halal food

[jverne]

Yeah, they're all oppressive if you only look at all the oppressive ones.

Go figure.

well then...find me one which isn't. as far as i know...iran is the only country that has a strong religious leadership but has some progress.

Islamic states

* Afghanistan[66]
* Bahrain[67]
* Iran[68]
* Mauritania[69]
* Oman[70]
* Pakistan[71]
* Yemen[72]
* Saudi Arabia[73]

[edit] Islam as state religion

* Algeria[74]
* Bangladesh[75]
* Egypt[76]
* Iraq[77]
* Kuwait[78]
* Libya[79]
* Malaysia[80]
* Maldives[81]
* Morocco[82]
* Qatar[83]
* Tunisia[84]
* United Arab Emirates[85]

Secular states

[edit] Africa

* Burkina Faso[86]
* Gambia[87]
* Guinea[88]
* Mali[89]
* Senegal[90]
* Chad[88]
* Djibouti[91]
* Somalia[92]

[edit] Asia

* Indonesia
* Kyrgystan[93]
* Tajikstan[94]
* Turkmenistan[95]
* Uzbekistan

[edit] Europe

* Albania
* Azerbaijan[96]
* Bosnia and Herzegovina
* Kazakhstan[97][98]
* Kosovo
* Turkey

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

i wouldn't be that wrong if i say that the countries with strong religious leadership are often the most repressive.

but even in Turkey there probably aren't that many women high states representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_National_Assembly_of_Turkey

actually i can't say that turkish women are being treated badly in turkey

http://www.enjoyturkey.com/info/culture/Woman.htm

Turkey is an interesting example, from the aspect of the position of women, because it is a country which is influenced by all the contradictions of globalization and traditions. First of all, the great majority of the population in Turkey is Moslem. Today, women are observed in the forefront of various echelons of the administration of the state. However, there are still inequalities between women and men, and also between women from different sectors of society, in accessing important development sources, such as education, health and employment. For many years the position of women in society has improved gradually. Although there are some decrees in violation of the equality of men and women in the law, significant steps have been taken in recent years to alleviate this discrimination.

but still...most improvement was when secularism gained a decent role in society.

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

actually turkey can be designated as a moderate religious state...but there's still the question...how to define a moderate person...

 

[Kadayi]

racism and bigotry, kiddie porn...aren't you a bit over reacting?
when did i say i i hated "arabic" people...i don't like their ideology, there's a big difference

Guess what little Timmy, it's not all about you.

you didn't ask me to give evidence that muslims will rule europe at leas that's the way i understood it.

I asked you for proof:-

I want to see the proof that Islam is going to take away my personal freedoms and I expect jverne to produce it, or maybe (to paraphrase his own words) he'll 'shut the **** up'.

You excepted the challenge and then singularly failed to deliver said proof (Empirical evidence) in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Now if you're a man of your word (and at the end of the day that is all that counts in a man) I expect you to shut the **** up and stay out of the politics forum in future, or are you going to say 'I didn't mean it that way, what I really meant was this...' again? All you are in this life are the words you speak, if you're forever changing them, what does that truly say about you as a person? Who do you think you're deceiving at the end of the day, but yourself? :dozey:

 

[jverne]

Guess what little Timmy, it's not all about you.



I asked you for proof:-



You excepted the challenge and then singularly failed to deliver said proof (Empirical evidence) in any way, shape or form whatsoever. Now if you're a man of your word (and at the end of the day that is all that counts in a man) I expect you to shut the **** up and stay out of the politics forum in future, or are you going to say 'I didn't mean it that way, what I really meant was this...' again? All you are in this life are the words you speak, if you're forever changing them, what does that truly say about you as a person? Who do you think you're deceiving at the end of the day, but yourself? :dozey:

dude are you ill or something?

i have no actual proof that islam is going to overrun europe, nobody has it's just speculation...how many times must i tell you that? are you blind or something?
read my reply to sterns post.


as for islam being repressive...i've put up enough examples.

what more do you want?


and it's starting really to piss me off...man of my word? what the hell are you talking about...did we ever made an agreement on something? what challenge did i accept?









edit: as it seems you've totally messed up the red line of this thread, let me sum it up for you

my first post

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,577843,00.html

ok it's all fine and dandy if a company wants to appeal to more consumers.

but i don't like this trend of islamization the western world is going trough.

here are some figures

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

ok...europe will not be overrun any time soon, but i believe it's an early symptom.

europe needs to stand up and prevent this event from happening because, by all due respect, our culture is better than what muslims have. it might not be the best but its certainly better. i don't see how anyone can argue about that.

i'm not a nationalist or anything...i'm more of a culturalist...a better culture get's my support no matter where it comes from.

i've mentioned halal food as an early sign of european islamization. even tough muslims are gaining a bigger role in EU compared to previous decades, i do agree that it's a bold statment in calling it a trend.
but i tried to make sure that this was more my opinion than actual fact.
notice the extensive use of i believe, i don't like,...


then i have a small argument with stern

toronto is the most multicultural city in the world ..we have a little italy, greek town, portugal village, little jamaica, koreatown etc etc ..you can walk in some of those areas and not hear a word of english ..however, every single young person in that area speaks english and has in some way adopted some form of the native culture ..with subsequent generations traditions from the old country become watered down ..which is why everyone in toronto isnt speaking chinese or italian isnt the official language ..sure schools may offer courses in italian and you may see the government officially recognising holidays like purim ..but that doesnt mean canada is overrun by italian jews ...this is the same thing for muslims ..the only real difference is that they're the current scapegoats for everything that is wrong with society. this is absolutely no different than when blacks were scapegoated and made into pariahs. it's convienent and easy to point the finger, regardless if the criticism is legitimate or not

after which i realize my opinion might not be as true as i thought it was at first, so i backed down

well then...i guess i was wrong. and i hope you are right and that the muslims will "fit" in eventually, like "everyone else".





i think i give a fair amount of criticism to all religions around me, not just islam.

again, as for xenophobia...pretty much all cultures that try to censor or limit freedom suck, may it be the muslims, jews, chinese or aliens...

for now the only culture that gives most freedom and cherish human rights is the "western/european" one...so a winner in my book. but it will probably change not to long from now.

then you come barging in claiming that the politics forum has ended up being a none fact based opinion circle jerk

which i agreed partially and suggested, that if you were bothered by opinion/speculation based threads than make them illegal, that doesn't mean i want them banned too, which somehow you think i do...

it's true that there aren't many true debates going on recently in the politics section. make a rule where opinion posting is illegal and people will probably stop doing it...until then shut up.

my post was mainly my opinion and i even stated i might be wrong...so wheres the problem?

next you somehow want me to prove that in islam we'd have less freedom...i post you some examples of islamic states where there is notable repression of freedom.
if you want further proof then go live in saudi arabia for a couple of years...or atleast turkey...but as i mentioned that isn't a very good benchmark since it is a secular state.

under an islamic state (for instance) being homosexual is not permitted. IF, i'll repeat my self...if europe would become an islamic state, which i've said numerous times that it is unlikely, then why should it be that different. it's true that europe will hardly be ever an islamic state because of the rooted secularism...so probably the only option would be a secular islamic state...which is a whole different story.

and i've explicitly mentioned "islamic state" not secular

as proof of islam being suppressive...take a look at any islamic state. (no, Turkey is not a true islamic state, they also have many secular values)
how is that speculation?

i think it's the second time now you've totally butchered my initial point and argued on claims i never maid.



edit#2: while waiting for a ride out i've stumbled on these two sites.

http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2006_spr/dworkin.htm

Americans should turn to universal principles, such as the concept of personal responsibility, to decide whether their society should follow a tolerant religious model or a tolerant secular model, said Jefferson Medal in Law recipient Ronald Dworkin at a lecture April 12.

this guy wants a third option available, but concludes that he sees the secular model as better...gee i wonder why.
and besides isn't the secular model based on universal principles?

http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/10/defending-secular-society.html

this other guy is more aggressive in his points but he has some good ones...

It protects freedoms: the freedom to believe, or not believe, worship, or not worship.

It is founded on basic principles framed independently of any particular religious, or indeed, atheist, point of view: principles to which we ought to be able to sign up whether we are religious or not.

An Islamic or Christian theocracy is obviously not secular, because one particular religion dominates the state.

But then a totalitarian atheist state, such as Mao?s China, is not secular state either. A secular state does not privilege atheist beliefs.

Because you live in a secular society, your right to believe in a particular God, worship him, etc. is protected from those atheists, and those of differing religious views, that might want to take that freedom from you.

and many more

of course in the last paragraph is flirting with moderate religious persons, but it seems to me that being moderate is a consequence of secular influences.


edit#3:

http://ezinearticles.com/?A-Secular-or-Religious-Government&id=345887

Now getting back to the main theme of this article, I believe that the prime problem concerning this is that those countries that are more secular seem to be more successful in providing their people with a better standard of living. Why is this? I believe it is because if a country is controlled by a particular religion or is greatly influenced by one, it tends to control freedom of thought to a great extent. And when a country tends to control freedom of thought, it tends to limit access to new ideas on how to improve upon one?s life. This is what happened in the past when the Roman Catholic Church controlled so many countries. Those countries that were controlled by the Roman Catholic Church did not progress as fast as those countries which basically had a secular form of government. For example, look at the difference between Latin America and the United States. Now today the same thing probably could happen to those countries that are insisting that they become Islamic, or are insisting that they be guided by any other particular religion This same reasoning in controlling freedom of thought can be applied to those countries that tend to be authoritarian as well.

strange...a religious/religion influenced government seems to reduce freedom/freedom of though. how could that be? and all this time i though saudi arabia was the land of the free where every human could do all they pleased...seems i was wrong

 

[Kadayi]

i have no actual proof that islam is going to overrun europe, nobody has it's just speculation.

I set you a challenge to provide proof, you could of chosen to decline it, but instead you chose to rise to it and you failed spectacularly to deliver on it.

what more do you want?

What are you doing still posting here? You're reneging on a terms of a challenge, begone. :dozey:

* waves away

 

[jverne]

I set you a challenge to provide proof, you could of chosen to decline it, but instead you chose to rise to it and you failed spectacularly to deliver on it.

i just gave you some articles that make firm arguments that religious leadership usually leads to less freedom. may it be christians, muslims or any kind of shit that's out there.

you on the other had are asking me to directly proof something that cannot be yet proven...there was no objective study that shows europe is being overrun by muslims and that our freedom will be tramped upon.
but there is quite alot of indirect observations that give good logical "speculations" how it might turn out, if it ever will.

an for the millionth time...i stated in my third post that such an event probably isn't possible or that i don't believe it will ever come to that.

you just ignored me...seriously dude i should report you for being an insulting asshole.

What are you doing still posting here? You're reneging on a terms of a challenge, begone. :dozey:

* waves away

i failed to post proof?...i have no other word for you except that you're an idiot.

it seems the burden of proof is on me, but hell, you've barely made any point or gave any argument in your defense.

it seems that no matter what evidence or argument i give you're just going to ignore it...shame on you


edit:

here's another juicy bone for ya

Social Democratic party member Hamid El Mousti, a Moroccan by birth, currently sits on Copenhagens City Council. El Mousti claims it is impossible for Muslims to disavow sharia in its entirety.

"Sharia is a part of our identity - part of being Muslim. It's unreasonable to ask us to swear off our religion - but demanding that we accept the values of Denmark is fine," said El Mousti, emphasising that he in no way condones the stoning of adulterous women or amputation of hands to punish thieves.

Centre Democrat Ben Haddou is also a member of Copenhagen's City Council, and seconds El Mousti's views.

"It's impossible to condemn sharia. And any secular Muslim who claims he can is lying. Sharia also encompasses lifestyle, inheritance law, fasting and bathing. Demanding that Muslims swear off sharia is a form of warfare against them," said

http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/004051.php

oh so any muslim who condems sharia law is lying?

compare that to the 40% of british muslims that want sharia law in Britain.

and this video where the British cop pussies off and the crowd yells alah akbar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZNx0xHe0p0

quite tempting to be used as an argument...but still i'll distance myself from believing this is a trend.


so now do what you do best...just ignore everything and accuse me of being unable to present proof

edit#2:

it just keeps on coming pal

Sharia law entered Europe after World War II when the weakened European nations gave up their colonies and retracted, bringing back to Europe their former colonial subjects as both refugees and cheap labor from such Muslim nations as Pakistan (United Kingdom), Turkey (Germany) and Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia (France).

Initially, Sharia law was applied discretely within the immigrant Muslim communities of Europe. After two generations of sustained immigration and high birth rate, however, those communities have grown large enough for Sharia law to challenge the Judeo-Christian foundations of their host European nations.

In Germany, Muslim men have successfully used Sharia law in court to defend their right to beat their wives, and their Sharia law-given right to practice polygamy also has been upheld in German court.

In United Kingdom, where Islamic imams now outnumber Christian pastors and converting empty church buildings into mosques has become a cottage industry, the Archbishop of Canterbury - the leader of the Church of England - recently conceded that adopting elements of Sharia law into English judicial system was “unavoidable”.

In France, home to an estimated 14 million Muslims, including 9 million illegal immigrants, the government no longer controls the "Banlieus", the densely-populated, predominantly Muslim ghettos that encircle all major French cities.

It is still legal in France to give out Bibles and tracts but doing so in the banlieus, where the French police seldom enter, invites mob violence, and even the legality is expected to end by 2050 when France is projected to become Western Europe's first majority-Muslim nation

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia-europe.html


but still i restrain myself from believing at what these articles want to imply.


edit#3:

oh silly me

i almost forgot:

Prove it. :dozey:

i believe i gave you enough compelling evidence that religious law leads to less freedom. trying to prove that islam is going to overrun europe (which i stated i don't believe) is really beyond the scope of your request. silly me, giving more proof than it is actually needed.

now do your part and just ignore everything i present to you...it's the best way to win a debate


oh and did i mention your challenge was never about me proving islam will overrun us, but that islam would take away some of our freedoms.
so this

I set you a challenge to provide proof, you could of chosen to decline it, but instead you chose to rise to it and you failed spectacularly to deliver on it.

means you lied and accused me of not argumenting something you never asked of me. makes me wonder who really should get out of the politics forum...


here are your words

I want to see the proof that Islam is going to take away my personal freedoms and I expect jverne to produce it, or maybe (to paraphrase his own words) he'll 'shut the **** up'.

i can come up with more arguments proving me right if you aren't satisfied with the ones posted?

iit seems you can't even keep track of your challenge let alone listen to counter arguments...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I really don't know what to say. Just when I thought certain people on this forum couldn't get any more Islamophobic, we get... this.

Similarly, we get Christianophobics, or Catholophobes.

It's okay to be afraid of something; but fear should also make you think.

 

[jverne]

Similarly, we get Christianophobics, or Catholophobes.

It's okay to be afraid of something; but fear should also make you think.

that's why i think kadayi is an overacting prick that thinks i'm a racist bigot, because i fear the ideology of islam.
he obviously got further by thinking i approve kiddie porn and rape videos.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

that's why i think kadayi is an overacting prick that thinks i'm a racist bigot, because i fear the ideology of islam.
he obviously got further by thinking i approve kiddie porn and rape videos.

Racist Bigot? Religion isn't a race; unfortunately, I would rationally fear the House of Abraham.

All you are in this life are the words you speak, if you're forever changing them, what does that truly say about you as a person?

... as learner's, should we change when we know better or remain the same?

 

[soulslicer]

I just saw this Documentary the other day, about the rise of Islam. Apparently, it was penned down that women were given the right to vote and own land, 1300 years before any of the European Communities ever allowed. They have always been an intelligent race anyway, having made great contributions to mathematics and astrology, apart from the fact that they were always warring (Ottomans etc.)

Then Wahhabi-sm apparently came along, along with corrupt politicians, who used Islam as a tool to enforce control over their nations. With oil rich nations such as SA using Wahhabi-sm, the influence spread to other nations as well, and now you have this oppressive form of Islam in many nations.

I thought it was an interesting documentary and wanted to share this, although it has nothing to do with the thread.

 

[Kadayi]

as learner's, should we change when we know better or remain the same?

If your unsure about your position you shouldn't be making claims in the first place. Some people here don't comprehend that.

 

[jverne]

If your unsure about your position you shouldn't be making claims in the first place. Some people here don't comprehend that.

oh...i was pretty sure of my position from my third post forward. it is you who failed to comprehend that.

Spoiler

so i guess you're satisfied with my arguments concerning religious leadership most likely leads to less freedom. since i can't see any reaction from your side. i take that as a "yes".
as for muslims conquering europe...well that was never the point of debate, since my position on that is clear.

 

[Kadayi]

Yadda Yadda Yadda

Back? I assume you brought that proof that you promised? About the whole of Europe becoming a Muslim state? Let's see it then

so i guess you're satisfied with my arguments concerning religious leadership most likely leads to less freedom. since i can't see any reaction from your side. i take that as a "yes".
as for muslims conquering europe...well that was never the point of debate, since my position on that is clear.

Hiding questions in spoiler tags at the bottom of the page? Right now all I'm interested in is you coming up with the proof that Europe will become a Muslim state as you originally claimed. Once you've produced that, then perhaps I'll be up for discussing religious leadership as a broader issue. Until then stick on topic and the topic is 'Where's that proof you promised' :dozey:

 

[jverne]

Hiding questions in spoiler tags at the bottom of the page? Right now all I'm interested in is you coming up with the proof that Europe will become a Muslim state as you originally claimed. Once you've produced that, then perhaps I'll be up for discussing religious leadership as a broader issue. Until then stick on topic and the topic is 'Where's that proof you promised' :dozey:

sorry buddy...i won't prove something i don't believe in. as i've said a million times that is not my position. here read this

well then...i guess i was wrong. and i hope you are right and that the muslims will "fit" in eventually, like "everyone else".

hell i've even stated in my very first post that i'm skeptical of it ever happening

ok...europe will not be overrun any time soon, but i believe it's an early symptom.

but after the argument with stern i stepped away from this position realizing i have no proof for it.


guess what pal...that was way before you've came in with your alleged challenge.

so what now..you want me to prove something i don't believe in? seriously...i thought i made this point clear quite some posts ago, how come you just keep digging in it?

what part of

well then...i guess i was wrong. and i hope you are right and that the muslims will "fit" in eventually, like "everyone else".

(->this is my third post, which is 6 posts before your first and 17 before your challenge. i'm just making sure you understand that i didn't change my mind while debating with you but way before, so you cannot accuse me of being dishonest)

don't you understand?


and besides you're challenge was not for me to prove europe will become a muslim state.

here i have your own very words to prove this, so you can see i'm not just imagining things:

i fear the idea of islam (not the muslim "invading us" but the idea)...because it means an end to our freedom we enjoy today...how is that a bad thing...please explain?

Prove it. :dozey:

I want to see the proof that Islam is going to take away my personal freedoms and I expect jverne to produce it, or maybe (to paraphrase his own words) he'll 'shut the **** up'.

you know you could just say "prove to me that europe will become a muslim state". but i presume that was not your intention, or at least it didn't seem so.

i proven that under islam we'd have less freedom...my part is done. and as i've mentioned i don't have to prove that europe will become a islamic state since that is not my claim.

is it clear enough now?


or do you want me to make it even simpler.

1. i make post fearing that islam is getting a hold in europe
2. stern disproves my beliefs
3. i agree with him and back off from my position
...
...
a number of posts later
...
...
4.(you come and) prove to me that islam will take away my freedom
5.ok...look here's some articles that make good points about religion leading to less freedom
6.(ignores everything i present) you have no proof so shut up, based on your own standard (what standard?...i never implied such a thing)


seriously i feel like i'm doing circles. where did i promise any proof? please find it for me since i'm obviously blind. i'll be really happy if you find me promising anything to you.

oh and i've put in the spoiler tag...since i've presumed you've just ignored again everything i presented and stepped away from the debate.
as for the broader issue of religion...well i have a hunch that i might be right, but still i wont claim that without a debate...but i'm really turned off by a debate with you, since you've shown how annoying you are for failing to see the obvious.

 

[Kadayi]

I proven that under islam we'd have less freedom...my part is done. and as i've mentioned I don't have to prove that europe will become a islamic state since that is not my claim.

You haven't proven shit, you've just scare mongered away with little thought or consequence and that's why you've had to backpedal. The ones who live by Islamic codes are Muslims, the only thing Non-Muslims are expected to do in the vast majority of Muslim countries is respect their laws, they certainly aren't expected to adopt their lifestyle wholesale. Christians, Jews and Muslims lived along side each other for hundreds of years in the Middle east without strife, far more than the ones where there have been problems. To imply an insidiousness and consumption to Islam that simply isn't there is deeply wrong. I've never yet had a Muslim try and convert me to their way of thinking. I've have lots of Jehovahs witnesses, Mormons & Hari Krishnas but no Muslims, not even when I worked in London.

Are there inherent problems with Islam? Well like all religions there are certainly issues with fundamentalists, but this is neither a majority view point or necessarily a long standing one.

 

[jverne]

You haven't proven shit, you've just scare mongered away with little thought or consequence and that's why you've had to backpedal. The ones who live by Islamic codes are Muslims, the only thing Non-Muslims are expected to do in the vast majority of Muslim countries is respect their laws, they certainly aren't expected to adopt their lifestyle wholesale. Christians, Jews and Muslims lived along side each other for hundreds of years in the Middle east without strife, far more than the ones where there have been problems. To imply an insidiousness and consumption to Islam that simply isn't there is deeply wrong. I've never yet had a Muslim try and convert me to their way of thinking. I've have lots of Jehovahs witnesses, Mormons & Hari Krishnas but no Muslims, not even when I worked in London.

Are there inherent problems with Islam? Well like all religions there are certainly issues with fundamentalists, but this is neither a majority view point or necessarily a long standing one.

scare mongered...wha? backpedal...where did i do that?

anyway...to actually respond to your argument.

emm...nobody here is talking about muslims wanting to convert people. or that islam is a consumptive force or something. you just made that up.

what i said is that under religious/religious influenced law (which is also true for islam since it's a religion and probably a very political based religion) there is less freedom of thought or basic freedom for that matter.
that's why you see alot of fuss when it comes to issues like homosexuality, abortion, blasphemy and all that shit religion is against for for no sane reason.

here we can draw correlation between religion worship and homosexuality discrimination
(hmm pictures don't seem to display...anyway click on the link)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Religious_Belief_in_USA-states.png

obviously "religious" states have an issue with gay marriage...like florida, missisipi, ohio, and many others.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_belief_in_god_upd.png

look at the Netherlands...fairly liberal and secular and homosexuality is not a big issue.
or Switzerland which is extremely nonreligious

In December 1990, the House of Representatives voted in favor of reforming the law on sexual offences (art. 191 et seq. of the Penal Code). In a national referendum on May 17 1992, 73% of the voters accepted the reform of Swiss Federal legislation on sexual offences, including the elimination of all discrimination against homosexuality from the Penal Code

Homosexuality in the army is no longer illegal, thus a homosexual act between two consenting members of the army can no longer be prosecuted. (Note that every male Swiss between the age of 20 and 50 is a member of the Swiss army. There are very few professional members of the army.)

Although some atittudes may change slowly, the general public is mostly tolerant of gays and violent discrimination does not occur. Good gay scenes exist in Geneva, Z?rich, Basel and Lausanne.

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


now let's look at turkey (which is quite secular but still historically religious)

Turkey does not recognise same-sex marriages, civil unions or domestic partnership benefits. The Turkish Council of State has ruled that homosexuals should not have custody of children.

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

let me not even start with saudi arabia which is a true islamic state. there the map would be a black hole not just dark blue.


so it's a fact that a religion based model of society tends to repress such freedoms as shown.

but hey...i've already proved this earlier so no point in confirming my previous statements. oh and i've said i would not engage in this debate with you, so i suggest you don't take this as a challenge, at least not yet.


but i have a feeling you again deviated from your request...now you switched to islam being consumptive on others. hmm...seriously man what's wrong with you?


as for islam converting people...well...can't say much
but here's a nice fact for ya

Converts are a tiny subset of the Muslim population in Europe, but their numbers are growing in some countries. In Germany, government officials estimated that 4,000 people converted to Islam last year, compared with an annual average of 300 in the late 1990s. Less than 1 percent of Germany?s 3.3 million Muslims are converts.

While religious leaders emphasize that most converts are law-abiding citizens who often promote interfaith understanding, the recent arrests in Germany prompted some lawmakers to suggest that police should keep converts under surveillance.

?Of course not all converts are problematic, but some are particularly dangerous because they want to demonstrate through extreme fanaticism that they are particularly good Muslims,? Guenther Beckstein, interior minister for the state of Bavaria, said last week.

http://www.getreligion.org/?p=2701


oh and the "i met no muslim guy who wanted to convert me" is anecdotal evidence...so it automatically makes your argument invalid...sorry pal





edit: oh and you're really starting to piss me off, by accusing me of things i never made....backpedal...where the **** did i do that? i summed it up for you in perfect chronological order.
if you're gonna accuse me of something i suggest you cough ups some proof for that. i'm really thinking of reporting you but don't really know what good would that do and besides i can always ignore you...oh and i'm quite tolerant. but you're tempting me buddy...

 

[Kadayi]

No I did not say that, I did not mean than, it might look like I wrote that, but that's not what I meant, honest governor. I wasn't scare mongering about Islam, and right now I'm not back pedalling, even though I'm on a bike moving backwards. No what I meant to say was happy fluffy kittens prancing through the meadows..la la la la la ..I'm not listening....(*gibber*)....

:| :dozey:

 

[Baserape>]

I couldn't give a toss if meat has been emo'd up, shocked, shot or died from starvation. If it's hairy I'll eat it.

 

[jverne]

I couldn't give a toss if meat has been emo'd up, shocked, shot or died from starvation. If it's hairy I'll eat it.

i guess then you wouldn't be an exemplary muslim...just my intuition. :thumbs:

 

[VictimOfScience]

Hahaha! So what? It's called "homogenization" and it is always happening. It's like that Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where Larry is in the hospital and the African-American nurse says, "Well, if we all keep f_cking each other, we'll all be the same color anyway." To which Larry replies, "Let's pray for that."

Too funny, but also too true. Get used to the idea.

Of course, as a vegetarian, one need not worry about the cruelty involved with slaughtering a conscious animal.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Deleted posts

Let's try that again.

 

[Kadayi]

nice video, but it doesn't change the fact that you are a dishonest coward

You start an entire thread about a company deciding there's a healthy market out there for halal food products in terms of making a living into a sideways swipe at a 1/5th of the worlds population and their beliefs. Then when you're accused of both overreacting and xenophobia by a whole bunch of people, you go on the defensive for innumerable pages attempting to defend yourself but instead highlight the problem. Verne in truth you're a bigot and an ardent Islamophobe, and no amount of wiki links or melodramatic hand on heart 'not me?' protestations is going to disguise that fact. Be honest and face up to your prejudices and realise you have a serious problem you need to address. It's time to stop seeing people as categories, and start seeing people as people.

People, who eat, sleep and breathe and have dreams, aspirations, hopes and fears and love their families as much as you, and aren't mindless automatons to be blithely dismissed or considered expendable simply because of their colour, creed, religious beliefs or geographical location.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Let's try that again.

Hahaha! I wondered where the other page of thread went. Good call.

 

[jverne]

You start an entire thread about a company deciding there's a healthy market out there for halal food products in terms of making a living into a sideways swipe at a 1/5th of the worlds population and their beliefs. Then when you're accused of both overreacting and xenophobia by a whole bunch of people, you go on the defensive for innumerable pages attempting to defend yourself but instead highlight the problem. Verne in truth you're a bigot and an ardent Islamophobe, and no amount of wiki links or melodramatic hand on heart 'not me?' protestations is going to disguise that fact. Be honest and face up to your prejudices and realise you have a serious problem you need to address. It's time to stop seeing people as categories, and start seeing people as people.

People, who eat, sleep and breathe and have dreams, aspirations, hopes and fears and love their families as much as you, and aren't mindless automatons to be blithely dismissed or considered expendable simply because of their colour, creed, religious beliefs or geographical location.

i've mentioned halal food as a possible early sign of islamization of europe, which stern disproved with the fact that we also have Jewish and other types of food. actually halal food can be considered as proof that muslims are playing a bigger role in europe than they once did. but i agree that it is a shabby argument and completely innocent, so like i've said i backed off way before you came in.

as for the islamophobia...(if that means fear of islamic religion), well we could say i am somewhat. i fear most teachings where women have less rights than men, where homosexuality and adultery is considered punishable, where made up laws forbid me of making own decisions.
that doesn't mean i fear muslims or that they will take over the world...it means i don't like their religion based on (at least what i consider) legitimate fears.

a bigot...no i am not. i have very few problems with Buddhism for instance and guess what, that is widely considered a form of religion. i see it as a more humanistic approach in self spiritualism. but again i'm not that versed in buddhism so i might be deceiving myself.

as for the links...i used that to back up my claims as i thought you requested.


people that actually bother to read what i say, could probably confirm that i am not a racist and i don't have prejudices against people who are born in a certain way or they are unable to change their behavior (like mentally handicapped people for instance).
but people who believe the earth is 6000 years old (despite the overwhelming evidence) and that a man turned water to wine, or think that women should be beaten or never leave the house...well they are fair game.

the only thing i am guilty of is making too alarmist titles or first threads...which i realize, but that's because it's fun to see people outraged...:E kidding.

 

[Sulkdodds]

:E kidding.

A close escape and no mistake!