Increased Islamic Influence in European Nations

[Nurvingiel]

Similar views can be heard across traditionally tolerant Scandinavia - and no longer just from the populist rightwing party's such as Pia Kjaersgaard's People's Party in Denmark. The centre-right Government of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has equipped Denmark with Europe's toughest curbs on immigration, largely aimed at people from Muslim countries. In Sweden, where anti-Muslim feeling is running high and mosques have been burnt, schools have been authorised to ban pupils who wear full Islamic head-cover, although the measure comes nowhere near France's new ban on the hijab in all state schools.

*rereads* Oh my goodness! That's first I heard of it. Rest assured, Muslim's in Umeå are safe. I notice it did not say where, when, who, and how often this occured? Was in one mosque in Göterborg(1), or ten mosques spread accross the country? This makes a really big difference, and it throws this act(s), though horrible, into a darker light than reality.

It makes me doubt all the other acts reported in this article - how bad is the situation really?

(1) There's nothing wrong with Göterborg. I just wanted to name a Swedish city that wasn't Stockholm or Malmö.

[Embladyne]

In one of my classes we're looking at how Germany (and to some extent other European countries) has dealt with immigrants and integrating them into society, since the 1950's. And a lot of what I've noticed is that because of discrimination in society, immigrant groups tend to be assisted into isolating themselves from the greater society, while at the same time being blamed for not wanting to integrate. I don't want to lay the blame on any one group of people, because that is impossible, and irresponsible. But, the truth is that the situation can't get better if people aren't willing to recognize their own part in creating the problems they live with.

About the Netherlands...
What bothered me most when I heard about the death of the filmmaker VanGogh, was that it seemed no one who was angry with him, and the woman who wrote the screenplay, attempted to answer his film, or begin a dialogue. They just took the easy path and used violence.
How can this world be a worthwhile place to live, if people aren't even willing to put forth the effort to make it such?
How can we hope to be accepted, or at the least, tolerated if we are unwilling to spend the time to tolerate others?
I also don't understand why the violence happened now, and not some other time, but then again, I am not very aware of what the political climate in the Netherlands has been.

And finally
My opinion on U.S. national identity as opposed to the national identities of individual European countries is: because we (the U.S.), as a people are so diverse, and constantly changing, we are unable to really have much in common with each other, other than the country we inhabit. When I do find people I share more than a few opinions with, it's always a great surprise and delight, but I also love hearing new ideas, beacause sometimes (more often than I admit) I realize that these new ideas are better than my previous ones.

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

of course they never make the news - just like the many many good things in the US which don't get reported by the international media. I hope people will remember that.

Yes, I think we all need to remember that as well.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Also - I have a question - what is "integrated" to you mean? Does it mean that they dress and act like Europeans? We have indians and muslims throughout Plainsboro - and I don't think anythign about it - even though many do wear native dress. It seems to be less of a deal in America how people dress - whereas in Europe, such as france - it's either you are like us - or you're not welcome.

You reply too fast for me JD , I edited my post while you were typing. I realised that "integrated" was not the correct term to express my opinion, because it may be read as "assimilated", which was not my intent. Instead I said "There are many of us who believe that Islamic values and culture can live well within Europe." Was that more clear?

I cannot speak for other countries than Norway really, but I do think France is somewhat special within Europe, in that they so totally dismiss every form of religious expression in public fora and places, from the state level down to each individual. This is so different from my country as it can be, we have a state church here!

I agree with you in this: Why should we care about how people dress. That is really not important. There are far more serious matters we have to deal with, which are more bound to culture and habits than religion, I think. Such as the practise with circumcise (is that spelled correctly? Is it the right word?) of women, as an example.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

European culture seems to be much more narrowly defined than American culture and hence much harder to be accepted when one is not a native.

I think there is some truth in this, even though we are not so homogenous in Europe as it may seem from outside. But it IS hard for non-Western immigrants to be accepted here, that is to be looked upon as a person, and not as a representative of some obscure minority. It takes several years, even generations maybe.

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by inked

The last post on this subject I made got jumped on as a skewed presentation by the Daily Mail. So when I saw that the august and accurate LONDON TIMES was reporting the same thing, I just reposted the concept. I am waiting for the dispatchers of the Daily Mail article to show up and dispatch this one.

Well, the Times has recently become a tabloid and suffered a consequent decline in quality, but we won't mention that

Unless the conviction that such behaviours as noted among Islamics and between Islamics and non-Islamics are not going to be tolerated and that conviction enforced, Europe will enter a blood bath over these issues: Islamic cultural fundamentalism versus European tolerance of multiculturalism.

Blood bath? I think that really sums up the quality of this debate. Newspapers seize on a couple of stories of violence and suddenly liberalism and tolerance of all kinds (but the European kind especially, of course ) is collapsing?

Surely, the worldview which rejects tolerance as weakness is coming close to the Islamist intolerance it claims to reject.

[The Gaffer]

The message I take from this is that racism is endemic throughout Europe, and you only have to scratch the surface for it to emerge. T'was ever thus, for centuries. (However, the idea that the US is a Nirvana of racial harmony by comparison is frankly laughable.)

As the article notes, each country has unique ethnic and racial demographics. France seems to have a particularly large and vocal anti-immigrant sector (e.g. le Pen), but it's different from the situation in Germany and Italy. Here in the UK, for example, there is a wide gulf between urban and rural attitudes towards race. People where I live generally have a tolerant and/or celebratory attitude towards such diversity, whereas you still hear of Asian families being run out of town out in the sticks.

I don't regard The Times, btw, as an "august and reliable" publication any more. For one thing, it's a Murdoch organ, which means, for example, you won't read too many stories that are critical of the Chinese government in there (because Rupe covets their broadcasting rights).

This particular story reeks of bias:

a mainstream opinion that has recently abandoned political correctness and wants to halt the inroads of Islam

Note the pejorative use of "political correctness" (a term that is rapidly losing its meaning and will hopefully be consigned to the dustbin soon) and the very ominous "inroads of Islam", as if we're all going to be trussed up in Burkas and carted off to the Mosque. I agree with whoever said that this is mostly journalists trying to talk up a story.

Having said that, I think that Europe has failed to grasp the nettle of racism. I would like to see an EU-wide law similar to the British law against "incitement to racial hatred". The EU has enshrined equality of the sexes in its basic principles and it needs to do more to ensure that this applies to race and religion as well.

The disgusting behaviour of some Spanish football fans at the recent game v England is just another example of this. 20 years ago we had the same problem here, but it's been pretty much eradicated from the terraces by a combination of policy, education and the majority of decent fans. Now, it would be policed by the fans and if someone started doing monkey chants whenever a black player got the ball, they would get collared PDQ.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

As for this - I have been following the violence in the Netherlands in response to Van Gough's murder. It seems sort of ironic since this violence there is a result of ONE film makers death, the burning of mosques, the burning of schools - the overall violence, the talk of deporting muslims out of the country, etc - yet the US after 9/11 had a miniscule amount of backlash against muslims. There were isolated incidents - sure - but no where near the scale that is occuring in Europe and in particular in the Netherlands.

Actually, no, it wasn't simply the result of one filmmaker's death. IMO this has been shimmering in the Netherlands for some time so I don't think you can succesfully draw paralels with post-9/11 USA. It's also more related to the fact that his murder comes so close to that of Pim Fortuyn, which also caused an uproar in the Netherlands. And it's not just his death, it is also the issuing of threats to politicians that clearly give a message of: "We don't care whether the Netherlands have freedom of speech, if you say something about the islam that we don't like, you're a dead man or woman. Shut up and we let you live."

Such a thing is unheard of in the Dutch culture, so I can understand some people became quite infuriated with it. (I find it infuriating myself, but I don't go firing religious houses over it.)

And the burning of mosques (haven't heard any of schools, can't remember) were IMO also isolated incidents, it was far from being grand-scale. But regardless of that, setting fire to those mosques still is bloody stupid.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

I don't think the headscarf ban is a good demonstration of liberal values.

I think it depends on how you look at it. Here the headscarf is often seen as a means to suppres muslim women. Regardless of women who wear the scarf freely and of their own choice, the scarf has a rather negative image.

Originally Posted by Artanis

I agree with you in this: Why should we care about how people dress. That is really not important. There are far more serious matters we have to deal with, which are more bound to culture and habits than religion, I think. Such as the practise with circumcise (is that spelled correctly? Is it the right word?) of women, as an example.

I quite agree.

[Elvellon]

Inked wrote:
Unless the conviction that such behaviours as noted among Islamics and between Islamics and non-Islamics are not going to be tolerated and that conviction enforced, Europe will enter a blood bath over these issues: Islamic cultural fundamentalism versus European tolerance of multiculturalism.

Oh, I wouldn’t expect a “blood bath.” Methinks that is giving too much credit to the news, or, as Artanis wrote:

And it is sad IMO, that the media is hopping on this so-called "cultural war", reporting ideas and utterances from the extremists on both sides, often set out of context, and thus putting fuel to the fire. There are actually cities in Europe where people from many cultures and religions are living peacefully together, but they make no news.

Artanis wrote:
I think the word "fundamentalist" is often used in a wrong way. An islamic fundamentalist is a person who holds to the basis of Islam, but that is NOT the same as accepting violence or going against "Europe's liberal values".

Hmm, I am no so sure. For instance, between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb what is the place of peace? (The House of Islam and the House of War).
A problem is that Islam is a bellicose religion, (just think of the concept of Jihad; that is not just about inner struggle); and is a hands-on religion that tries to regulate all aspects of Human life. Fundamentalists will typically want to follow a literal interpretation of the Koran, and often of the Charia, and that is incompatible with Western values, even when they are willing to keep to themselves.
It cannot be allowed that a group maintains itself apart from the laws of the State, and regress to practices that limit Human liberty, more so when they try to apply these limitations to others that, while born in the group, don’t share those values, or, sometimes, even to others totally alien to the group.

That said, it is important to say, that this is far from being a problem of the majority of the Islamic community. Nevertheless, this moderate majority will need to be more vocal in the future and to cooperate with the rest of society against the radical elements in their midst.

Artanis wrote:
Why should we care about how people dress. That is really not important.

Well, I agree with Earniel’s take on this. It is not by mere whim they had been banned in French schools in the first place, and that they have reaffirmed the ban now. (And I would remember that nearly half the French Muslins agreed with the ban, too).
Many see those scarves as symbols of female oppression. But more, they are tools of self-segregation. It separates, “us” from “them.” The same principle is responsible for the original imposition of the use of school uniforms on earlier days; it was a way to eliminate the class barriers between groups of students, or for the ban of gang colours used elsewhere. Neither was fully successful of course, but neither was entirely unsuccessful, either.

[jerseydevil]

I'm going to have to respond to the above - but not today and most likely not tomorrow (I'm taking the Beslan students around Princeton tomorrow).

I did want to post something someone sent me and see what people's thoughts are - especially those who live in Europe. I "know" from watching French news - that this reaction to Jews is not restricted to just Germany.

Poll: Over 50% of Germans equate IDF with Nazi army
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

Six decades after the mass extermination of six million Jews in the Holocaust by Nazi Germany, more than 50 percent of Germans believe that Israel's present-day treatment of the Palestinians is similar to what the Nazis did to the Jews during World War II, a German survey released this weekend shows.

51 percent of respondents said that there is not much of a difference between what Israel is doing to the Palestinians today and what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust, compared to 49% who disagreed with such a comparison, according to the poll carried out by Germany's University of Bielefeld.

The survey also found that 68 percent of Germans believe that Israel is waging a "war of extermination" against the Palestinians, while some 32% disagreed with such a statement.

In a first reaction, the chairman of Yad Vashem's directorate Avner Shalev said Tuesday that the poll's results, which he termed "very worrisome," were indicative of a long-suppressed felling of anti-Semitism among the mainstream "so-called liberals" population which now, under the coating of anti-Israeli criticism, are becoming legitimate again. He added that the poll's results, which he said any objective person would repudiate, are also the result of the release of pent-up feelings of guilt built up from the Holocaust.

"The energies which bring about such answers come to protect feelings of guilt," Shalev said. 62 percent of respondents in the poll said that they were sick of "all this harping" of German crimes against Jews, while 68% said that they found it "annoying" that Germans today are still held to blame for Nazi crimes against Jews.

The survey, which aimed to determine what is "the cut off point" between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism, finds that while "classical" anti-Semitism in Germany is on the wane, secondary anti-Semitism, often couched in anti-Israel views are on the rise, especially among the Left.

The German researchers who conducted the polls conceded that the results showing a majority of Germans equating Israel's Policy with Nazi Atrocities "may be worrying," but concurred with Yad Vashem's Shalev that the media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinians conflict has made such analogies part of the public discourse.

"When you see an image in the newspaper, in a caricature, which is repeated day in and day out that Sharon is equal to Hitler than the image catches in your head because maybe you do not like Jews so much or maybe you hate Jews, and than this works out excellent," Shalev said, stressing that education of the young generation was the key to stemming such a tide.

In the survey, 82 percent of the respondents polled said that they are angered by the way Israel is treating the Palestinians, while 45 percent of those polled said that considering Israel's policies it was "no surprise" that people were against them.

It's pretty sad that while the Arab and Palestinian goal has been for years the elimination of Israel and the Jews - that the ones being compared to the nazis is the Israelis. It seems a bit backward to me.

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

Hmm, I am no so sure. For instance, between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb what is the place of peace? (The House of Islam and the House of War).
A problem is that Islam is a bellicose religion, (just think of the concept of Jihad; that is not just about inner struggle); and is a hands-on religion that tries to regulate all aspects of Human life. Fundamentalists will typically want to follow a literal interpretation of the Koran, and often of the Charia, and that is incompatible with Western values, even when they are willing to keep to themselves.

I am no expert on Islam, but those who claim to be, both Muslims and non-Muslims, are diverted on the question of whether Jihad has a legitimacy in the Qur'an. It depends on how you interprete the verses. My point was, it is not necessarily so that a fundamentalist is accepting violence and are opposed to common western values (whatever that may be, I would rather say Human Rights as declared by the UN, at least then we know what we are talking about). He/she might be, but then he might not too.

Originally Posted by Elvellon

It cannot be allowed that a group maintains itself apart from the laws of the State, and regress to practices that limit Human liberty, more so when they try to apply these limitations to others that, while born in the group, don’t share those values, or, sometimes, even to others totally alien to the group.

I agree with this.

Originally Posted by Elvellon

That said, it is important to say, that this is far from being a problem of the majority of the Islamic community. Nevertheless, this moderate majority will need to be more vocal in the future and to cooperate with the rest of society against the radical elements in their midst.

I agree that that would be wise. But I can also understand that the moderate Muslims are feeling the stigma, and that they don't want to be held responsible as a group for actions carried out by a few extremists.

Originally Posted by Elvellon

Many see those scarves as symbols of female oppression. But more, they are tools of self-segregation. It separates, “us” from “them.”

This I disagree with. I think it is our attitudes on both sides that separates “us” from “them.”, not the scarf, not the burqa or other clothing. The scarves have become symbols, but I think we should address the real problems that are limiting the freedom of women and not those symbols. Domestic violence, forced marriages. Those problems do not go away if we remove the scarves. Also, I think we should be careful with defining a group of women as suppressed, when many of them clearly do not look at themselves in that way.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

... Here in the UK, for example, there is a wide gulf between urban and rural attitudes towards race. People where I live generally have a tolerant and/or celebratory attitude towards such diversity, whereas you still hear of Asian families being run out of town out in the sticks.
....

here in bridgwater, i live 12.5 miles from the town itself, we are truly 'in the sticks', and we have a much better attitude to racial equality - there are large minorities of arab students and chinese students in my college, the real problems are places like oldham where they had the BNP marches the other year

[Draken]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

It's pretty sad that while the Arab and Palestinian goal has been for years the elimination of Israel and the Jews - that the ones being compared to the nazis is the Israelis. It seems a bit backward to me.

I'm a bit tired of the constant comparisons with Hitler invoked for just about anything people don't like. There are plenty of other candidates: Franco, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc. But the fact is, the Nazis have become a short-hand for state-sanctioned aggression, killings, resettlement, etc, particularly when there is (or at least appears to be) an ethnic/cultural motive. That Germans in particular should see something Hitler-like in policies they don't like isn't so surprising. And beware survey data: they were very probably asked the question "Are Israel's policies towards Palestinians comparable with those of Hilter to the Jews" or some such, which would have set people thinking along those lines. An open question such as "What do you think of Israel's policies to the Palestinians?" would, I would wager, have produced much less emotive (and less headline-grabbing) results.

I can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I certainly find the thought of the Islamisation of the UK far-fetched, for three reasons. Firstly, (and this is probably not realised by many Americans), this is an avowedly secular country. Not by policy - because officially State and Church are linked by the monarch - but by attitude. Making a public issue of your faith - any faith - might give you a niche fan club, but is often career suicide. Even England football coaches have paid the price in the past!

Secondly there are very well established lobbies that will often be diametrically opposed to any attempt to impose the teachings of any faith on public life - women's and gay rights come to mind.

Finally, has anyone considered that we should have some confidence that Western values will change newcomers rather than vice versa? There may well be rent-a-quote clerics and angry young poor kids saying their religion is on the one true religion and they will spread it yadda yadda, but they are one end of the immigrant spectrum. At the other end are very Westernised people who will have the occasional alcoholic tipple, oppose arranged marriages, happily obey the secular law of the land, buy The Streets albums etc.

The key is to encourage the latter rather than clamp down on the former.

That's my take on it anyway, would be interested to hear views from other nations.

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Artanis

I am no expert on Islam, but those who claim to be, both Muslims and non-Muslims, are diverted on the question of whether Jihad has a legitimacy in the Qur'an. It depends on how you interprete the verses.

But Muslin fundamentalists, as a rule, do so literally. That does not give much room to interpretation; in one side you have Islam, in the other war. Other, more sensible interpretations exist, but moderates are the ones adopting them, or so I think, IMNSHO.

This I disagree with. I think it is our attitudes on both sides that separates “us” from “them.”, not the scarf, not the burqa or other clothing. The scarves have become symbols, but I think we should address the real problems that are limiting the freedom of women and not those symbols.

We Humans are symbolic creatures; we create and react to symbols. Our attitudes are partially conditioned by them, and in greater degree that we usually realize.

The use of symbols, like the scarf, is not innocent; it emphasize adherence to a group, as opposed to those who do not. It reinforces attitudes, and is meant precisely to do so. It makes communication inside the group easier, (by reinforcing group identity), and communication with those outside the group more difficult, (because of the same reason).

Domestic violence, forced marriages. Those problems do not go away if we remove the scarves.

No, but will make communication more probable. And half the battle is precisely getting people to speak with each other.

Also, I think we should be careful with defining a group of women as suppressed, when many of them clearly do not look at themselves in that way.

In India, apparently, there are still women that throw themselves, willingly, into the funeral pyre of their husbands. It is becoming a rare event, but it seems that it still occurs, occasionally.
In certain African countries, genital mutilation is still practised. It is the very mothers and grandmothers that bring their daughters willingly to those that perform such practise.
Are these women truly free?

Culture can bind a person as well, if not better, than chains and Laws. Islamic fundamentalists know this, and user it as much as they can and dare. Creating and reinforcing psychological barriers between them and others, by using symbols for instance, whenever and wherever they cannot impose physical barriers, is a natural step for those that do not want to be “contaminated” by the values of others.

[Elvellon]

[

Originally Posted by Draken

And beware survey data: they were very probably asked the question "Are Israel's policies towards Palestinians comparable with those of Hilter to the Jews" or some such, which would have set people thinking along those lines. An open question such as "What do you think of Israel's policies to the Palestinians?" would, I would wager, have produced much less emotive (and less headline-grabbing) results.

Anyone saw ”Yes, Minister?”
There was an episode were Sir Humphrey(?) explained to Bernard how “you” can manipulate pools to get the answer you want. He got Bernard to make opposite choices in two pools, about the same subject; priceless.

can't speak for the rest of Europe, but I certainly find the thought of the Islamisation of the UK far-fetched, for three reasons. Firstly, (and this is probably not realised by many Americans), this is an avowedly secular country. Not by policy - because officially State and Church are linked by the monarch - but by attitude. Making a public issue of your faith - any faith - might give you a niche fan club, but is often career suicide. Even England football coaches have paid the price in the past!

Much the same here, but we don’t even have a large Muslin community.
Anyway, we don’t have a State religion, and there is a separation between State and Church. The Catholic Church had some privileges, (tax and broadcasting rights during some of the most solemn religious celebrations), but no more, (some have been expanded to other religious groups, in accordance with representatively, others abolished). Religion is seen, by the large majority, a personal choice you keep to yourself, the last two presidents were Agnostic, and likely the one before that too, (I cannot remember), and few politicians claim to be actively practising a religion, and none of those ever made an issue of it, (since Democracy was re-established).

Secondly there are very well established lobbies that will often be diametrically opposed to any attempt to impose the teachings of any faith on public life - women's and gay rights come to mind.

During the dictatorship, the Catholic Church was accommodating towards those in power. That made people suspicious of organized religion in general, and of fundamentalism in whatever guise it may take. This attitude is now firmly rooted. We have very few people here, (Portugal), that could be said to be fundamentalists, even Christian, and the few who do are taken with indifference at best, and suspicion at worse.

Finally, has anyone considered that we should have some confidence that Western values will change newcomers rather than vice versa? There may well be rent-a-quote clerics and angry young poor kids saying their religion is on the one true religion and they will spread it yadda yadda, but they are one end of the immigrant spectrum. At the other end are very Westernised people who will have the occasional alcoholic tipple, oppose arranged marriages, happily obey the secular law of the land, buy The Streets albums etc.

The key is to encourage the latter rather than clamp down on the former.


That's my take on it anyway, would be interested to hear views from other nations.

Why not encourage the first, (the majority), and clamp down the former? (The minority). The issue, as I see it, is not the danger of Islamisation of Western society, but rather the radicalisation of a minority that do not want to respect our values.
Carrot and stick seem a fine solution to me.

[Artanis]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

But Muslin fundamentalists, as a rule, do so literally. That does not give much room to interpretation; in one side you have Islam, in the other war. Other, more sensible interpretations exist, but moderates are the ones adopting them, or so I think, IMNSHO.

But there are Muslims who would call themselves fundamentalists and nevertheless would protest indignantly if you say that the Qur'an is supporting aggression in any way, and war other than in self defence. In fact, some Muslims would say that ALL Muslims are fundamentalists, because it is required for any Muslim to hold to the fundaments of Islam.

A short comment (very unauthorative, I'll admit) on Jihad: Jihad means 'to struggle', not 'holy war' as is so often believed. There exist a great variety of opinions on what the meaning of Jihad is, and the word has gradually changed its meaning over time. At the time when the Qur'an was revealed to Mohammad, Jihad was essentially a non-violent, moral struggle.

Originally Posted by Elvellon

The use of symbols, like the scarf, is not innocent; it emphasize adherence to a group, as opposed to those who do not. It reinforces attitudes, and is meant precisely to do so. It makes communication inside the group easier, (by reinforcing group identity), and communication with those outside the group more difficult, (because of the same reason).

I do not agree that the scarf originally was meant to reinforce attitudes and to signalise adherence to a group. It has become so perhaps, as an answer to our, the western world's, campaigns to tear it off. But then I'll say the failure lies with us, and not them.

One of my colleagues is a Muslim woman, she wears a scarf, always. In the Kindergarten last year one of the employees was a Muslim woman, she also wore the hijab, all the time. Neither of them are in any way suppressed, and there has never been any problems to communicate with them. It is just obvious to me that I have no right to tell them to stop wearing that scarf, just as they have no right to tell me to put the scarf on.

Originally Posted by Elvellon

In India, apparently, there are still women that throw themselves, willingly, into the funeral pyre of their husbands. It is becoming a rare event, but it seems that it still occurs, occasionally.
In certain African countries, genital mutilation is still practised. It is the very mothers and grandmothers that bring their daughters willingly to those that perform such practise.
Are these women truly free?

Umm - I'm talking about the hijab - your examples lie on another level, don't you think?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Elvellon

Anyone saw ”Yes, Minister?”
There was an episode were Sir Humphrey(?) explained to Bernard how “you” can manipulate pools to get the answer you want. He got Bernard to make opposite choices in two pools, about the same subject; priceless.

it was yes primeminister actually,series 2
the question was regarding conscription and demobilisation

[Sween]

Islamic influence is becomming a a problem in England acctually i should re phrase that christanity and Islam comming together is a problem. Or im not even sure it is in fact christanity it is more western culture and the way we have developed. Where we are quite open to womens rights and some things are just not an issue for us.

Now as for where the problems are starting to occur i think it is a pretty 50/50 split in terms of blame for what is going on. On one side you have what i would call the 'long term residents' people who havew been in the areas in which they live for all there lives and recent realatives lives people whos culture is the culture of britian becausze culture is nothing more than a state of mind. Now these peiople in a lot of towns are begging to feel very threatned because of the amount of Asian people comming into the areas and it is the fact they move into areas they will literally try and stay on the same street if they can.

Now take my home town of scunny in the space of 20 or so years there are not literally asian only neighbourhoods. Now this is seen as a threat and very unwelcomming to most people. This i think is the key problem and i think that it will sort itself out eventually but needs a lot more effort from local councils and the government to try and disperse the people throughout the towns so they are not so concentrated. Now ill point out i am not a rasict or have ever been one. The reason for the action i gave above are mainly to help people accept islam and get to know them better there is nothing worse than not haveing neighbours on speaking terms its important that people get to know the incommers and they get to know us and we reach a middle ground and at the moment that simply is not happening.

The basic for this argueement is i have a very good old friend called Sanj who is of pakistanny origin who lived where i have spent most of my life in cockermouth a small out of the way town on the edge of the lake district. Now sanj is as nice a bloke you would hope to meet but because he has been raised the way he has there are no predjuices against the way we live our lives here (which im sorry to say there are in the highly concentrated areas) he is practising muslim and to be honest ive never thought twice about it and that what racial tollerence is it when you dont even think about what they believe or what colour they are you only think about who they are and judge them on that.

Well that my idea for what would help care to disscuss?

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Artanis

But there are Muslims who would call themselves fundamentalists and nevertheless would protest indignantly if you say that the Qur'an is supporting aggression in any way, and war other than in self defence.

And

A short comment (very unauthorative, I'll admit) on Jihad: Jihad means 'to struggle', not 'holy war' as is so often believed. There exist a great variety of opinions on what the meaning of Jihad is, and the word has gradually changed its meaning over time. At the time when the Qur'an was revealed to Mohammad, Jihad was essentially a non-violent, moral struggle.

Indeed, I’m familiar .with it A struggle, the problem is, some will see it as an inner struggle; radicals do not, specially considering the rest.

A few samples:
"Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)

Interesting, wouldn’t you agree? But not serious anyway, so let us see a bit more:

"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it." (Surah 2:216)

"If you should die or be slain in the cause of God, His forgiveness and His mercy would surely be better than all the riches." (Surah 3:156-)

It is clear where some people went for inspiration to do just that. But, perhaps, something even more blunt:

"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)

And he did, not in a metaphorical way, mind you, but he actually led his faithful into battle.

And more generically:

"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)

Hmmm. taking all this literally, one would not call it a religion of peace and tolerance, which only defends itself. I believe you will not find anything this strong in the New Testament, for instance.
Of course, I have no doubts that moderate muslins don’t take all of this literally either.

In fact, some Muslims would say that ALL Muslims are fundamentalists, because it is required for any Muslim to hold to the fundaments of Islam.

I don’t doubt that, but some muslins I’ve talked too, and others I saw on TV didn’t. So, apparently, we may agree this is not an issue Muslins would agree, among them, either.

I do not agree that the scarf originally was meant to reinforce attitudes and to signalise adherence to a group. It has become so perhaps, as an answer to our, the western world's, campaigns to tear it off. But then I'll say the failure lies with us, and not them.

Ah, again we agree to partially disagree.

Why do you think, they choose to wear it in the first place? What is the need for it?
If my sources are correct, it is not even a demand of the Koran, despite what we sometimes are told.

It is a statement; “I’m from this group, you are not.” And it was meant as such, I believe.
The "guilt" is not of the western side this time.

One of my colleagues is a Muslim woman, she wears a scarf, always. In the Kindergarten last year one of the employees was a Muslim woman, she also wore the hijab, all the time. Neither of them are in any way suppressed, and there has never been any problems to communicate with them. It is just obvious to me that I have no right to tell them to stop wearing that scarf, just as they have no right to tell me to put the scarf on.

I would agree that she neither feels or believe herself repressed.

Umm - I'm talking about the hijab - your examples lie on another level, don't you think?

Actually, no.
You were implying they were free to take a decision. I was giving you extreme examples of how not only Law and force, but culture also, can limit true freedom of choice, as the rest of my message tried to clarify.

"Culture can bind a person as well, if not better, than chains and Laws. Islamic fundamentalists know this, and user it as much as they can and dare. Creating and reinforcing psychological barriers between them and others, by using symbols for instance, whenever and wherever they cannot impose physical barriers, is a natural step for those that do not want to be “contaminated” by the values of others."

[Elvellon]

Originally Posted by Sween

Well that my idea for what would help care to disscuss?

Yup. Separation, be it physical, be it through the use of symbols to set ‘you’ apart from ‘them’ are barriers to understanding and integration. It is understandable that emigrants and minorities in general try to concentrate and shun the main culture of their adopted land, but it is not healthy. As I see it, both native and immigrant communities are responsible for integration; the effort have to be made by both, not just by the “natives.”

[Lief Erikson]

Okay, I'll probably stir the pot a little by adding my opinions to the mix. I've just finished a week studying virtually nonstop the early Muslim expansion for an essay.

Early Muslim Expansion

I completely agree with Evellon about Jihad. I know that many, perhaps even most Muslims today interpret Jihad as meaning spiritual struggle rather then physical combat. However, that translation of Jihad is to me erroneous. All one has to do is look to the history of Muhammad and early Islam to see in what way they took Jihad. Muhammad spent his first years of ministry accepting persecution for his belief from his polytheistic tribe, the Quraysh. Eventually the persecution became so intense that he was forced to flee to what is now Medina. In Medina he and his followers fought against the Jewish population and enslaved, exiled and committed mass executions on large numbers of them. It was in his time in Medina that he heard words from Allah telling him he was allowed to fight in defense of Islam. Later on in his time I believe he received messages making it mandatory to fight, as Evellon has quoted. Muhammad and his followers conquered Arabia by force of arms. Conversion was forced in some cases, and upon Muhammad's death, many tribes attempted to withdraw from the Muslim movement because they were not really believers, but had said they were believers because otherwise they would be executed. There are passages in the Koran that support this. Once Muhammad encountered a Quraysh officer who said that he believed in Allah, but did not believe Muhammad was his prophet. Muhammad said that he must believe him to be the prophet, or else he would slice his head off. The officer quickly submitted to Islam. Another part in the Koran shows Muhammad meeting people and forcing them to convert. Then he said to them, "If you had not converted, your heads would have rolled under your feet." Anyway, even if one doesn't take these passages from the Koran literally, there is historical evidence from the time period that clearly shows the Muslim religion expanding through violence. It was an incredible achievement that Muhammad made, in my opinion. He went from a small and persecuted part of a tribe to ruler of all Arabia within his lifetime. Then within the next twenty years, his successors conquered the Sasanian Empire and most of the Byzantine. They conquered numerous places by force- Northern Africa, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Egypt . . . Their empire expanded by force for a vast amount of time, only being stopped when Charlemagne defeated them at the Battle of Poitiers (though many Muslims claim they actually were stopped because they could not conquer a city called Naravonne). Anyway, having done this history I can see that Muhammad conquered Arabia through force of arms, and his successors forged a mighty empire by force of arms. All of their achievements were amazing by my reckoning, and by the reckoning of those who made the conquests! There are manuscripts from the time showing their enthusiasm at their successes. One said, "we came barefoot, naked, without provisions or armor against the mightiest powers of the world- Persia and Byzantium, and we have made them our slaves." Some of the Christians of the time despaired that their God had allowed them to be conquered. Anyway, it's just absolutely clear from the vast history of their conquests that their Jihad was from the beginning not taken peacefully. I think many of the Muslim terrorists of today would fit right in with the individuals that started Islam.

Israel/Palestine

That said, I do disagree with Jerseydevil and Gaffer very strongly about the Israel-Palestinian issue. There have been Muslim preachers that have called for the destruction of all the Jews. What the Palestinians as a whole are more interested in is where tomorrow's bread is going to come from. There is immense suffering in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. The UN made a resolution that the Israelis had to let the Palestinians back to their homes, at the same time as they acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Israel ignored the UN resolution and never allowed the Palestinians back. Many Palestinians were not simply scared out of their homes by what they heard of the Jews, but were actually forced out. But whether some were expelled or all were scared off their land, it is clear that the Israeli government never allowed them back, in spite of the UN Resolution. In fact, the Israelis bulldozed hundreds of Palestinian villages so that the Palestinians could not return. The same active policy of pushing Palestinians out is visible today. America and European countries spent a lot of money building up Palestinian infrastructure, but the Jews blasted many of those things when they went into various places in recent years, like Jenin. In Jenin they blasted schools, banks, businesses- "terrorist infrastructure" that had costed the US and Europe vast amounts of money to construct. It's an awful situation out there. In my opinion, the Palestinian terrorists that go against Israel are usually driven to do so by desperation. If you look at history, such as the Irish terrorism and such, you'll see that economic oppression is another common reason for terrorism to occur. It's not all about religion. That's why I disagree with President Bush classifying the Palestinian suicide bomber as a "homicide bomber". Not all terrorism is the same, and I don't like at all how Israel compares its own actions against hungry, demoralized people that have seen their families split and their homes destroyed to America's retaliation against Al Qaeda.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Israel/Palestine

That said, I do disagree with Jerseydevil and Gaffer very strongly about the Israel-Palestinian issue. There have been Muslim preachers that have called for the destruction of all the Jews. What the Palestinians as a whole are more interested in is where tomorrow's bread is going to come from. There is immense suffering in the Gaza Strip and elsewhere. The UN made a resolution that the Israelis had to let the Palestinians back to their homes, at the same time as they acknowledged Israel's right to exist. Israel ignored the UN resolution and never allowed the Palestinians back.

So where is the responsibility of the palestinians in this? You may be COMPLETELY unaware - but whenever Israel makes a move to pull out - there are suicide bombings.

Many Palestinians were not simply scared out of their homes by what they heard of the Jews, but were actually forced out. But whether some were expelled or all were scared off their land, it is clear that the Israeli government never allowed them back, in spite of the UN Resolution. In fact, the Israelis bulldozed hundreds of Palestinian villages so that the Palestinians could not return. The same active policy of pushing Palestinians out is visible today. America and European countries spent a lot of money building up Palestinian infrastructure, but the Jews blasted many of those things when they went into various places in recent years, like Jenin. In Jenin they blasted schools, banks, businesses- "terrorist infrastructure" that had costed the US and Europe vast amounts of money to construct. It's an awful situation out there. In my opinion, the Palestinian terrorists that go against Israel are usually driven to do so by desperation. If you look at history, such as the Irish terrorism and such, you'll see that economic oppression is another common reason for terrorism to occur. It's not all about religion. That's why I disagree with President Bush classifying the Palestinian suicide bomber as a "homicide bomber". Not all terrorism is the same, and I don't like at all how Israel compares its own actions against hungry, demoralized people that have seen their families split and their homes destroyed to America's retaliation against Al Qaeda.

I do 100% agree with the term homicide bombing. The palestinians stated goal for a long time has been the utter destruction of israel - not peace side by side as you seem to think. It was NOT israel which started the war - but the arab countries. if it was not for Israel being attacked - and the constant goal of Israel's destruction - you would not see the palestinians suffering like they are. You seem to want to completely just ignore the role the palestinians and the arab countries have played in this situation.