"Islamaphobia" explained.

[Pete]

It's a term used far too often for my liking...often by muslims who don't understand the questions that non muslims ask of their faith.

The main question I have is why can't I, as a non-believer in any faith not entertain a muslim female?

The answer is I just can't....because I'm not a muslim.

However, If a muslim male was to court a female it would be OK if she was a believer in any other sort of religion??

This is the most basic and blatant form of "non-integration" possible yet it isn't questioned by anyone.
Can anyone explain how this can happen in a so called "multi-cultural" society?..I though that meant we were all meant to mix as exuals.

I know for a fact that such issues are a crux of the problem in places like Oldham and bradford....You don't touch a muslim woman if you don't believe...or else!

Is it not time islam to grow up and accept others...regardless of belief?

This is a large part of the problem.

[da-robster]

It's a term used far too often for my liking...often by muslims who don't understand the questions that non muslims ask of their faith.

The main question I have is why can't I, as a non-believer in any faith not entertain a muslim female?

The answer is I just can't....because I'm not a muslim.

However, If a muslim male was to court a female it would be OK if she was a believer in any other sort of religion??

This is the most basic and blatant form of "non-integration" possible yet it isn't questioned by anyone.
Can anyone explain how this can happen in a so called "multi-cultural" society?..I though that meant we were all meant to mix as exuals.

I know for a fact that such issues are a crux of the problem in places like Oldham and bradford....You don't touch a muslim woman if you don't believe...or else!

Is it not time islam to grow up and accept others...regardless of belief?

This is a large part of the problem.

I think that muslim women are bound by thier faith not to as you said entertain men of other faiths. Whereas I believe that muslim men are not held back by that restriction maybe. :confused:

[Jack]

Too many Catholics and Protestants believe exactly the same!

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can't say I can speak with much knowledge about Islam. I do know that, like Christianity, it has many different sects, with some having more literal interpretations of the religion than others.

I get the impression that in places like Iran (don't believe everything you see on TV) the rank and file are more liberal and allow a greater degree of fraternisation with other religions. Is it possible that the fundamentalism in places like Bradford is as much about certain people maintaining their power by drawing very clear lines?

Surrounded by followers of another religion, I would think some would want to make a point about their diversity. I am not saying it is right, but you see similair things from Irish and Italian communities throughout the world. The further they are from their base, the more they maintain the differential.

[hibsbollah]

I can't say I can speak with much knowledge about Islam. I do know that, like Christianity, it has many different sects, with some having more literal interpretations of the religion than others.

I get the impression that in places like Iran (don't believe everything you see on TV) the rank and file are more liberal and allow a greater degree of fraternisation with other religions. Is it possible that the fundamentalism in places like Bradford is as much about certain people maintaining their power by drawing very clear lines?

Surrounded by followers of another religion, I would think some would want to make a point about their diversity. I am not saying it is right, but you see similair things from Irish and Italian communities throughout the world. The further they are from their base, the more they maintain the differential.

And the Brits. Look at the Costa for an example of classic non-assimilation.

The OP is talking about Islamophobia which is about a generalised, irrational fear. If you admit to Islamophobia, you're admitting to being illogical at the same time.

[Phil D. Rolls]

And the Brits. Look at the Costa for an example of classic non-assimilation.

The OP is talking about Islamophobia which is about a generalised, irrational fear. If you admit to Islamophobia, you're admitting to being illogical at the same time.

Very good point. I have seen such people and they can't speak a word of Spanish. In fact, some of them go as far as talking about foreigners (meaning the Spanish people around them).

The missus is going to visit a friend in one of these "white settler" developments in Spain. It even has a branch of Iceland!

An interesting development over there is that some companies are now setting up care homes for Brits to end their days.

Does phobia not just mean fear? It could be rational or irrational. I also think that the OP might be highlighting the fear that some people within Islam have for outsiders.

[hibsbollah]

Very good point. I have seen such people and they can't speak a word of Spanish. In fact, some of them go as far as talking about foreigners (meaning the Spanish people around them).

The missus is going to visit a friend in one of these "white settler" developments in Spain. It even has a branch of Iceland!

An interesting development over there is that some companies are now setting up care homes for Brits to end their days.

Does phobia not just mean fear? It could be rational or irrational. I also think that the OP might be highlighting the fear that some people within Islam have for outsiders.

You're probably right. Once the phobia is there it goes both ways, i'm sure.

I don't know how many of the Costa Brits left because of fear of Islam in Britain, I guess most of them just fancied a bit of sunshine. A bit ironic if they did, since theyve moved to the historic centre of Islamic Spain. They should check the Alhambra out (a bit offtopic)

[Woody1985]

In my experience in Edinburgh I have seen no real desire for muslims to integrate with others in the community. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but that's my experience.

There are a lot more people on here that are more knowledgable on Islam that I am. However, my understanding is that Islamic people think there should only be one religion and that it should be spread across the world.

I watched a documentry on youtube that stated by the middle of this century that some western countries will be primarily of the muslim faith. I believe that the German PM (don't know if it was new or old) stated that by 2050 IIRC that traditional Germany will almost be a thing of the past due to birth rates e.g traditional Germans have on average 1.4 kids whilst muslim families will average 2/3/4 meaning that by another generation or two Germany as we know it will be gone.

I don't have any issue with muslims if they live their life they way they want to. However, if we end up in situation where their values and thoughts are pressed onto the existing socities I think it is wrong.

I'm not convinced that all muslims think that men are allowed to have partners of whatever faith. My aunt was engaged to a muslim guy (they have 2 kids together) and his family wrote them out of their will (they are millionaires) because he was with a white girl.

They had their first kid who was a girl. They showed no interest in her whatsoever. They had another kid, a boy, suddenly they wanted to play happy families. Their culture states that boys are more precious than girls and it's pathetic.

My aunt and him split up after 6/7 years together and now he's back with a muslim girl living in Glasgow and is back in the will. :faf:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I watched a documentry on youtube that stated by the middle of this century that some western countries will be primarily of the muslim faith. I believe that the German PM (don't know if it was new or old) stated that by 2050 IIRC that traditional Germany will almost be a thing of the past due to birth rates e.g traditional Germans have on average 1.4 kids whilst muslim families will average 2/3/4 meaning that by another generation or two Germany as we know it will be gone.

It really does amaze me how this sort of thing get's trotted out again, and again, and again (and I'm not trying to have a go at you, Woody).

People seem completely oblivious to the same old racist tropes, imagery and mantras being applied to the new group that we are all supposed to be fearful of as a 'threat to our way of life'. Echoes of Enoch Powell, no?

"In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

Except now we're not supposed to be fearful of black people - it's shifted onto Muslim's and has become (along with hatred of Travellers and the Roma) the last acceptable form of racism. All the same language that was used against black immigrants and before that against European Jewish population have been transferred onto Muslims.

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking. They're supposedly hell-bent on domination of the entire world and the complete subversion of Western liberal values through engaging in secretive and seditious acts, a value system that is supposedly diametrically opposed and incompatible with our own, refusal to integrate into an (extremely unwelcoming) populace. So to a large extent you can argue that the 'return' of the Jewish diaspora to the Holy Land left a vacuum which needed to be filled; first by Carribean immigrants (and also Bolshevism) and more recently by Arab and Muslim immigrants.

There's also the same 'Clash of Civilisation' racist rhetoric that comes up again and again, in that we're meant to see Islam as a homogenous, united block juxtaposed to 'our values' which is both a racist (Orientalist) idea in itself and used as justification for holding racist Islamophobic views.

And no-one group has been more complicit in this than wet, middle-class liberals.

[Woody1985]

It really does amaze me how this sort of thing get's trotted out again, and again, and again (and I'm not trying to have a go at you, Woody).

People seem completely oblivious to the same old racist tropes, imagery and mantras being applied to the new group that we are all supposed to be fearful of as a 'threat to our way of life'. Echoes of Enoch Powell, no?

"In this country in 15 or 20 years' time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man."

Except now we're not supposed to be fearful of black people - it's shifted onto Muslim's and has become (along with hatred of Travellers and the Roma) the last acceptable form of racism. All the same language that was used against black immigrants and before that against European Jewish population have been transferred onto Muslims.

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking. They're supposedly hell-bent on domination of the entire world and the complete subversion of Western liberal values through engaging in secretive and seditious acts, a value system that is supposedly diametrically opposed and incompatible with our own, refusal to integrate into an (extremely unwelcoming) populace. So to a large extent you can argue that the 'return' of the Jewish diaspora to the Holy Land left a vacuum which needed to be filled; first by Carribean immigrants (and also Bolshevism) and more recently by Arab and Muslim immigrants.

There's also the same 'Clash of Civilisation' racist rhetoric that comes up again and again, in that we're meant to see Islam as a homogenous, united block juxtaposed to 'our values' which is both a racist (Orientalist) idea in itself and used as justification for holding racist Islamophobic views.

And no-one group has been more complicit in this than wet, middle-class liberals.

I'm not saying what I watched was correctly or even remotely accurate and do believe that it was created for propoganda. However, it is logical that it could occur.

The specific one I watched stated that there were x million muslims in Germany around the time of the war which has seen the muslim population grow. I believe that part was accurate.

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm not saying what I watched was correctly or even remotely accurate and do believe that it was created for propoganda. However, it is logical that it could occur.

The specific one I watched stated that there were x million muslims in Germany around the time of the war which has seen the muslim population grow. I believe that part was accurate.

I'm not really sure what you mean here?

Far and away the largest non-German ethnic group in Germany is the Turkish. Out of a national population of 82+ million people they number c. 1.7 million...

It's another interesting bit of this sort of thing that people invariably believe there are far, far more of the 'threat ethnicity' than there actually are.

[Woody1985]

I'm not really sure what you mean here?

Far and away the largest non-German ethnic group in Germany is the Turkish. Out of a national population of 82+ million people they number c. 1.7 million...

It's another interesting bit of this sort of thing that people invariably believe there are far, far more of the 'threat ethnicity' than there actually are.

Sorry, wasn't getting at any particular point other than part of the 'documentary' (to use it extremely loosely) had some parts that were accurate in my knowledge.

I think that part of the arguement that was stated as that a large amount of Turks moved to Germany during the WW and have since grown at a much larger rate that the traditional German population.

Need to go for a shower and get ready to leave for the game... Will be back on tomorrow.

[hibsdaft]

i'm religion-phobic.

[lapsedhibee]

The parallels with the treatment of, and attitudes towards, Jews in the 18th/19th/20th is really amazingly striking. They're supposedly hell-bent on domination of the entire world and the complete subversion of Western liberal values through engaging in secretive and seditious acts, a value system that is supposedly diametrically opposed and incompatible with our own, refusal to integrate into an (extremely unwelcoming) populace. So to a large extent you can argue that the 'return' of the Jewish diaspora to the Holy Land left a vacuum which needed to be filled; first by Carribean immigrants (and also Bolshevism) and more recently by Arab and Muslim immigrants.

Agree with this to an extent in that many people need scapegoats and Brian Kerr isn't available to fill that role for everyone, so Muslims will do. However, think that the parallel you make with Jews is not perfect. No group of Jews, even very devout ones, ever suicide-planed an occupied building as a means of proclaiming the correctness of their religious beliefs.

[Tazio]

Agree with this to an extent in that many people need scapegoats and Brian Kerr isn't available to fill that role for everyone, so Muslims will do. However, think that the parallel you make with Jews is not perfect. No group of Jews, even very devout ones, ever suicide-planed an occupied building as a means of proclaiming the correctness of their religious beliefs.

But martyrdom isn't a part of the Jewish religion. The Jews in Palestine weren't too shy at carrying out terrorist acts in their fight against the British forces and civilians.

[hibsbollah]

Agree with this to an extent in that many people need scapegoats and Brian Kerr isn't available to fill that role for everyone, so Muslims will do. However, think that the parallel you make with Jews is not perfect. No group of Jews, even very devout ones, ever suicide-planed an occupied building as a means of proclaiming the correctness of their religious beliefs.

Muslims do a lot of unseen work. Very much like Brian Kerr:agree:

[Betty Boop]

But martyrdom isn't a part of the Jewish religion. The Jews in Palestine weren't too shy at carrying out terrorist acts in their fight against the British forces and civilians.

:agree: They might not have "suicide-planed an occupied building", however they blew up an occupied hotel. the King David leading to the death of 91 people, I suspect to "proclaim the correctness of their religious beliefs". Zionist groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang were involved in many acts of terrorism. as were the Hagana, just don't expect any Hollywood films to highlight any of their operations. Doddie knows a lot about the bombing of the King David and Jewish acts of terror, maybe he could add to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVglLsYkoHg

[Tazio]

:agree: They might not have "suicide-planed an occupied building", however they blew up an occupied hotel. the King David leading to the death of 91 people, I suspect to "proclaim the correctness of their religious beliefs". Zionist groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang were involved in many acts of terrorism. as were the Hagana, just don't expect any Hollywood films to highlight any of their operations. Doddie knows a lot about the bombing of the King David and Jewish acts of terror, maybe he could add to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVglLsYkoHg

My old man was there as a squaddie in the Seaforth Highlanders. He told me the stories about bodies hanging from lamp posts with signs around their necks. Lovely people.

[lapsedhibee]

But martyrdom isn't a part of the Jewish religion.

I meant that if there is islamophobia around in the west just now it is somewhat more understandable, in the light of the suicide bombing escapades on foreign soil, than the pogroms in the 17th/18th etc centuries.
The martyrdom thing you mention makes it even more understandable. The bit about the 72 waiting virgins, if that's not just made up by the Daily Mail, makes it even more understandable. If it is the case that one religion can be more stupid than another, islam shirley beats judaism imho. Cf also the fatwa against that beardy author chappie a few years ago for writing a book. Plenty good reasons for westerners to be suspicious of islamism, and not hard for suspicion to spill over into phobia.


The Jews in Palestine weren't too shy at carrying out terrorist acts in their fight against the British forces and civilians.
Freedom fighters.

[lapsedhibee]

:agree: They might not have "suicide-planed an occupied building", however they blew up an occupied hotel. the King David leading to the death of 91 people, I suspect to "proclaim the correctness of their religious beliefs". Zionist groups such as the Irgun and Stern Gang were involved in many acts of terrorism. as were the Hagana, just don't expect any Hollywood films to highlight any of their operations. Doddie knows a lot about the bombing of the King David and Jewish acts of terror, maybe he could add to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVglLsYkoHg

Not an expert but my very limited understanding is that warnings were given (and not heeded) before the King David hotel blew up, and evacuation should have been possible. Not claiming to be an expert on the Twin Towers incident either, but don't recall hearing that any warning was given. So imho not equivalent incidents, to the best of my current knowledge. Willing to be corrected obviously.

[Tazio]

Freedom fighters.

Freedom fighters from who? Or are you being ironic? Freedom in a country where they are the minority? And a huge percentage of the groups mentioned in a previous post are actually eastern european. So they turn up in a country they weren't born in and claim it as theirs and set about terrorising the existing population? I suggest you Google the Nakba.

[Mibbes Aye]

I meant that if there is islamophobia around in the west just now it is somewhat more understandable, in the light of the suicide bombing escapades on foreign soil, than the pogroms in the 17th/18th etc centuries.
The martyrdom thing you mention makes it even more understandable. The bit about the 72 waiting virgins, if that's not just made up by the Daily Mail, makes it even more understandable. If it is the case that one religion can be more stupid than another, islam shirley beats judaism imho. Cf also the fatwa against that beardy author chappie a few years ago for writing a book. Plenty good reasons for westerners to be suspicious of islamism, and not hard for suspicion to spill over into phobia.


Freedom fighters.

Beardy bloke's still alive. IIRC doctors and their staff have been shot dead and at least one policeman has been killed in bombings of abortion clinics in the USA. Somebody might disagree with abortion but since when did that give them the right to commit murder?

Plenty good reasons for everyone to be suspicious of Christianity, since generalisation seems to be the modus operandi :dunno:

[hibsdaft]

not to mention the Olympic Park Bomber of 1996

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Robert_Rudolph

---------- Post added at 11:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:57 PM ----------


In my experience in Edinburgh I have seen no real desire for muslims to integrate with others in the community. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but that's my experience.

what would constitute integration for you?

[lapsedhibee]

Beardy bloke's still alive. IIRC doctors and their staff have been shot dead and at least one policeman has been killed in bombings of abortion clinics in the USA. Somebody might disagree with abortion but since when did that give them the right to commit murder?

Plenty good reasons for everyone to be suspicious of Christianity, since generalisation seems to be the modus operandi :dunno:

Couldn't agree more.

Though I hope you're not hinting that generalisation is always bad :wink:

[lapsedhibee]

Freedom fighters from who? Or are you being ironic? Freedom in a country where they are the minority? And a huge percentage of the groups mentioned in a previous post are actually eastern european. So they turn up in a country they weren't born in and claim it as theirs and set about terrorising the existing population? I suggest you Google the Nakba.

I have read the (admittedly brief) Wiki entry on Nakba Day, but not sure that I get your point. By the "huge percentage of the groups mentioned in a previous post" are you referring to individual jewish people who have opted to live in a state set up by the UN? The Wiki entry doesn't hint that those individuals in any way "set about terrorising" people within that state:

the Arab community in Palestine, supported by the Arab League, rejected the UN proposal and vowed to oppose it by armed struggle

Perhaps the Wiki entry is biased, or whoever has refereed it is part of some wider conspiracy? :dunno:

What I take from the celebration of al-Nakba, since before the creation of Israel it was used to refer to a completely different event in 1920, is that members of religious groupings often like to perpetuate the perception of injustice as a means of solidarity with each other. Over time, the actual nature of the event becomes less and less relevant, and the commemoration becomes a celebration of group membership. Cf Gazza endearing himself to the hunnery by playing an imaginary flute as a way of saying "I amma peepul".

Not claiming in any way to be any sort of expert whatsoever on Arab Israeli conflicts, or their history. Though celebrating injustice doesn't in general seem to me like a productive long-term strategy.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Agree with this to an extent in that many people need scapegoats and Brian Kerr isn't available to fill that role for everyone, so Muslims will do. However, think that the parallel you make with Jews is not perfect. No group of Jews, even very devout ones, ever suicide-planed an occupied building as a means of proclaiming the correctness of their religious beliefs.

So, terrorism is part of the Muslim condition and antipathetic to the Jewish?

Setting aside the fact that Israel was established and is maintained by state and extrajudicial terrorism...

There's the Brit HaKanaim and the Gush Emunim for starters.


I have read the (admittedly brief) Wiki entry on Nakba Day, but not sure that I get your point. By the "huge percentage of the groups mentioned in a previous post" are you referring to individual jewish people who have opted to live in a state set up by the UN? The Wiki entry doesn't hint that those individuals in any way "set about terrorising" people within that state:

the Arab community in Palestine, supported by the Arab League, rejected the UN proposal and vowed to oppose it by armed struggle

Perhaps the Wiki entry is biased, or whoever has refereed it is part of some wider conspiracy? :dunno:

What I take from the celebration of al-Nakba, since before the creation of Israel it was used to refer to a completely different event in 1920, is that members of religious groupings often like to perpetuate the perception of injustice as a means of solidarity with each other. Over time, the actual nature of the event becomes less and less relevant, and the commemoration becomes a celebration of group membership. Cf Gazza endearing himself to the hunnery by playing an imaginary flute as a way of saying "I amma peepul".

Not claiming in any way to be any sort of expert whatsoever on Arab Israeli conflicts, or their history. Though celebrating injustice doesn't in general seem to me like a productive long-term strategy.

I think you probably looked at this wikipedia entry....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_day

Rather than this wikipedia entry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nakba

[lapsedhibee]

So, terrorism is part of the Muslim condition and antipathetic to the Jewish?

Setting aside the fact that Israel was established and is maintained by state and extrajudicial terrorism...


I think you probably looked at this wikipedia entry....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba_day

Rather than this wikipedia entry...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nakba

You are right, I did - but have now read the much longer link, from which I am getting that there was a civil war in the area and that, as in all civil wars, atrocities were committed (presumably by both sides). I am still not clear that there is anything in the description given - which seems to me to be about civil warfare and local territorial aspirations by jewish people - that is on a par with the Twin Towers incident. It still seems to me that the Twin Towers event was evidence of fanaticism of a more mental degree than anything in the history of Palestine. But perhaps I am splitting hairs or being overimpressed by the audacity of the suicide-planers.

It's the most obvious thing in the world that Palestinian arabs in the 1940s were victims. I do genuinely wonder whether in 2009 to look at things that way is a help or a hindrance. Sixty years is just the thickness of a postage stamp stuck on the top of the Empire State Building of history, but so is human lifespan. I can't at the moment see much difference between commemorating al-Nakba and the Battle of the Boyne.

I will need to find out more about how and why the UN thought setting up a jewish state was ever going to work before trying to comment further.

[sadtom]

You are right, I did - but have now read the much longer link, from which I am getting that there was a civil war in the area and that, as in all civil wars, atrocities were committed (presumably by both sides). I am still not clear that there is anything in the description given - which seems to me to be about civil warfare and local territorial aspirations by jewish people - that is on a par with the Twin Towers incident. It still seems to me that the Twin Towers event was evidence of fanaticism of a more mental degree than anything in the history of Palestine. But perhaps I am splitting hairs or being overimpressed by the audacity of the suicide-planers.

It's the most obvious thing in the world that Palestinian arabs in the 1940s were victims. I do genuinely wonder whether in 2009 to look at things that way is a help or a hindrance. Sixty years is just the thickness of a postage stamp stuck on the top of the Empire State Building of history, but so is human lifespan. I can't at the moment see much difference between commemorating al-Nakba and the Battle of the Boyne.

I will need to find out more about how and why the UN thought setting up a jewish state was ever going to work before trying to comment further.

How about the crusades? Not once, not twice but thrice as acts of terror?
The number of deaths on sept 11 has been meted out a hundred fold since. All in the name of western cultural hegemony. The imposition of western ideology by bloody brutal force.

The christian west has for centuries used terror, overtly and covertly, in the parts of the world it has attempted to control/westernise(christianise), puppet regimes and divide and rule being a considerable tactic when mass murder didn't have the desired result.

The taliban have been used as an example of 'backward' or 'uncivilised brutality, yet in the equivelant 5/6 years of their control of afghanistan (prior to the war in iraq/afghanistan). Yet there had been far more people murdered by the state in Texas alone than in the whole of afghanistan(including a few who were under 16 when they commited their crime).

When it comes to 'enforcing beliefs' none of these other religions can compare with christianity, THE most brutal religion that has ever existed.
Still today the usa has the highest pro rata and raw number of religious fundamentalists in the world by far.

They 'poke us in the eye' by way of retaliation, we claim to be the victim and flatten their families/villages/towns/cities.

The west cant take lessons from anyone in the bloodlust stakes.

Islamic fundamentalists may shout 'allah akbar' when launching missiles or detonating bombs. In the usa the state proclaims its fundamentalism on the money, 'in god we trust'.
Being an openly atheist politician in the usa is electoral suicide.
p.s. and in terms of sectarianism, being a catholic in the uk would appear to prevent being pm - ask tony.

[Dinkydoo]

Freedom fighters.


You stop being a freedom fighter and become a terrorist as soon as you cause the death of an innocent.

Quite simple really.

Religion is the cause for so many problems (and is used as an excuse to do wrong time and time again)

The sad thing is that chances are, these ass holes are never going to be punished for their crimes and when they die they'll never know that they were wrong because that'll be it.

Religion taken too literally is a sure path back to the dark ages imo. It can give people great strength to get through difficult times but it can also fuel you into doing something evil like crashing a two planes into the previously tallest sky scrapers in the world........:grr:

I'm not an Atheist, I believe in something but I have no idea what that is and I've great doubts about whether any of us will ever truely know how we were created etc etc etc etc.....:blah:

So I see no point in taking religion too seriously:rolleyes:

[PeeJay]

In my experience in Edinburgh I have seen no real desire for muslims to integrate with others in the community. I'm not saying it doesn't happen but that's my experience.

There are a lot more people on here that are more knowledgable on Islam that I am. However, my understanding is that Islamic people think there should only be one religion and that it should be spread across the world.

I watched a documentry on youtube that stated by the middle of this century that some western countries will be primarily of the muslim faith. I believe that the German PM (don't know if it was new or old) stated that by 2050 IIRC that traditional Germany will almost be a thing of the past due to birth rates e.g traditional Germans have on average 1.4 kids whilst muslim families will average 2/3/4 meaning that by another generation or two Germany as we know it will be gone.

I don't have any issue with muslims if they live their life they way they want to. However, if we end up in situation where their values and thoughts are pressed onto the existing socities I think it is wrong.

I'm not convinced that all muslims think that men are allowed to have partners of whatever faith. My aunt was engaged to a muslim guy (they have 2 kids together) and his family wrote them out of their will (they are millionaires) because he was with a white girl.

They had their first kid who was a girl. They showed no interest in her whatsoever. They had another kid, a boy, suddenly they wanted to play happy families. Their culture states that boys are more precious than girls and it's pathetic.

My aunt and him split up after 6/7 years together and now he's back with a muslim girl living in Glasgow and is back in the will. :faf:

Most definitely NOT the German PM - may well have been a member of the German Bundesbank, of course:cool2:? Does make you wonder though: if "youtube" or you "Woody1985" gets a major aspect like this completely wrong, what can be relied on in any so-called report on a topic such as this?:confused:

[Woody1985]

Most definitely NOT the German PM - may well have been a member of the German Bundesbank, of course:cool2:? Does make you wonder though: if "youtube" or you "Woody1985" gets a major aspect like this completely wrong, what can be relied on in any so-called report on a topic such as this?:confused:

It was a short documentry I watched a month or two back. I don't have all of the exact details but I believe that's what was stated in the video.

I was adding some points that were made on what I watched. As per the above, you will see that I have stated that I don't know if much/all of the information on the video was correct and took it with a pinch of salt.

I was merely adding to the discussion, perhaps the video was created as a propoganda tool to promote Islamaphobia, therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it.

[PeeJay]

:confused:
It was a short documentry I watched a month or two back. I don't have all of the exact details but I believe that's what was stated in the video.

I was adding some points that were made on what I watched. As per the above, you will see that I have stated that I don't know if much/all of the information on the video was correct and took it with a pinch of salt.

I was merely adding to the discussion, perhaps the video was created as a propoganda tool to promote Islamaphobia, therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it.

a) IMO "Youtube" is a place for watching funny videos and suchlike, not for gaining political insight into anything (not without checking elsewhere at least!)
b) Perhaps common sense would have suggested that the German PM could not possibly have said what you think she said - Germany would be in political meltdown if she had said it, and you would hear something about it on reputable news outlets (i.e. not "youtube")
c) "...therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it" - a) Woody-1985, how can the "youtube" inaccuracy or your bad hearing/recollection be of relevance to the topic if it's nonsense??:confused:

[(((Fergus)))]

It's a term used far too often for my liking...often by muslims who don't understand the questions that non muslims ask of their faith.

The main question I have is why can't I, as a non-believer in any faith not entertain a muslim female?

The answer is I just can't....because I'm not a muslim.

However, If a muslim male was to court a female it would be OK if she was a believer in any other sort of religion??

This is the most basic and blatant form of "non-integration" possible yet it isn't questioned by anyone.
Can anyone explain how this can happen in a so called "multi-cultural" society?..I though that meant we were all meant to mix as exuals.

I know for a fact that such issues are a crux of the problem in places like Oldham and bradford....You don't touch a muslim woman if you don't believe...or else!

Is it not time islam to grow up and accept others...regardless of belief?

This is a large part of the problem.

By "entertain", do you mean "ride"?

Are you having bother with a particular young lady? :cool2:

[Woody1985]

:confused:

a) IMO "Youtube" is a place for watching funny videos and suchlike, not for gaining political insight into anything (not without checking elsewhere at least!)
b) Perhaps common sense would have suggested that the German PM could not possibly have said what you think she said - Germany would be in political meltdown if she had said it, and you would hear something about it on reputable news outlets (i.e. not "youtube")
c) "...therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it" - a) Woody-1985, how can the "youtube" inaccuracy or your bad hearing/recollection be of relevance to the topic if it's nonsense??:confused:

A) That's why I said that I don't know if any of the video was accurate.
B) I appreciate that but IIRC the video was posted a couple of years back and I didn't take much of an interest in politics then so wouldn't have been aware one way or the other.
C) The topic is Islamaphobia, a video like this that may well be pure propoganda from the right wing on one of the most used websites in the world is extremely relevant. Failure to see that is obtuse.

[BravestHibs]

You stop being a freedom fighter and become a terrorist as soon as you cause the death of an innocent.

Quite simple really.

Religion is the cause for so many problems (and is used as an excuse to do wrong time and time again)

The sad thing is that chances are, these ass holes are never going to be punished for their crimes and when they die they'll never know that they were wrong because that'll be it.

Religion taken too literally is a sure path back to the dark ages imo. It can give people great strength to get through difficult times but it can also fuel you into doing something evil like crashing a two planes into the previously tallest sky scrapers in the world........:grr:

I'm not an Atheist, I believe in something but I have no idea what that is and I've great doubts about whether any of us will ever truely know how we were created etc etc etc etc.....:blah:

So I see no point in taking religion too seriously:rolleyes:

You can't have war without the loss of lives of innocents. What constitutes an innocent anyway? Were the soldiers killed at their barracks in Northern Ireland recently innocents, or do they count as combatants if they joined the army with a view to fighting the battles of what the Real IRA view as occupying forces? Does this make our grandparents terrorists for bombing German cities during WWII? I feel that this rather too simplistic a view to be honest.

I agree with your views on religious intolerance of any kind being a major factor in the Worlds instability.

[Dinkydoo]

You can't have war without the loss of lives of innocents. What constitutes an innocent anyway? Were the soldiers killed at their barracks in Northern Ireland recently innocents, or do they count as combatants if they joined the army with a view to fighting the battles of what the Real IRA view as occupying forces? Does this make our grandparents terrorists for bombing German cities during WWII? I feel that this rather too simplistic a view to be honest.

I agree with your views on religious intolerance of any kind being a major factor in the Worlds instability.


I don't really want to get into the whole IRA debate because I simply don't agree with the way that either side has handled Ireland's troubles over the years. I can understand as to why they killed him in this particular instance but the act in it'self was cowardly. The guy was unarmed and waiting for his dinner...:grr:

Thats about all I'm wanting to say about Ireland as it gets far too complicated and I've neither the knowledge or will to try and justify the IRA, British Government or UVA.

As you said, the statement was simplistic, but my view isn't. I understand that killing innocents is unavoidable in every war but what I should have said was:

IMO, if you set out to kill an innocent person (child, man, women uninvolved in the situation and not having taken human life or POW's themselves) then you are a terrorist. Or your behaviour could be descirbed as that of a terrorist's nature.

If hypothetically, US troops on command from thier government came and occupied Scotland and made us prisoners of our own country, killed children, raped people and started a reign of tyrony. I would then perceive someone sending a bomb to the US aiming to kill the people high up who ordered their army to attack us and what not, as a freedom fighter.

If this hypothetical person bombed a US shopping mall out of revenge then I'd see him/her as a terrorist.

It all depends on what factors are involved within each situation and I admit that attempting to sum up my feelings on the matter in a simple sentence was simplistic.

However, I didn't really want to have to go into great detail.....:wink:

Oh well:faf:

[Phil D. Rolls]

Whether you are a terrorist or a soldier depends on who won.

[steakbake]

I'm not really sure what you mean here?

Far and away the largest non-German ethnic group in Germany is the Turkish. Out of a national population of 82+ million people they number c. 1.7 million...

It's another interesting bit of this sort of thing that people invariably believe there are far, far more of the 'threat ethnicity' than there actually are.

And if you have been to Turkey recently, you'll realise that while it is a muslim country, it is only nominally so.

I'm pretty sure the majority of Turks living in other parts of continental Europe are not about to bring about the Caliphate.

[PeeJay]

It was a short documentry I watched a month or two back. I don't have all of the exact details but I believe that's what was stated in the video.

I was adding some points that were made on what I watched. As per the above, you will see that I have stated that I don't know if much/all of the information on the video was correct and took it with a pinch of salt.

I was merely adding to the discussion, perhaps the video was created as a propoganda tool to promote Islamaphobia, therefore I would say it's extremely relevant to the thread regardless of the accuracy of information contained within it.

Let me put it to you more pointedly Woody: your statement "I think that part of the argument that was stated was that a large amount of Turks moved to Germany during the WW and have since grown at a much larger rate that the traditional German population." is completely incorrect!!!!!:grr:
Anyone with any knowledge of the subject KNOWS that the great influx of Turkish people into this country (Germany) came during Germany's "Economic Miracle" which took place during the years 1950 to 1960, i.e. AFTER the WW (in the Turkish workers case from 1960 onwards) - they were recruited by the German Government which was short of workers and had to advertise for "Guest Workers" (Gastarbeiter) to come to Germany. What are you talking about? You are supposedly discussing Islamophobia by referring to "youtube" nonsense and "facts" you have 'picked up', most of which seem to be wrong. When I point them out to you, you reply that they are still of some relevance to the debate! How? How can you "add to the discussion" when what - in your mind - are facts are obviously and demonstrably not facts? Either you misheard, misunderstood or you are perhaps propogating propoganda. What agenda are you following? This is the age of the internet: people will believe any old nonsense if you pack it up the right way, and say you believe it to be accurate!

By all means debate the topic, but don't add nonsense to what is already a badly misunderstood topic!:bye:

[Woody1985]

Let me put it to you more pointedly Woody: your statement "I think that part of the argument that was stated was that a large amount of Turks moved to Germany during the WW and have since grown at a much larger rate that the traditional German population." is completely incorrect!!!!!:grr:
Anyone with any knowledge of the subject KNOWS that the great influx of Turkish people into this country (Germany) came during Germany's "Economic Miracle" which took place during the years 1950 to 1960, i.e. AFTER the WW (in the Turkish workers case from 1960 onwards) - they were recruited by the German Government which was short of workers and had to advertise for "Guest Workers" (Gastarbeiter) to come to Germany. What are you talking about? You are supposedly discussing Islamophobia by referring to "youtube" nonsense and "facts" you have 'picked up', most of which seem to be wrong. When I point them out to you, you reply that they are still of some relevance to the debate! How? How can you "add to the discussion" when what - in your mind - are facts are obviously and demonstrably not facts? Either you misheard, misunderstood or you are perhaps propogating propoganda. What agenda are you following? This is the age of the internet: people will believe any old nonsense if you pack it up the right way, and say you believe it to be accurate!

By all means debate the topic, but don't add nonsense to what is already a badly misunderstood topic!:bye:

Let me put this to you... Whether the facts of the video are correct or not is irrelevant. The point is that the video exists and is promoting these points, therefore potentially promoting islamaphobia on one of the most widely used internet sites in the world. How can that not be relevant to a discussion on islamaphobia?

I've stated what I watched, you, along with LH have provided information contrary to the video and have therefore cleared up on a couple of things.

I'm not defending the points made so I have no agenda as you put it, I've already said that's what was stated on the video and I don't know how many of the points made are accurate or not. Is that so hard to understand?

The use of the :bye: is generally for patronising *****, I'm sure you were aware of that.

[PeeJay]

The use of the :bye: is generally for patronising *****, I'm sure you were aware of that.

One thing I'd like to assure you on this is that my :bye:meant nothing other than Schluss as we say in Germany, i.e. "I'm of out here - no hard feelings": that's the way I personally always use it. Of course if it's an internet convention and everyone else uses it in the manner you suggest: I may have to stop or find another smiley thing."

[BravestHibs]

Whether you are a terrorist or a soldier depends on who won.

Who ever wins is the side who decides what to write in the history book, which I suppose is the same thing really.