Islam and fascism (split from IS thread)

[Flying Pig]

No. You don't get to kill civilians because they might do evil in the future. If they are armed and shooting, they can be dealt with by military means. If they are committing crimes, they can be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Otherwise, no decent government may lay a finger on them.

I've always said that by taking up the power of life and death over people you accept a certain responsibility - you accept that you must be held to a higher standard than anybody else in society, that you may not retaliate where anybody else would, and that sometimes you must risk your life at the hands of evil people to avoid endangering innocent people. If that's not something you can sign up to, you should be unarmed. If a civilian starts fights with his fists unnecessarily, it's a very different proposition to an armed soldier doing it with his rifle.

 

[Formaldehyde]

"NGO-based reports and official figures to measure civilian casualties, approximately 7,500 civilians were killed during the invasion phase.[181] The Project on Defense Alternatives study estimated that 3,200–4,300 civilians died during the invasion."
(Wikipedia)

List of terror attacks 2015

Study particularly the second source to assess whether your claims that Islamic terror is largely due to Western foreign policy and that people of other religions do the same things are sustainable.

That is the number who were reported killed by the media.

A Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq, 2003-2005 is the first detailed account of all non-combatants reported killed or wounded during the first two years of the continuing conflict.1 The report, published by Iraq Body Count in association with Oxford Research Group,2 is based on comprehensive analysis of over 10,000 media reports published between March 2003 and March 2005.

So that is just the absolute bare minimum. Vastly more were never reported in the press as the estimates clearly show. The media was never even allowed unrestricted access in Iraq, much less during the supposed "invasion period". They were intentionally kept from from the zones of combat so they could only report the propaganda the US military wished them to report.

Far more than 7,000 civilians were likely killed during the very first night of "shock and awe" bombing! The 2000 lb Mk 84 bomb has a lethal fragmentation radius of 400 yards!


Link to video.

 

[Funky]

I've always said that by taking up the power of life and death over people you accept a certain responsibility - you accept that you must be held to a higher standard than anybody else in society, that you may not retaliate where anybody else would, and that sometimes you must risk your life at the hands of evil people to avoid endangering innocent people.

I fundamentally disagree with this stance, though I'd be interested in hearing your justification for it. I try to view every human equally which also means equal responsibility. That for me is a sign of respect. To say someone with less power has less responsibility for his actions doesn't only seem condescending, it also exculpates him from his wrongdoings which will not help rectify this behaviour.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's not what it means at all, though. It means that soldiers stand in line with riot shields while stones, bottles and petrol bombs are thrown at them, rather than firing into a crowd of angry civilians. It means that sometimes you have to just move away from gunfire rather than firing on buildings full of civilians, who are usually being kept there against their will. Sometimes that means that you or your men die instead of the civilians. The gunman is still responsible for his actions, but you don't get to bring down the hammer of divine justice on him and everyone in the vicinity. The alternative is turning into exactly the sort of person that soldiers exist to stop.

 

[Tahuti]

No. You don't get to kill civilians because they might do evil in the future. If they are armed and shooting, they can be dealt with by military means. If they are committing crimes, they can be dealt with by the criminal justice system. Otherwise, no decent government may lay a finger on them.

I've always said that by taking up the power of life and death over people you accept a certain responsibility - you accept that you must be held to a higher standard than anybody else in society, that you may not retaliate where anybody else would, and that sometimes you must risk your life at the hands of evil people to avoid endangering innocent people. If that's not something you can sign up to, you should be unarmed. If a civilian starts fights with his fists unnecessarily, it's a very different proposition to an armed soldier doing it with his rifle.

That's utopia. First of all, civilians may be cought in the crossfire between combatants and they will die. It is a fact of warfare. Secondly, no state can afford to put its own citizens (including soldiers) at unnecessary risk for the civilians of another. Finally, the distinction between civilians and soldiers is a remnant from caste systems in which most civilians were effectively barred from ever partaking in combat by sumptuary restrictions. The effacement of that distinction is the price one has to pay for living a society based on equality before the law.

Hamas rightly justifies its attacks on Israeli civilians on the grounds that most Israeli civilians are bound to be drafted as soldiers and are functioning as reservists and likewise Israel has valid reason to place Palestinian civilians at risk for the role they do play in sustaining these attacks by endorsing Hamas in elections and economically sustaining them.

A society in which civilians are spared at all costs requires a warrior caste that has significantly more status than those outside the military. This of course, negates the very notion of equality before the law. Of course, the prospect that civilians will be involved in any war in a republican polity (in the sense of giving equality before the law) acts as powerful deterrent for republican polities and democracies in particular for going to war. Hence the democratic peace theory - which is more aptly called the egalitarian peace theory - largely proves true. Though wars between democracies do occur, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven.

Addendum: Islam is a very democratic religion. The brand of Islam advanced by IS even more so, proclaiming that any devout Muslim can become Caliph. Likewise Christianity was a predecessor of (Democratic) Socialism. Democracy isn't about elections, it is about accepting input from citizens in general as well as integrating them with the polity in the process. Thus wars waged by democracies tend to be total wars and democratic state usually tends to be significantly stronger militarily than aristocratic states of a similar population.

Personal note: When I labelled myself a reactionary, I was more inclined to support a warrior caste in order to protect civilians. However, now I'm largely on the fence: While I as a civilian in egalitarian society am as much a legitimate target in warfare as those who are carrying firearms as part of their profession, I also have more freedom to do as a please. Yet the former thought occasionally haunts me.

 

[Funky]

That's not what it means at all, though. It means that soldiers stand in line with riot shields while stones, bottles and petrol bombs are thrown at them, rather than firing into a crowd of angry civilians. It means that sometimes you have to just move away from gunfire rather than firing on buildings full of civilians, who are usually being kept there against their will. Sometimes that means that you or your men die instead of the civilians. The gunman is still responsible for his actions, but you don't get to bring down the hammer of divine justice on him and everyone in the vicinity. The alternative is turning into exactly the sort of person that soldiers exist to stop.

Well, I obviously agree that sometimes it is better to restrain from using force. But that doesn't excuse your rioters throwing petrol bombs in the slightest. They are behaving morally dispicably, and they shouldn't be surprised that such behaviour can have lethal consequences in certain circumstances.
I also blame the people who are using civilians as human shields first, regardless of who has more power. If the civilians are killed, the responsibility lies on those who brought them into that situation in the first place. The reason this morally detestable military strategy works at all, is because their counterpart has such high moral standards, and values the life of their people more than they themselves.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't have the energy to respond in full to this, but as a general comment the attitude is totally contrary to the laws and customs of warfare, and would get any military officer who expressed it relieved of command.

That's utopia. First of all, civilians may be cought in the crossfire between combatants and they will die. It is a fact of warfare. Secondly, no state can afford to put its own citizens (including soldiers) at unnecessary risk for the civilians of another. Finally, the distinction between civilians and soldiers is a remnant from caste systems in which most civilians were effectively barred from ever partaking in combat by sumptuary restrictions. The effacement of that distinction is the price one has to pay for living a society based on equality before the law.

Hamas rightly justifies its attacks on Israeli civilians on the grounds that most Israeli civilians are bound to be drafted as soldiers and are functioning as reservists and likewise Israel has valid reason to place Palestinian civilians at risk for the role they do play in sustaining these attacks by endorsing Hamas in elections and economically sustaining them.

A society in which civilians are spared at all costs requires a warrior caste that has significantly more status than those outside the military. This of course, negates the very notion of equality before the law. Of course, the prospect that civilians will be involved in any war in a republican polity (in the sense of giving equality before the law) acts as powerful deterrent for republican polities and democracies in particular for going to war. Hence the democratic peace theory - which is more aptly called the egalitarian peace theory - largely proves true. Though wars between democracies do occur, as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven.

Addendum: Islam is a very democratic religion. The brand of Islam advanced by IS even more so, proclaiming that any devout Muslim can become Caliph. Likewise Christianity was a predecessor of (Democratic) Socialism. Democracy isn't about elections, it is about accepting input from citizens in general as well as integrating them with the polity in the process. Thus wars waged by democracies tend to be total wars and democratic state usually tends to be significantly stronger militarily than aristocratic states of a similar population.

Personal note: When I labelled myself a reactionary, I was more inclined to support a warrior caste in order to protect civilians. However, now I'm largely on the fence: While I as a civilian in egalitarian society am as much a legitimate target in warfare as those who are carrying firearms as part of their profession, I also have more freedom to do as a please. Yet the former thought occasionally haunts me.

The crux of my objection - an objection shared, as I said, by just about every law that has ever been made concerning what armed men can and cannot do - is that the bolded sentence isn't true. That way madness lies.

 

[Tahuti]

The crux of my objection - an objection shared, as I said, by just about every law that has ever been made concerning what armed men can and cannot do - is that the bolded sentence isn't true. That way madness lies.

My point is that in the transition away from a society with legally enforcable social classes to a state of legal classlessness implies several trade offs, including the alteration of notions of chivalry in which non-combatants become accessoires to warfare and thus valid targets.

Almost all states today are modelled on revolutionary France. As we know, revolutionary France was a seminal moment in the development of total war. There may be precedents, though the structure of government of France allowed it to use the entire populace for the purpose of war.

So, a society that wishes to minimise civilians becoming a target must clearly define a military class that is self-sustaining and does not directly employ civilians in war by drafting and giving civilians political control over the military. Obviously, this eliminates legal equality and makes a state weaker in absolute terms. Expecting that a state can keep civilians out of harms way in times of war and maintain legal equality is wanting to eat the pie, then keeping it. This is the fundamental dilemma we are facing. You have not shown why this is not true.

 

[Flying Pig]

I don't see how there's a question of legal equality, at all. There's simply the oldest moral rule in the book - don't hurt people who don't deserve it! Soldiers choose to be in harm's way; civilians don't. Soldiers have a duty to use the least force possible to carry out whatever mission they have, because that's the method which causes the fewest dead innocent people. I think you've managed to let some quite abstract philosophy get in the way of the incredibly simple. You're thinking of people in collective and pretty vague ways, whereas when these decisions are actually being made it's a question of killing people's parents and children, bombing people out of their homes, blowing up hospitals and leaving sick people to die - and so on. If you start thinking of those as just another statistic, you go mad, and you open the door to evil.

 

[Agent327]

My point is that in the transition away from a society with legally enforcable social classes to a state of legal classlessness implies several trade offs, including the alteration of notions of chivalry in which non-combatants become accessoires to warfare and thus valid targets.

That doesn't follow at all. Also, when was there a society with legally enforcable social classes - since Roman times?

Almost all states today are modelled on revolutionary France. As we know, revolutionary France was a seminal moment in the development of total war. There may be precedents, though the structure of government of France allowed it to use the entire populace for the purpose of war.

I think you are confusing total war with mass armies. Not quite the same thing. Secondly, most modern states are based on a constitution - which goes back to the American revolution, not the French.

So, a society that wishes to minimise civilians becoming a target must clearly define a military class that is self-sustaining and does not directly employ civilians in war by drafting and giving civilians political control over the military. Obviously, this eliminates legal equality and makes a state weaker in absolute terms. Expecting that a state can keep civilians out of harms way in times of war and maintain legal equality is wanting to eat the pie, then keeping it. This is the fundamental dilemma we are facing. You have not shown why this is not true.

The only people who consciously target civilians are terrorists. From a military point of view targeting civilians is highly ineffective. So your criticism doesn't hold against modern armies at all. Finally, your argument that legal equality has anything to do with military effectiveness seems rather weak. There is, for instance, no legal equality in the army.

 

[Funky]

I don't have the energy to respond in full to this, but as a general comment the attitude is totally contrary to the laws and customs of warfare, and would get any military officer who expressed it relieved of command.

I have the suspicion that we are talking past each other. While I am talking about people having the same moral responsibility for their actions regardless of the power they hold, you seem to be refering to specific rules of warfare that apply to soldiers and their interactions with civilians. I also suspect that we are in agreement on both issues.


Turning back to the topic of the thread, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the 1920s and 1930s, Haj Amin al-Husseini, among the most important Muslim leaders of the time, is well-known to have openly collaborated with the Nazis and spoke to Hitler personally about their shared interests in 1941.
He expressed his views on the relationship between Islam and National Socialism in 1944, and mentioned following similarities:

1. Monotheism - unity under one leader, "Führerprinzip"
2. Obedience and discipline
3. Value of military struggle and the honor to die in combat
4. Value of the community, and placing common interests over individual interests
5. Esteem for the role of women as mothers
6. The need to eradicate the Jews
7. Glorification of labor, regardless of what purpose it serves

The collaboration and mutual respect of both these figures towards another was centered around the goal to eradicate the Jews, but was also born out of the affinity towards each other's ideological convictions. While this liaison between National Socialism and Islam (which by the way wasn't limited to al-Husseini but included the support of other Islamic organisations, like the Muslim Brotherhood) could be written off as a historical issue, neither Hitler nor al-Husseini have ever been denounced or even openly criticized by the Islamic orthodoxy. Quite the contrary, "Mein Kampf" is a best-seller in many Islamic countries, including the comparatively secular Turkey. The fascist elements that al-Husseini listed for both ideologies are still strongly virulent among Muslims today. Even in Germany, where the condemnation of National Socialism is ubiquitous in schools and in the media, Hitler is viewed as an outstanding and inspiring leader by 25 percent of Muslims. This video in the German city of Essen shows Muslim protesters shouting for the death of Jews and chanting "Adolf Hitler". Similar scenes have meanwhile been seen in countless other European cities.

Perhaps the most shocking aspect of these hideous events has been that in Germany and Austria, where it is illegal to spread National Socialist propaganda and glorify Hitler or the holocaust, the Muslims who participated in this behaviour were largely acquitted. Earlier this year, a Muslim who publicly praised Hitler for the killing of Jews in the Austrian city of Linz was discharged by the judge, who claimed that these words uttered by a Turkish man were to be seen as voicing his legitimate opinion. And 45 of the 49 Muslims who were arrested in Frankfurt for screaming that Jews should be gassed while doing the Nazi salute were likewise acquitted. It is difficult to fathom how our courts are openly accepting this new rise of antisemitism and enthusiasm towards National Socialism. That this is happening again, here, in the country responsible for the holocaust, is more than outrageous. Yet those who criticise this behaviour are often still labeled as rascists or even as Nazis. I hope this shows the utter absurdity and moral reprehensibleness of wanting to silence critique of Islam.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I also blame the people who are using civilians as human shields first, regardless of who has more power.

You mean as the IDF continues to do without repercussions?

Israeli army uses Gaza children as human shields

Since the assault on Gaza began, Israeli leaders and their supporters have repeatedly accused Hamas of using Palestinian civilians as human shields in an attempt to absolve Israel of responsibility for deliberately killing more than 1,600 Palestinian civilians in the besieged Gaza Strip.

Despite there being no evidence to prove this libelous claim, it has been unquestioningly echoed in major media outlets and invoked by US officials to blame Palestinians for their own slaughter. It has even been used to justify genocide against Palestinians in a newspaper ad created by anti-Palestinian extremists Shmuley Boteach and Elie Wiesel.

But the available evidence demonstrates that it is the Israeli army, not Hamas, that has been using Palestinians as human shields in Gaza.

In video testimony released by the Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights, which you can watch at the top of this post, Ramadan Muhammad Qdeih recounts how Israeli forces stormed his home in Khuzaa, where some sixty members of his extended family were sheltering in the basement on 25 July, and forced them to act as human shields.

First, the Israeli soldiers shot dead his 65-year-old father Muhammad Qdeih near the entrance of the home as he tried to alert the soldiers to the presence of women and children while carrying a white flag.

Next, says Qdeih, the soldiers forcibly positioned members of his family, including the children, at the windows of his home and proceeded to fire from behind them.

“They ordered us to take off our clothes and tied our hands up,” says Qdeih. “They took us to one of the rooms and used us as shields, making us stand at the windows as if we were looking outside. I was at one window and three children from my family at another. The soldiers then began firing around us.”

For eight hours, Qdeih’s relatives were denied food and water as they were shuffled from one room to another with their hands restrained behind their backs and forced to stand in front of open windows as Israeli soldiers fired from behind their bodies.

Hiding behind children

Qdeih’s family members weren’t the only Palestinian civilians Israeli soldiers hid behind in Gaza. According to Euro-Mid, for five days Israeli forces used a Palestinian teen as their own personal human shield:

In another incident, on 23 July, 17-year-old Ahmad Jamal Abu Reeda says he was restrained by Israeli troops who threatened to kill him. After harshly interrogating and beating him, the troops ordered Abu Reeda to walk ahead of them at gunpoint, accompanied by police dogs, as they searched houses and other buildings. Several times, they demanded that he dig in places they suspected tunnels to exist. Abu Reeda was forced to remain with the Israeli forces for five days.

This procedure is not new. During Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s three-week bombardment of the Gaza Strip in the winter of 2008-2009, Israeli soldiers used an eleven-year-old Palestinian boy as a human shield, forcing him to walk in front of them at gunpoint and enter potentially booby-trapped buildings to check for explosives.

And these are not isolated cases. Israel has a well-documented history of systematically using Palestinian civilians as human shields, particularly children.

Ethnic cleansing

From summary executions to deliberately murdering fleeing civilians carrying white flags and using civilians as human shields, there is no shortage of atrocities committed by the Israeli army in Khuzaa, which was completely flattened by non-stop Israeli shelling in what has been described as a massacre.

After visiting Khuzaa and speaking with survivors, Jaber Wishah, the deputy director of the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza, told Gaza-based journalist Mohammed Omer that he believes Israel’s intention was to ethnically cleanse Khuzaa in an effort to split the Gaza Strip in two, north and south, to make it easier to control.

As more information about Israeli criminality in Gaza comes to light, it has become increasingly clear that Israel is spreading lies about Palestinians.

Israel is the one using Palestinian children as human shields. Israelis are the ones celebrating death in Gaza. Israeli officials are the ones declaring a “holy war.” And Israeli leaders are the ones calling for genocide.

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are now using Israeli propaganda to rationalize and defend the indefensible in yet another attempt to smear 1.6 billion Muslims.

Turning back to the topic of the thread, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during the 1920s and 1930s, Haj Amin al-Husseini, among the most important Muslim leaders of the time, is well-known to have openly collaborated with the Nazis and spoke to Hitler personally about their shared interests in 1941.

Well, that must mean they are all fascists after continuing to cite this frequently used inane propaganda found on so many Muslim hate sites.

Yes, it is indeed true that Hitler tried to recruit some Muslims to help him to fight the Jews. But that obviously didn't go anywhere despite him trying to convince them how much he really adored Islam, which is obviously utter nonsense given how he clearly felt about Aryan supremacy.

 

[abradley]

You mean as the IDF continues to incessantly do?

Israeli army uses Gaza children as human shields

It doesn't surprise me in the least that you are now using Israeli propaganda to rationalize and defend the indefensible.

Well, that must mean they are all fascists after continuing to cite this frequently used inane propaganda found on so many Muslim hate sites.

Moderator Action: Warned for spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Tahuti]

I don't see how there's a question of legal equality, at all. There's simply the oldest moral rule in the book - don't hurt people who don't deserve it! Soldiers choose to be in harm's way; civilians don't. Soldiers have a duty to use the least force possible to carry out whatever mission they have, because that's the method which causes the fewest dead innocent people. I think you've managed to let some quite abstract philosophy get in the way of the incredibly simple. You're thinking of people in collective and pretty vague ways, whereas when these decisions are actually being made it's a question of killing people's parents and children, bombing people out of their homes, blowing up hospitals and leaving sick people to die - and so on. If you start thinking of those as just another statistic, you go mad, and you open the door to evil.

I am aware that as a citizen of a democratic policy, I can be attacked at any moment by forces seeking to undermine the Netherlands. It is not an abstract philosophy, rather an observation on personal experience. Democracy is the integration of citizenry and state: It thus follows that killing citizens weakens such a state. Whoever exercises the right of control over the state is part of it.

Soldiers may choose to risk their lives though most citizens do by taking part political decision making. The average citizen of a democratic nation already does by electing representatives who decide whether or not to go to war. If you are an American who voted Bush, you are partially responsible for Iraq II. If you are a Palestinian who voted for Hamas or an Israeli who voted for Likud, you are partially responsible for the Gaza wars. This is the truth of Democratic politics.

The idea that civilians and soldiers are distinct is an anachronism, stemming from feudal beliefs in chivalry. In the Medieval ages, rulers were drawn from military occupations such as knights. The state was distinct from the people who lived within its territories who were its subjects. Subjects did not share responsibility for what their liege did, though they could get another liege if their previously liege was defeated. However, from the first Republican polities onwards, citizens were allowed a clout in military decision making and were drafted, thus becoming integrated into the state and sharing responsibilities with it.

This is not to say I'm anti-democratic, though rather, it something we should accept as the price we need to pay for living in a democracy, especially if we are strongly involved in its politics. A stoic realisation of the state of things. The fact that we have numerous treaties on the nature of wars are usually farcical, because whoever uses the ballot box or makes use of any other instrument of democratic decision making has the power of killing citizens of another nation, a power that is used very often. A civilian who is politically active - including doing something as mundane as voting - is therefore an armed combatant, except he or she is not armed with firearms.

 

[Tigranes]

51 percent of U.S. Muslims prefer Shariah

There are now an estimated 3 million Muslims residing in the United States as citizens or with permanent legal status, and more than 250,000 new Muslim residents enter the U.S. per year as refugees, on work visas and student-based visas, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal system ruled by the U.S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Shariah.

"That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that Shariah is 'The Muslim God Allah's law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad,'" writes Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-mos...constitution-for-shariah/#HxZJZSYPvI1SFbL1.99

 

[El_Machinae]

Um, usually I shy away from ad hominems, but WND?!? and the Center for Security Policy?!?

Sorry, giant grain of salt there.

edit: and this comes from someone who'd be better described as 'anti-Islam' than 'pro-Islam' given my apostasy and my belief that Islam commands my execution.

 

[Formaldehyde]

51 percent of U.S. Muslims prefer Shariah

There are now an estimated 3 million Muslims residing in the United States as citizens or with permanent legal status, and more than 250,000 new Muslim residents enter the U.S. per year as refugees, on work visas and student-based visas, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal system ruled by the U.S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Shariah.

"That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that Shariah is 'The Muslim God Allah's law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad,'" writes Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-mos...constitution-for-shariah/#HxZJZSYPvI1SFbL1.99

So you don't think they should be able to get religious arbitration for their own issues with each other regarding morality and their beliefs?

Do you also think that Christians and Jews should also be banned from doing the very same thing, which they now do on a regular basis for the very same sorts of interpersonal issues?

Um, usually I shy away from ad hominems, but WND?!? and the Center for Security Policy?!?

Sorry, giant grain of salt there.

Here's my favorite part: The headline!

POLL: MOST U.S. MUSLIMS WOULD TRADE CONSTITUTION FOR SHARIAH

'Quran should be highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion'

 

[Funky]

51 percent of U.S. Muslims prefer Shariah

There are now an estimated 3 million Muslims residing in the United States as citizens or with permanent legal status, and more than 250,000 new Muslim residents enter the U.S. per year as refugees, on work visas and student-based visas, according to the Center for Immigration Studies.

A poll commissioned in May 2015 by the Center for Security Policy showed that 51 percent of American Muslims preferred that they should have their own Shariah courts outside of the legal system ruled by the U.S. Constitution. And nearly a quarter believed the use of violent jihad was justified in establishing Shariah.

"That would translate into roughly 300,000 Muslims living in the United States who believe that Shariah is 'The Muslim God Allah's law that Muslims must follow and impose worldwide by Jihad,'" writes Frank Gaffney Jr., president of the Center for Security Policy.


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/poll-mos...constitution-for-shariah/#HxZJZSYPvI1SFbL1.99

Muslims currently make up only 0.8 percent of the American population, yet there have already been several terror attacks, jihadist recrutings, Muslims demanding privileges in the name of "religious freedom", and first attempts to implement sharia. This is just the beginning. The Muslim population will grow, and problems will increase, as everywhere where Muslims appear.

At the moment it seems that many Americans are unable to appreciate the extent of the problems, since they by and large don't experience them in their daily lives. Even here in this forum, most Europeans seem to be way more critical of Islam than the Americans. People from Europe know what it's like to live in cities with 5%, 10%, 20% of Muslims. They have experienced how once nice towns or city districts, like Bradford or Luton in England, both 25% Muslim, Berlin Neu-Kölln (20%), Malmö (20%) and many more have been taken over and ruined. It is not safe for non-Muslims to enter the Muslim areas there anymore, let alone for Jews. In many of these places the Muslims have formed parallel societies, and are living under the rules of sharia with all the detrimental consequences, especially for women. Crime rates have skyrocketed, especially the amount of rapes. In Norway, virtually all rapes are committed by Muslims. In Sweden and England it is also an large majority. Women are increasingly becoming targets of harrassment. Muslims are ridiculously over-represented in the prison populations of Western Europe. At the same time, unemployment among Muslims is extremely high - in Germany it's 33% - which is a huge burden for our social welfare system.
This might all sound over-dramatic for the American ear, but it's just true. You can look everything up. I'd be very happy if someone could point out that what I listed is exaggerated.

And just to pre-emptively avoid the always recurring strawman, I'm not refering to ALL Muslims. Many Muslims live normal lives, are perfectly integrated, and pose no problem whatsoever. The only thing they are to blame for is that they don't speak out louder against the Islamic orthodoxy and try to promote a more modern and benign version of the faith. And when I'm refering to the conservative Muslims, I'm not criticising them as people, I criticize the bad ideas they hold based on their religion.

With immigration and exorbitant birth rates of Muslims women, the numbers will continue to increase swiftly in the next years. Despite our islamophile politicians and media downplaying the problems nonstop, in most Western European countries the majority of people think Islam is a threat to their society, and Western Europe is about as tolerant as you can get.
One advantage that the US may have is a numerically strong right, which already strongly opposes Islam at this early stage. As most of you know by now, I stand on the left and think it is a ludicrous situation that by and large only the right has acknowledged the threat of Islam. I even agree with friggin Bill O'Reilly on this issue, a man I otherwise disagree with on everything. But when it comes to Islam, he is mostly correct in his assessments.

Anyway, Americans will face their problems soon enough. I hope that they will get their sh*t together in time - I have an American passport and the US are my escape route when things get too obnoxious over here.

 

[Formaldehyde]

And look who believes it all hook, line, and sinker, even after it has been pointed out the site has no credibility whatsoever...

 

[abradley]

And look who believes it all hook, line, and sinker, even after it has been pointed out the site has no credibility whatsoever...

Where and when was this proven? Just so I'll know not to use them.