to read it a few times and not because it is abstract or difficult but because it is just enjoyable to read.

Edit: Why is it so brilliant? Because you give voice to an observation many of us have that this silent majority is silent because... shiver... they are not a majority. It is brilliant because it exposes that the west sees what it wants, not what is apparent in the emerging theme of modern islam. When a person actually knows the scriptures, and understands what is inculcated every day, multiple times, throughout the world then they realize that "moderate" muslims are actually apostate. I dont use that phrase in a bad way, but a literal way- they are apostates from what Islam teaches.

* I cant think of any immigrant population on earth that not only refuses to assimilate but instead imposes requirements for cultural change upon the host. If this happened here, or there, or a few places, it could perhaps find an equal in another population. But this is not the case; it happens everywhere. With that as a context it is clearly understood what people are protesting. Read the koran; this is exactly the same behavior that took place in Mecca Medina and Mecca a second time.

I wasn't allowed to edit my post but I wanted to add regarding bigotry, though I despise it, it's not a one way street.

indeed it is the bigotry of part of the Muslim communities in these countries, who show a lack of respect for the faith of their host country. which is causing these problems. If they want their Sharia Laws let them go live in a country that has these laws.

Ah one problem with that is, their native countries don't want them either.

Like it or not Sharia law is coming to the EU. Just a matter of time.

Much as I feel that minorities seem to get it all in the UK, I think sharia law coming to the UK has two hopes and. One of them is Bob

Maybe not in my lifetime, But very possibly in 20-30 years. You only need to look at birth rates to know it will happen eventually. As much as I like Bob Hope!

You only need to go to the East End of London or Luton to see it is already happening.

I wasn't allowed to edit my post but I wanted to add regarding bigotry, though I despise it, it's not a one way street.

indeed it is the bigotry of part of the Muslim communities in these countries, who show a lack of respect for the faith of their host country. which is causing these problems. If they want their Sharia Laws let them go live in a country that has these laws.

Ah one problem with that is, their native countries don't want them either.

Like it or not Sharia law is coming to the EU. Just a matter of time.

Much as I feel that minorities seem to get it all in the UK, I think sharia law coming to the UK has two hopes and. One of them is Bob

Maybe not in my lifetime, But very possibly in 20-30 years. You only need to look at birth rates to know it will happen eventually. As much as I like Bob Hope, People are walking under the influence of it to this eventuality.

You only need to go to the East End of London or Luton to see it is already happening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9L_zEZflFQ

the east end and Luton are not the UK ,they may practice it in their communities,but not as British law will it be implemented,as you see in Germany and Sweden the tide is turning with a vengeance,it will grow and grow ,wait and see