Islamization of Europe and Policies to Prevent It, Part 10
01 Feb, 2008
Policy Area 8: Rules for Visas, Immigration and Citizenship
8.1.1 Who is the enemy?
In this part of the model (Policy Area 8), various issues concerning immigration, the requirements for getting different types of visas, or for becoming a citizen, are treated. The discussion in earlier parts of this series has shown why it is necessary not to allow persons who don’t respect the Western concept of human rights; who work to implement sharia laws; or even are inclined to use force in order to destroy the current democratic system, to enter or immigrate to Europe. As a necessary background for the proposed rules, two questions the answers to which heavily influence the decisions regarding immigration etc are formulated:
(1) Who is our enemy? Is it mainly (or only) the Islamists/jihadists who plan and carry out physical terror acts?
(2) Why don’t moderate Muslims forcefully oppose the Islamists? Aren’t they opposed to them? Do moderate Muslims cooperate with us – or with them?
It has been pointed out regarding issue (1) that terror is just a tool, a short- or long-term tactics of the Islamists, and one of many possible policy alternatives. It can be used, or it can be dropped if the Islamic decision-makers conclude that another strategy is better and that terrorism starts to be counterproductive. So terror and terrorism is not the enemy but just a tool among many. Naming what probably will be called World War IV in the future, for “The war on terror “ is just an attempt to be tactical in the short term: don’t irritate “normal” Muslims and be politically correct. However, it plays into the hands of the enemies of the Western Civilization if one doesn’t talk straight about whom the enemy is. It also reflects a deep flaw in the understanding of the Islamic doctrine. Instead of committing such errors, it is necessary to clearly define which Muslims are the enemy.
The basic doctrine of Islam consists not only of the Quran but also of the sunnah of Muhammed (the Ahadith and the sira). The religion contains both peaceful and violent principles but the peaceful suras (from Mecca) are generally abrogated by the later – and violent – ones from Medina. The small number of peaceful maxims regarding non-Muslims (generally not valid because of abrogation) are now used over and over again in the West in order to deceive Europeans and Americans, while the real ruling principles are covered up. But even the “peaceful” part of the Quran created by Muhammed in Mecca is generally not peaceful. Quantitative research shows that e g about 2/3 of that part “deals with condemning unbelievers to hell for merely disagreeing with Muhammed” (1).
What is then a “moderate” Muslim? It is necessary to understand
the difference between what a Muslim means with moderation and what
an European or American thinks the term stands for. It is reasonable
to argue that a moderate Muslim is one who wants to closely follow
the quran and the examples and principles of the perfect model of a
man for all future and for all the world, i.e. Muhammed. And any
true Muslim naturally wants e g to implement sharia laws which are
just consequences of the quran and the sunnah. Such a person cannot
in any sense be described as an extreme Muslim.
So-called moderate Muslims in the West cannot pick and choose the parts of the doctrine that they like. That is forbidden by the religion and doing so would mean that they are not real Muslims in the traditional sense. There is also a prohibition against personal interpretations of Islam. There are established interpretations and principles regarding interpretation which were accepted many centuries ago and are respected throughout the Muslim world. It is not permitted to arrive at new conclusions which contradict the old ones and violate the rules of interpretation. “Ijtihad” – interpretations not based on case law or past precedent – have been forbidden since the 11th century and a moderate Muslim must respect that. Innovation regarding religious principles is a very serious crime in the Muslim world.
Sharia law is the practical application of the quran and the sunna, and a moderate Muslim must accept these laws. Even if an European Muslim initially doesn’t do that owing to a lack of knowledge of the quran and the sunnah (evidently very common owing to a low educational level; that the clerics try to conceal parts of the doctrine which may cause opposition also among Muslims during a period when Muslims are still a minority in Europe a s o) he or she will later accept also these theses. When shown that he has misunderstood and is wrong about the doctrine according to the real, traditional Islam, a Muslim will after a while accept that he has been misguided earlier and will then follow the lead of the faithful interpreters of true Islam.
Many Muslims in the West now temporarily accept to follow the laws of the land because they as a group constitute a smaller minority here. But when they grew stronger in a country, their doctrine will force them to work for implementing Muslim values and primarily, the sharia laws. It is evident that Muslims now lacking in knowledge about Islam or believing in local liberal interpretations with no special basis in the accepted doctrine, will be pushovers when influenced by representatives of real, traditional Islam. The liberal Muslims are just influenced by national/cultural reinterpretations of the doctrine which were made a long time ago in order to create a society more harmonious and easier to live in. But these interpretations are deviations and have no real theoretical basis. They can only survive as long as nobody challenges them energetically. Most moderate Muslims will certainly abandon them when shown his/her errors regarding understanding Islam. They will then do what is demanded of them as Muslims, and even if some will not like it, they will obey. The quran itself (sura 2:216) states that even if you don’t like certain things, they are/may be good for you. In that situation probably only a small minority will withdraw from Islam in opposition. Open apostasy will be looked upon as an option by a still smaller minority.
A moderate Muslim is not a reform-minded Muslim, who is willing to eliminate some, many or all those principles of Islam that violate e g human rights. The moderate Muslims already want – or will want after some religious re-education – pretty much the same things as the Islamists. The main goal is then partial or full implementation of sharia laws in Europe. Even if they now (for lack of knowledge) object to certain parts of the sharia, they still prefer important parts of it to man-made Western laws. And why shouldn’t they accept the sharia? Then they can keep their superiority over women, which is so important for the comfortable life of many Muslim males whose lifestyles just depend on the exploitation of women. And it means that they can become rich without any effort: the Western population can in the future be transformed into half-slaves (dhimmis) and their property (slowly) taken over by those in power – Muslims.
The content of the sharia is mainly political; just a small part regards religion as such (as a religion is defined in the West). The contents violate human rights and accepted political principles in the West: secularism, democracy etc (see 8.1.2 below). However, as discussed in Part 6, a moderate may not find it a religious duty to implement the doctrine by force n o w in Europe or the US as long as a correctly chosen Muslim leader for the Ummah doesn’t exist (and who hasn’t proclaimed jihad in Europe). In that respect he is different from an Islamist who works for an Islamist society by force now. But the medium- or long-term goals of the moderate Muslim and the Islamist are pretty much the same.
What a European means with the term “moderate Muslim” is very different from the Muslim concept of moderation. The European basically means a “Reform(ed)” Muslim. These brave persons still look at themselves as Muslims but they break a myriad of the principles of the real, traditional Islam accepted by the overwhelming majority of Muslims. In reality, the Reform Muslims create a new religion which has few similarities to traditional Islam. Why it then should be called Islam can be discussed but they proclaim themselves to be Muslims. Depending on their arguments, that claim can be logically rejected or accepted. They may be called “New” or “Reform” Muslims but they are surely not moderate Muslims according to the established faith. That term doesn’t stand for a Muslim with Western values regarding secularism, freedom, human rights, and democracy with rules protecting minorities. And the New or Reform Muslims are still very few.
So basically: what an American or European liberal or socialist means with the term “moderate Muslim” is in reality a Muslim who disregards many of the most important principles of his faith. These Westerners delude themselves regarding the contents of Islam because they are scared of the consequences of the fact that they cannot square the circle. An objective analysis can never reach the conclusion that Islam is peaceful, tolerant and consistent with human rights.
8.1.2. Political Islam
“Religious Islam” is that part of the Islamic doctrine which concerns rules which in the West commonly are described as belonging to a religion e g personal worship, rules regulating fasting, prayer, pilgrimage to Mecca etc. Only these parts of the doctrine should therefore be protected in Europe as religious ones (see Part 4: Background; Part 8: 12.3 p.1). The religious part of Islam is just a small(er) part of the doctrine. And even concerning the five pillars of Islam we can find a strong political content. E g giving to the needy is only correct and valuable if the alms are given to muslim poor. There is no virtue giving alms to needy Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics etc. That is a consequence of the low, or non-existant, human value attached to other people than Muslims. The lack of a universal ethics treating all people in the same way and the enmity against all nonMuslims and their values permeate the Islamic doctrine at all levels.
So Islam does not contain a common ethics covering all human beings. Therefore it is a morally deficient creed. We have the Muslims who are superior human beings and then there are categories of humans of lesser worth. Different groups of these inferior people also have different values compared with each other, but these are all at a low level. People, allowed to be dhimmis (half-slaves who submit to Muslim rule) like Christians and Jews, have higher value than the others. Agnostics, atheists, and other freethinkers will not be allowed to live in a Muslim society. There is evidently no agreement in the Islamic doctrine regarding how to treat Hindus, Buddhists etc in the future: Will they be allowed to live as dhimmis, or shall they also be exterminated?
The rules of the Sharia are based on the Quran, the most respected siras and Ahadith, and they regard to a great extent issues which in the West are decided by constitutional, criminal and civil law: family law, inheritance law etc. The Sharia laws fundamentally violate accepted political principles in the West including the principle of secularism and democracy etc., and they also violate UDHR. These Islamic laws concerning the individual in the society then define “Political Islam.”
“Political Islam” is the ideology which Europe and the West shall fight. The Muslims who are most dangerous for the West are not the relatively few terrorists who may kill thousands, or ten thousand, or even a few hundred thousand of Western citizens. Such persons can be handled in and by today’s society. All the damage that terrorists can cause can be taken care of by a few years of economic and population growth.
The moderate Muslims are instead the main enemy. Moderate Muslims follow most of the principles of Political Islam and they are therefore our most dangerous ideological and civilizational enemies. Because of their numbers, their use now of peaceful means – which will change in the future - to increase their influence, they are more dangerous long-term than the Islamists. They may be able to take our political and human rights from us and enslave us circumventing our own political system and then using the population growth of Muslims and their lack of integration. When they have grown still stronger, force will be used against the Europeans. So Muslims who are moderates in the Muslim sense are a much more devious and stronger enemy than the terrorists.
8.1.3. A few consequences
It is therefore important to ascertain if the Muslims, trying to emigrate to Europe, are moderate Muslims in the Muslim sense or are moderates in the Western sense. However, in the latter case they are potentially Reform or New Muslims willing to leave their indoctrinated values and to assimilate Western ones. The question is how widespread such attitudes are?
The basis for the religious networks keeping the traditional Islamic values alive among Muslims in the West is the mosques and the Islamic clerics. Besides their function as places for personal or communal worship, mosques are also social and ideological/political centers. They strengthen the Islamic culture and Political Islam which is the main part of the Islamic doctrine. The Islamic clergy generally constitute an important part of the ideological enemy of Europe and are much more influential than the any number of “terrorists”. Without the passive acceptance or even indirect support from individual clerics and moderate Muslims, the terrorists would not be a very serious threat. The so-called moderate Muslim community guided by the clergy is the sea where the terrorists swim and are able to hide and gain strength. Many Islamic clerics are spears aiming at the heart of Europe. Terrorists are a serious – but smaller – threat. This shall have consequences for the immigration policy.
8.2 Goals for the immigration policy of a European country
The following general goals shall guide the character and volume of immigrants accepted in the country. These rules are necessary to protect the future human rights of Europeans. When certain standards are formulated regarding the attitudes of immigrants, these shall be controlled by using modern psychological methods.
Immigration to Europe shall under no circumstances cause a current or future threat to peace and security anywhere in the area of EU. No indications shall be allowed indicating that an individual immigrant may in the future take part in – or directly or indirectly support – violent activities like jihad in a European or any other country.
The immigration policies of EU countries shall be used to counteract a demographic strategy of any political or religious group which can be a future threat against human rights. One sign of the existence of such a strategy is that the representatives of e g a certain religion look at and talk about new births and/or immigration of people belonging to that religion as a means to gain political power in a country and change its political principles and laws.
Immigration of any specific type or group of people – defined by race, geographic origin, religion or political ideology – that leads to demands for limiting ancient and/or now existing human rights in the country (and specially the freedoms of religion, conscience, expression, association and assembly) shall be stopped.
Every immigrant shall agree with the principle of secularism and that all laws shall be based on the constitution of the country and the human rights defined there, on democratic elections and the decisions made by elected representatives. Every immigrant shall declare that democracy is a superior form of government compared to any form of religious or secular authoritarianism or dictatorship. They shall also agree that no proposed laws based on a religion and which contradict the constitution of the country or UDHR shall be allowed. Religion is a personal matter and shall not be the basis for formulating public policy. Human rights according to the constitution or UDHR are more important than principles based on a religion.
Every immigrant including all members of a potential immigrant’s family who are at least 15 years of age, shall have such a positive view of UDHR that he/she can be assumed to realize and fulfil all important principles found in UDHR in his/her private life and activities in the future.
The immigration to Europe shall long-term strengthen the European economy because every immigrant (except his/her wife/husband and children) shall have (1) higher educational skills than the average of the population in the specific country; or (2) have a special skill of considerable interest to the country; or (3) have an exceptional ability. People with skills in short supply short- or medium term in the country may temporarily live in the country and get work permits which shall expire and not be renewed within a certain length of time.
Immigrants have the responsibility to integrate into the society regarding all important and relevant aspects. Their assimilation of important values in the society constitutes the most vital aspect of the integration. Immigrants shall accept the important values of the country and not have the opinion that their own values ought to dominate the country in the future. Immigration of no individual is allowed who can reasonably be expected to strengthen a parallel society in the country.
8.3 Tourist visas
Current rules and restrictions concerning issuing tourist visas or any other types of visas to persons with certain characteristics, or rules regarding citizenship, shall be changed or complemented according to the principles stated in the sections below.
An applicant for a tourist visa who has any type of connection to violent Islamism and jihad activities anywhere in the world shall not be allowed to visit the country. No person is allowed to enter the country as a tourist who can reasonably be suspected to be, or to become, a security threat against that country or any country in Europe.
A person who has earlier anywhere in the world committed - or can reasonably be suspected for – a serious crime against a specific human right because of political or religious reasons, cannot get a tourist or any type of visa.
An individual who can reasonably be suspected to teach, preach or in any way strengthen values and/or activities contrary to the constitution of the country or to UDHR, during his/her visit to the country, shall not get a tourist visa. Belonging to an organization which has such values and goals is one indication that an individual shall not receive a tourist visa.
8.4 Temporary residence permits
Temporary residence permits are allowed for studies and a number of specially defined activities. In some cases persons with temporary residence permits are allowed to work for a salary in the country.
The general rules prohibiting tourist visas to certain persons are also valid for temporary residence permits.
No persons shall get a temporary residence permit if they cannot economically sustain their life in the country.
A person who marries a first or second cousin from a country outside EU, have no right to live with her/him as a married couple in the country. Such a spouse from abroad is not allowed to receive either a temporary or a permanent residence permit or become a citizen. The reasons for this are explained in Part 8 (12.3 p.10). Besides protecting women against forced marriages, this prohibition weakens the extended families found among the categories of people who regularly marry cousins. It also strengthens the importance of belonging to a country i e the citizenship.
An individual who can reasonably be suspected of financially contributing to, or in any way strengthening, a political or religious party or organization anywhere in the world which have goals that violate the UDHR, shall not receive a temporary residence permit.
The following categories of persons shall not receive a temporary resident permit:
(1) Any Muslim cleric with traditional Islamic education and training from a country that have signed the Cairo Declaration on Human rights in Islam;
(2) Professional scholars, teachers and students of shari'a and Islamic jurisprudence from a country that have signed the Cairo Declaration on Human rights in Islam;
(3) Jurists who apply and practice sharia law (except defense attorneys);
(4) Politicians, representatives and employees of Islamic religious parties or organizations which don't accept UDHR: the Muslim Brotherhood is an example of such an organization; (5) Managers and representatives for religious or faith organizations, financial organizations etc with charters, policies and/or records of earlier actions that violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), and/or the rights of a citizen or an individual defined in the constitution of the country.
The reasons for this were explained in Part 8: 12.3 p.10B. A temporary residence permit can be given if a person belonging to any category stated above, is able to convincingly show that his/her opinions regarding human rights don´t in any way contradict the UDHR.
In the forthcoming Policy Area 11 of the integrated policy model (also see Policy Area 1) is stated: “A crime against people because of their faith and/or caused by the religious rules and religious traditions of the perpetrators, is a religious hate crime (RHC). To advocate and apply religious rules (or rules inspired or supported by a religion) which break human rights, is a similar hate crime….Every religious hate crime which is punished with a prison term, causes an examination of a resident's or immigrant's visa or citizenship in order to decide if it shall be revoked and the person deported. Three convictions for religious hate crimes of any types lead to a similar examination”. An applicant has in these cases the burden and responsibility to convince the relevant authority that he/she will not commit any similar crime in the future.
Any systematic attempt to prevent – for religious reasons – assimilation/integration of individuals into the society are defined as a “Crime against Integration” (CAI) (see Policy Area 6 Sect 2 General rules and Policy Area 11 (forthcoming)). Applying gender apartheid rules and violating the equality between sexes are examples of CAIs. All more serious CAIs causing a prison term, or a number of smaller CAIs, lead to an examination of a resident’s visa or citizenship in order to decide if it shall be revoked and the person deported. An applicant has in these cases the burden and responsibility to convince the relevant authority that he/she will not commit any similar crime in the future. A person sentenced to a prison term for any physical crime against a person will have his temporary residence permit revoked.
Other aspects of the goals defined in 8.2 than those treated in this section, shall also be fulfilled by the applicant.
Having worked in the country on the basis of a temporary residence permit shall in itself be of no advantage in applying for a permanent residence permit.
8.5 Permanent residence permits
A person who cannot receive a tourist visa or a temporary residence permit cannot get a permanent residence permit. Exceptions can in some cases be made in case of marriages.
No person shall be allowed to become a permanent resident without a psychological test of his /her values. All applicants for permanent residency in a European country over 18 years of age shall take an oath regarding the principles described below. The oath means that the applicant agrees with these principles and will faithfully and conscientiously uphold them.
An individual shall agree with the following principles in order to receive a permanent residence permit:
The applicant shall agree with the principles that all people have the same human value regardless of religion and shall have the same rights. The applicant shall explicitly agree with the principle of religious freedom and that it also means freedom to leave a religion and freedom from religion.
Every applicant shall agree with the principle of secularism meaning that all laws (and corresponding administrative rules) shall be based on the constitution of the country and the human rights defined there, on democratic elections and the decisions made by elected representatives. Every applicant shall declare that democracy is a superior form of government compared with any form of religious or secular authoritarianism or dictatorship. He/she shall also agree that laws based on a religion and which contradict the constitution of the country or UDHR shall not be allowed. Religion is a personal matter and shall not be the basis for formulating public policy.
The applicant shall agree with the principle that women have exactly the same value as men, and shall have exactly the same rights as men to educate themselves, work, determine their own activities, dress, and meet friends and other persons, as men have. Men don´t have any rights over women which women don’t have over men. Every woman also has complete freedom to determine the person whom she wants to marry. And a woman has the right to marry a person of any religion, or without religion.
The applicant shall agree with the principle that jihad (in the meaning religious war, force based on religious rules aso) shall under no circumstances be used or occur in the country or in Europe. Every Muslim applicant shall declare that he/she will never in any way take part in or support jihad however or by whom it is proclaimed. No immigrant can regarding any matter be suspected to be, or to become, a security threat against the country or Europe. If uncertainty regarding this issue exists, the immigrant has the burden of proof to convince the relevant authority regarding this matter. Every applicant declares that he/she accepts the obligation to support the legal government of the country where he/she is a permanent resident, against any security threats.
The applicant shall agree with the principle that slavery is nowadays and in the future in all situations and under all circumstances an evil institution. Slavery can never be a permitted institution in a European country even if jihad in Europe is proclaimed by a legally constituted caliph. The same is true for dhimmitude.
The applicant shall agree with the principle that every permanent resident has an obligation to report any activities to the authorities that can, directly or indirectly, assist or be part of jihad activities, or regard the breaking of any part of an earlier oath regarding permanent residency or citizenship in the country by any person. Not fulfilling this obligation leads to expulsion from the country besides the direct punishment for the crime.
An applicant shall agree that as a permanent resident no religious principles or rules contradicting UDHR can or will be used or accepted by him in his/her private life against his/her family members or relatives. An applicant shall agree to bring up his/her children according to the values specified above and teach his/her children to accept the important norms of the country where he is a resident.
The applicant shall agree that the general human rights according to UDHR are more important than any religious principles or laws (if UDHR and these rules contradict each other).
Other aspects of the goals defined in 8.2 than those treated in this section, shall also be fulfilled by the applicant.
An applicant shall show certain abilities defined specially (regarding language, an ability to economically support himself and his family etc).
An applicant shall agree to work hard to integrate him/herself into the society. Integration demands good knowledge of the language of the country; having and keeping a steady job; to treat other people without regard for their religion; not using religious affiliation to determine which people to meet, have as friends etc.
Violations of the oath shall lead to a loss of the residence permit and deportation. Indications that the person lied about his attitude and values are especially serious and are an immediate ground for deportation.
What was stated above in 8.4 regarding Religious Hate Crimes (RHCs) and Crimes against Integration (CAIs) is also valid for permanent residence permits. A person sentenced to a prison term for any physical crime against a person may have his permanent residence permit revoked.
8.6. Rules regarding citizenship
A permanent resident is allowed to apply for citizenship after ten years of such residency in the country.
There shall be no indications or reasons to suspect that a potential citizen will not – in all circumstances - loyally protect the constitution of the country, its values and the human rights accepted in the country, or – if such rights are not defined - those defined in UDHR. Any such indications or reasons eliminate the right to become a citizen.
Reasonable suspicions, or direct or indirect indications, that an applicant for citizenship may in the future be involved in any violent activities in the specific country, in Europe or anywhere in the world, caused by political or religious reasons contrary to the values found in the constitution, the UDHR etc eliminate his/her right to become a citizen.
The principles of secularism, democracy, the value of human rights e g the rights of women, the equal value of all people regardless of religion, nationality etc shall again clearly and willingly be accepted by the applicant and his family. If any doubts regarding his/her sincerity in this respect exist, modern psychological methods shall be used to ascertain the truth.
A citizen shall have shown an evident will to integrate into the country. Such a will is shown by a combination of factors: an ability to talk the language; knowledge of its past; evident acceptance of the values and habits of the country; cooperation in various ways with citizens from various groups and with different religions etc. A new citizen has the burden of proof regarding the level of integration he/she has reached. A lack of integration is an immediate reason not to allow citizenship for a person.
A person who has gotten a prison-term for a Religious Hate Crime (RHC) or a Crime against Integration (CAI) cannot apply for citizenship unless there are special reasons. If an immigrant has become a citizen and is sentenced to prison for a RHC or CAI, his citizenship may be revoked. A person who has been sentenced to a prison term for any physical crime against a person cannot apply for citizenship unless the person can show special reasons for that.
An applicant for citizenship shall economically have supported him/herself and (if relevant) his family and shall likewise be able to economically support him/herself and the family in the future (unless there are special reasons to accept a lack of such ability) in order to become a citizen.
Other aspects of the goals defined in 8.2 than those treated in this section, shall also be fulfilled by the applicant.
Every new citizen shall swear an oath to uphold and protect the constitution of the country and the rights defined there. If human rights are not defined there, UDHR will be used instead. Important rights are not only political freedoms but also general human rights e g the right of equality of women; that all people have the same human value etc.
This oath also confirms that all obligations accepted by the oath regarding permanent residency are also part of the citizenship. The applicant for citizenship shall also acknowledge that the oath for citizenship is more important and binding than any other obligation – based on ideology, religion, nationality or family - that he or she may feel bound by as an individual.
Violations by a citizen of this oath, or an evident inability to live up to its contents, is a reason to terminate the citizenship and permanent residence in the country for the individual. That may also be true for other citizens whose citizenships have been received only on the basis of the legal status of the person first mentioned.
A person is not allowed to leave his/her earlier citizenship for
five years after receiving the citizenship. Doing so leads to
termination of the citizenship and deportation.
(1) Center for the Study of Political Islam, 2006, “The Political Traditions of Mohammed,” p164.
>>> Continued to Part 11
|If you like this essay:||Stumble it||digg it|
Moderation, heh !
Friday February 01, 2008
Both christianity and islam are dogmatic and proselytising, therefore are evil. God has pitted two evils against each other. It is a matter of time when they will destroy each other leaving the survivors to live in peace.
Name: experience in destroyed civilisations
Date: Friday February 01, 2008
Time: 23:57:49 -0700
I observed my country destroted slowly by islam ideology which is far more devastating than any temporarily terror acts. muslims are the biggest liers when they agree they will accept western values that doesn,t mean they will do!!!!!. I think one important point is your own immunity against such cult. I need to know an answer from you secular societies; why you allow prayers rooms inside each department in your universities, why you offer the option of halal food in your children secular schools which lead to confused concepts in children minds. my son study in a primary school in uk came to ask me why we should not draw humans (inspired by his not few muslim children who prohibit art in general) they live in your country for years but they never realise how you think,
Name: U.K. TODAY.
Date: Saturday February 02, 2008
Time: 18:40:55 -0700
"A modern democracy is a tyranny whose borders are undefined; One discovers how far one can go only by traveling in a straight line until one is stopped". - Ayatollah Khomeini. - Straight from the horses mouth from the despotic modern day founder of radical Islam.
Name: Muslims Against Sharia
Date: Monday February 04, 2008
Time: 08:42:09 -0700
"Why don’t moderate Muslims forcefully oppose the Islamists?" We do, but nobody listens. Instead, we get ignored because dumb Westerners choose to have a dialog with extremists. there are many examples, but this (http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2008/01/what-is-wrong-with-todays-jews.html is the most outrageous.
Date: Sunday February 10, 2008
Time: 00:39:03 -0700
Wonderful, you are doing the job that Tony Blair should have done - and he was supposed to be a lawyer. As for the first comment, only a total moron could manage to pack so many errors into 2 lines. The difference is not about "proselytising" but about "conversion by the sword", and do you know which religion does that? As for pitting 2 evils against each other, do you know about the struggles of India's Hindus with Islam? Thailands Buddhists? Do you have any idea where the entire population of Iran's Zoroastrians have gone? (I wonder why I bother with idiots like this).
Date: Thursday March 06, 2008
Time: 15:03:05 -0700
AA747, you bother because it allows you to feel like you are superior. Back to those scary Muslims, though- I can't help but wonder if there are just too many assumptions going on. Much of it seems steeped in reason that is difficult to argue with if you happen to be a citizen of a liberal and democratic society, and want to preserve those aspects. Some of the predictive elements, on the other hand don't really allow for the creative thoughts and feelings of individual Muslim people who are successfully living without being in danger of 'getting sucked back in and turning to violent oppression of their one-time benefactors' Especially second generation people. I think a lot of negative conjecture could be said about almost any given group that a person believes to be inherently 'wrong' in their personal world view. Myself, I'm all for not allowing oppressive or repressive extremists of any religion or ideology into Canada, my home- but I wouldn't want to embrace a perspective that effectively precludes, in our view, peoples' ability to espouse the very things we are aiming to protect, that is, freedom of thought, belief, ideals, and actions, so long as it does not abrogate the intrinsic human rights of others.