An Islamic Europe?

[Yeeek]

Personally, I would rather see a Muslim Europe rather than a Hindu Europe, as Islam and Christianity are both Abrahamic religions, whereas Hinduism is just way too different.

You see, I don't think most people would go that far when discussing this topic. Because it does only come to one thing. Its Arab, so its bad.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Thankfully, we don't have dirty concepts like dividing the world into "Land of India" and "Land of War".

No, Hindu have the concept dividing the world into "Cast of the dirty" and "Cast of Clean"

 

[HannibalBarka]

Personally, I would rather see a Muslim Europe rather than a Hindu Europe, as Islam and Christianity are both Abrahamic religions, whereas Hinduism is just way too different.

Anneshm do not realease, or maybe he does, that very often western people who despise Islamic countries/Islam/Muslim Immigrants do not have a better opinion about India/Hinduism/Indian immigrant. He tries all day long to put India and The Western World in the same bag (as if being with the smart guys makes you look smart ) when the frange of the western society that considers Islam a backward hell hole, very often hold the same opinion about the land of the cast system

 

[GinandTonic]

So yesterday I went to visit my mother and the Portugese family who live downstairs were celebrating their son's first communion. While I had my BBQ I sat with a couple of Catholics, a Northern Irish Prodistant, a Muslim, a hard agnostic (me) and an athiest with somewhat hippy/ spiritualist overtones (my mother).

On the basis of my last meal it seems to me freedom of religion and religious intergration are alive and well in Europe. Not perfect by any means but discord was more likley to be on the basis of football v rugby or the Portugese grandmother catching her teenage grandson smoking than religion.

 

[aneeshm]

No, Hindu have the concept dividing the world into "Cast of the dirty" and "Cast of Clean"

In spite of having this ******** assertion disproved hundreds of times, you still persist in your delusion.

The simplest response to this I can give, which sums up the entire debate perfectly:

To the followers of some religions, God gave Holy Books. To the followers of the others, he gave brains.

 

[ArneHD]

To the followers of some religions, God gave Holy Books. To the followers of the others, he gave brains.

The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts:
Those with brains, but no religion,
And those with religion, but no brains.

Al-Ma'arri

 

[Kozmos]

And to the smartest he presented empirical evidence.

 

[Disenfrancised]

And why is using statistics about people not OK? Oh I see, you don't like it when statistics do not fit with your opinion

It is indeed an odd position for him to take, considering statistics are meant to be about people, from wiki: "statisticum collegium ("council of state") and the Italian word statista ("statesman" or "politician"). The German Statistik, first introduced by Gottfried Achenwall (1749), originally designated the analysis of data about the state.".

 

[QuoVadisNation]

The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts:
Those with brains, but no religion,
And those with religion, but no brains.

Al-Ma'arri

Well.. I think that there are two other types of people.

Those who think there are only two kinds of people
and those who know better.



On Topic: An Islamic Europe? I suppose it is possible. But I honestly can't imagine the transition going all that smoothly.

 

[Tabasco Sauce]

Interesting discussion raging here, very interesting.

An Islamic Europe would be the one disaster which could unite India, China, and the Americas into one solid Islam-resisting block.

While it would definitely make for a good movie or book, this will never happen. The reason? Islam is split between the Sunni and Shia sects, not to mention the various minor sects. The prerequisite for the world uniting against an "Islamic Block" would be the existence of an "Islamic Block", which is impossible. Not to mention the fact that Muslims in Europe might create a religious branch of its own, thus dividing the Islamic world even more.

Personally, my feeling on the subject is that, while an Islamic Europe is not necessarily a bad thing, I would be disturbed by the fact that my ancestral homeland would be occupied by a culturally different people.

 

[Verbose]

Personally, my feeling on the subject is that, while an Islamic Europe is not necessarily a bad thing, I would be disturbed by the fact that my ancestral homeland would be occupied by a culturally different people.

Looking at the normal distribution of attitudes in the US and attitudes in Europe, are you quite sure it's not already?

 

[Steph]

Hummm, let's see France case. The trend described by the OP is not going to happen because:
1. Birth rate is higher among muslims coming from those islamic countries that did not achieve their demographic transition and not from all islamic countries.
2. High birth rate concerns the first generation and not the second. French people from algeraian descent do not "multiply" more than those from Brittany.
3. Immigration to Europe is very much tough, people die trying to cross the Med. So no "hordes" of muslims are on the horizon.

1. Agreed
2. Agreed
3. Agreed

I can also add that I think the young immigrants will "westernize" and be much more interested by going out, girls, etc than by religion. I think they will become more and more secular.

A few minority may be tempted by fundamentalism, but a minority.

 

[Leifmk]

Personally, I would rather see a Muslim Europe rather than a Hindu Europe, as Islam and Christianity are both Abrahamic religions

Gods, no. We've had a thousand years of Abrahamic dominance already and that has been more than enough.

I'm fairly satisfied with the way things mostly seem to be headed now -- a basically secular, pluralist society where the majority are either explicitly or implicitly areligious, and there are many different religious minorities all coexisting peacefully. Adding some more Hindus to the mix shouldn't be a problem.

As it is, Islam is the largest minority religion here -- it has all of 2% of the population. But that only works if you count it as a single religion, in reality it is far from monolithic, either when it comes to theology or organization. There are many small-ish self-organized Muslim groups, mostly split by traditional ethnic lines (e.g. the Pakistanis don't hang out with the Turks much, the Iranians have their own groups and so do the Kurds, etc.)

The main line of any conflict lies not between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor between different ethnically or theologically demarked groups of Muslims, but rather between individuals or families within the same groups -- and such conflicts are mostly either continuations of old conflicts (familiy feuds etc. from the old country), or (and this is the biggie) caused by differing attitudes regarding tradition vs. modernization/integration. There's a notable and growing split between a conservative older generation and a (mostly) more liberal younger generation, plus some of the younger generation who go the other way and try to be even more conservative than their parents.

The very idea that such a relatively small and fragmented religious group (which is only becoming more diverse and fragmented with every passing year) could achieve political dominance at the cost of the other 98% of the population seems ludicrous at best. Even if naive linear extrapolation of current demographic trends were to prove correct and they wind up with more than 10% of the total population in some decades, those 10% will be found scattered on every side of every conceivable political question.

 

[GinandTonic]

Gods, no. We've had a thousand years of Abrahamic dominance already and that has been more than enough.

I'm fairly satisfied with the way things mostly seem to be headed now -- a basically secular, pluralist society where the majority are either explicitly or implicitly areligious, and there are many different religious minorities all coexisting peacefully. Adding some more Hindus to the mix shouldn't be a problem.

As it is, Islam is the largest minority religion here -- it has all of 2% of the population. But that only works if you count it as a single religion, in reality it is far from monolithic, either when it comes to theology or organization. There are many small-ish self-organized Muslim groups, mostly split by traditional ethnic lines (e.g. the Pakistanis don't hang out with the Turks much, the Iranians have their own groups and so do the Kurds, etc.)

The main line of any conflict lies not between Muslims and non-Muslims, nor between different ethnically or theologically demarked groups of Muslims, but rather between individuals or families within the same groups -- and such conflicts are mostly either continuations of old conflicts (familiy feuds etc. from the old country), or (and this is the biggie) caused by differing attitudes regarding tradition vs. modernization/integration. There's a notable and growing split between a conservative older generation and a (mostly) more liberal younger generation, plus some of the younger generation who go the other way and try to be even more conservative than their parents.

The very idea that such a relatively small and fragmented religious group (which is only becoming more diverse and fragmented with every passing year) could achieve political dominance at the cost of the other 98% of the population seems ludicrous at best. Even if naive linear extrapolation of current demographic trends were to prove correct and they wind up with more than 10% of the total population in some decades, those 10% will be found scattered on every side of every conceivable political question.

Well said sir

 

[Verbose]

The fear of Europe somehow being "overrun" in this short time-span equates an assertion that it is somehow impossible for anybody but anybody to successfully integrate in European societies, QED.

Things may not be all rosy and peachy on the European immigration front, but what we are looking at is still mostly friction, which was always expectable, unless one actively wants it to carry some dire, deeper significance for Europe's future.

Sure things will change, new groups of people will move in, tomorrow will be a bit different from today. It always is.

And of course, things can always go to hell in a handbasket. Probably not over Muslim imigration and fertility though.

Europe having a violence spasm and starting to kill a 2% minority, like its Muslims, would have better historical precedents though. About a century ago Westerners also feared being overrun by another assumed fifth column in their midst, impossible to assimilate, or so it was said, corrupting all which was decent about European civilisation (supposedly).

I'm surprised at least not more American Euro-sceptics have picked up on this possible view of things yet.

 

[aneeshm]

The very idea that such a relatively small and fragmented religious group (which is only becoming more diverse and fragmented with every passing year) could achieve political dominance at the cost of the other 98% of the population seems ludicrous at best.

It seems you know not the story of the Brahmins of India.