France- 1/3 of Muslims Reject French Law in Favor of Sharia Law (2 Viewers)

[truthatallcost]

And their percentage of the population?

11%

France had half a million Muslims in 1990, and 7.7 million in 2011, or a change of +1,500%

If the Muslim population of France increases every 21 years by 1,500%, what do you think is going to happen to France?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

11%

France had half a million Muslims in 1990, and 7.7 million in 2011, or a change of +1,500%

If the Muslim population of France increases every 21 years by 1,500%, what do you think is going to happen to France?

1) How likely is that 11% becoming a voting majority to change the French constitution?

2) You're speculating in the same thread you posted a link to Pew research data that exposed your last claim as highly unlikely.

 

[truthatallcost]

1) How likely is that 11% becoming a voting majority to change the French constitution?

2) You're speculating in the same thread you posted a link to Pew research data that exposed your last claim as highly unlikely.

1. Why would people who believe in Sharia Law give a damn about the French constitution? That's like asking why Muhammad Bouhlel didn't obey traffic laws.
2. Which claim?

 

[Moot]

1/3 of Muslims in France admit to believing that Sharia Law should trump secular law. Is this troubling? What might it suggest about France's future, given the fact that 84% of French Muslims are under 50 years of age?

I believe this proves that full assimilation of Muslims into French culture is not possible.

Thoughts?
Comments?
Almost' '30' 'percent' 'of' 'French' 'Muslims' 'reject' 'secular' 'laws,' 'new' 'poll' 'finds' '-' 'France' '24

The good news is that 2/3 of Muslims don't think Sharia law trumps secular law. I think that shows that more Muslims are assimilating than not.

 

[truthatallcost]

The good news is that 2/3 of Muslims don't think Sharia law trumps secular law. I think that shows that more Muslims are assimilating than not.

2,500,000 Muslims in a country of 66 million is a significant number that you can't ignore. Well maybe you can, but most politically astute individuals wouldn't take that fact lightly.

 

[Moot]

2,500,000 Muslims in a country of 66 million is a significant number that you can't ignore. Well maybe you can, but most politically astute individuals wouldn't take that fact lightly.

Yeah...but 2/3 of Muslims don't want Sharia law. But if you alienate them then they might change their minds.

 

[truthatallcost]

Yeah...but 2/3 of Muslims don't want Sharia law. But if you alienate them then they might change their minds.

My ancestors were alienated. They migrated from Ireland to the US, when American newspapers featured cartoon drawings of Irish people as drunken monkeys and apes.
Yet my ancestors didn't commit terrorism or try to foist their religion on their new country.

Muslims in Europe have murdered journalists for drawing cartoon depictions of Muhammad. If they're this thin skinned, how do we not alienate them?

 

[Moot]

My ancestors were alienated. They migrated from Ireland to the US, when American newspapers featured cartoon drawings of Irish people as drunken monkeys and apes.
Yet my ancestors didn't commit terrorism or try to foist their religion on their new country.

Muslims in Europe have murdered journalists for drawing cartoon depictions of Muhammad. If they're this thin skinned, how do we not alienate them?

I'm not sure how to answer that. You say your ancestors were alienated because Irish immigrants were stereo typed with a reputation as corrupt, lazy, violent drunks. And then you blame all Muslims because a few zealot Muslims committed acts of terror? Seems to me you're doing to Muslims what was done to your ancestors....stereotyping and blaming the whole group for the acts of a few...and that's how you alienate all of them.

 

[truthatallcost]

I'm not sure how to answer that. You say your ancestors were alienated because Irish immigrants were stereo typed with a reputation as corrupt, lazy, violent drunks. And then you blame all Muslims because a few zealot Muslims committed acts of terror? Seems to me you're doing to Muslims what was done to your ancestors....stereotyping and blaming the whole group for the acts of a few...and that's how you alienate all of them.

You would have an excellent point there if Islamic terrorism wasn't a thing Moot. That's kind of a game changer. When 3,000 Americans were killed in one day, there was nothing in American history, besides Pearl Harbor that compared to it. Irish, German, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, etc, etc, never committed religious attacks on Americans the way that Muslims do.

You're comparing drunken behavior with terrorism = absurdity beyond belief.

 

[Moot]

You would have an excellent point there if Islamic terrorism wasn't a thing Moot. That's kind of a game changer. When 3,000 Americans were killed in one day, there was nothing in American history, besides Pearl Harbor that compared to it. Irish, German, Italian, Jewish, Chinese, etc, etc, never committed religious attacks on Americans the way that Muslims do.

You're comparing drunken behavior with terrorism = absurdity beyond belief.

False equivalency: the 9/11 hijackers weren't immigrants.


I'm comparing the terrorism of Irish American immigrants with the terrorism of American Muslim immigrants. That's fair, isn't it?

"...American Muslims deserve to encounter the same restraint American supporters of Irish nationalism were granted, not be branded supporters of terrorists."

When I Supported The Terrorists

https://www.jstor.org/stable/25144453?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

Anne Applebaum - The Discreet Charm of the Terrorist Cause

We must distinguish the Irish from Irish terrorism | The Chronicle​

 

[Auvergnat]

1) How likely is that 11% becoming a voting majority to change the French constitution?

They are very unlikely to ever manage to impose the whole of the Sharia (at least in this century), but possibly elements of it. You make two naive assumptions:

a) They do not need to change the laws. The French law warrants every French citizen religious freedom, yet in cities dominated by Muslims brown people do not have the choice regarding the ramadan or, more and more often, the veil. They are forced by their neighbors: social pressures, intimidation, assaults against themselves or their relatives. And a business who would sell pork would be burned (assuming a white business could still exist there, which is not the case). Etc.

b) They do not need the majority to change the laws, they simply need to care more about it than their opponents. Then parties can promote this change to conquer their votes while giving a compensation to other votes.

c) They can spread their ideas to others. This is why 40% of voters now think blasphemy should be prohibited, mostly among non-religious electors. Young people have been convinced by their Muslim peers (one third of high-schoolers in Paris' region) that blasphemy is an intolerable offense that must be banned.


This is already happening today: Muslims already gained illegal funding for Mosques and Islamic schools in many cities, some public schools now illegally distribute halal food, some public spaces are illegally occupied every Friday without any police intervention, the govt is increasing the number of Arab courses (starting as soon as the primary school), the govt is pressuring slaughterhouses so that they give a share of their sales to fund Mosques (will increase the construction rate of Mosques, event though halal food is mostly consumed by non-Muslims), the govt has increased Muslim immigration, and the govt is working on streamlining the Islamic clothes in enterprises. It is very well possible that in a mere few years Muslims will get a ban on blasphemy.

Imagine what we will continue to concede if we do not react now.

 

[Auvergnat]

The good news is that 2/3 of Muslims don't think Sharia law trumps secular law. I think that shows that more Muslims are assimilating than not.

Given the absence of control factors, the real results are likely to be far greater (people hide their conflicting opinions).

But this was a bad question anyway. Radicalism is widespread, and there would have been better questions to measure it. But this poll was designed for electoral reasons anyway.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ a) They do not need to change the laws. The French law warrants every French citizen religious freedom, yet in cities dominated by Muslims brown people do not have the choice regarding the ramadan or, more and more often, the veil. They are forced by their neighbors: social pressures, intimidation, assaults against themselves or their relatives. And a business who would sell pork would be burned (assuming a white business could still exist there, which is not the case). Etc.

Are not all such laws subservient to French Law? We had some idiots a while ago saying UK law would allow stonings and public beheadings as part of sharia law but UK law only allowed such religious law to sit under UK law such as the Arbitration act.
Trouble is such laws do need monitoring and there have been abuses whereby women are unfairly treated by Sharia in the UK where it sits under UK law. There, I think we should be much more investigative and put down such foolishness.

UK law should have primacy in the UK.

~b) They do not need the majority to change the laws, they simply need to care more about it than their opponents. Then parties can promote this change to conquer their votes while giving a compensation to other votes.

Addressed above, there should be monitoring if not stamping out such practice.

~c) They can spread their ideas to others. This is why 40% of voters now think blasphemy should be prohibited, mostly among non-religious electors. Young people have been convinced by their Muslim peers (one third of high-schoolers in Paris' region) that blasphemy is an intolerable offense that must be banned.

There, we get into ideology. We have to battle ideology just as we had to fight other pernicious ideology.

~This is already happening today: Muslims already gained illegal funding for Mosques and Islamic schools in many cities

There, European govts have to stamp out such practice especially where it comes from Saudi money.

~It is very well possible that in a mere few years Muslims will get a ban on blasphemy.

Won't happen.

Imagine what we will continue to concede if we do not react now.[/QUOTE]

 

[Auvergnat]

Are not all such laws subservient to French Law?

You cannot use justice to fight the societal norm, it can only be used against exceptional violations of the law. You talked about a few high-profile people speaking in public, the law can of curse be used against them, but not against half of your suburbs.

The the norm in Muslim cities is that brown people have a duty to be Muslims, period. It does not come from a few individuals, it is diffuse, it is the societal norm. And this is why brown people face a multitude of pressures, intimidation, discrimination and assaults against themselves and their relatives. The violations are too many and too ordinary to be fought with justice, and members of the sect have been indoctrinated to not talk against the sect.

For now this almost only concerns brown guys (and Jews and gays - but they already left - and critics of Islam, and women wearing "too sexy" clothes). With time it will concern everyone.

UK law should have primacy in the UK.

It does not in your suburbs. There, brown people have a duty to be Muslims, and many offenses are unlawfully punished by violence, such as homosexuality, Judaism, etc.

There, we get into ideology. We have to battle ideology just as we had to fight other pernicious ideology.

This is what politics are about!

Every single one of our laws is an usage of force (police) in service of our ideology. Prohibition of murder? Ideology.

You want leftist values to prevail over rightist values. I want French values to prevail over Islamic values. Mind you, I have the right to want a French France, this is democracy, swallow it.

Won't happen.

After Charlie they convinced 40% of voters that blasphemy should be banned, so they already enjoy some support among the voters.

And nearly four out of five of them want to ban blasphemy, so this is a major electoral question for them, one that can make the difference between a national victory or defeat. Of course it will happen

And you know what? They do not even need to change the law. They just need a few judges to start considering that blasphemy is hate crime. This legal trick could not work in UK, but this would in France, Germany and most of Europe.

 

[shrubnose]

Anyone who commits a crime in France will be tried under French law.

 

[shrubnose]

The Muslim population in France is closer to 10,000,000,

or roughly 1/6 of the population. If human reproduction trends continue on the path they're on, Muslims will make up a very significant portion of the population in France.


The Future of the Global Muslim Population | Pew Research Center

The best that you can do is cross your fingers.

According to the French government in 2010 there were between 5 and 6 million Muslims in France.

Learn more here: Islam in France - Wikipedia

The French brought this problem on themselves by establishing colonies in Muslim areas.

 

[Auvergnat]

Anyone who commits a crime in France will be tried under French law.

In French Muslim cities even murders too often remain unpunished. At least the police always investigate, but it is always a dangerous challenge.

But a rape? Usually unpunished. A simple assault, very rarely. Intimidation or discrimination, pfff.

So a multitude of daily intimidation, discrimination, social pressures, assaults, from the whole community at once? This is not a job for the police and this will never be. The radicalization of the Islamic societal norm is a political problem, not a judicial one.

The French brought this problem on themselves by establishing colonies in Muslim areas.

So what, are you using this to argue that now we should shut up and let Muslims conquer our countries?

I do not give a damn about what was over even before I was born, I will not pay for this. Screw your twisted sense of justice.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

~ You cannot use justice to fight the societal norm, it can only be used against exceptional violations of the law.

Yes you can and it is. You can also invest and improve schools. London has many ethnic minorities in poor schools which are now doing better than any other areas of the UK and with better grades against any other area in the UK.

~It does not in your suburbs

Is this going to be another case where you can't substantiate this and then pretend you meant something else?

~ You want leftist values to prevail over rightist values. I want French values to prevail over Islamic values. Mind you, I have the right to want a French France, this is democracy, swallow it ~

Why does following the law have to be right or left?

"British" Britain is a Britain where the law of the land is followed whether left or right. Swallow it.

 

[Auvergnat]

Yes you can and it is. You can also invest and improve schools. London has many ethnic minorities in poor schools which are now doing better than any other areas of the UK and with better grades against any other area in the UK.

Same in France, where Muslim cities have enjoyed double education spendings since decades. So what? Integration is different from assimilation.

Once integrated the majority of Muslims still advocate for an Islamic civilizational model. It's not an economic problem, it's a cultural one: you do not ditch your family's values and culture when you get your diploma. Muslims have a different culture, different values, different societal model, different desires.

Integration makes you less prone to jump into violence and it decreases cultural insecurity a bit. But it does not change your culture, it does not make you renounce your absolutism, it does not solve your identity crisis, it does not make you a member of the ethnic majority, it does not turn the ethnically fragmented and breaking society around you into a cohesive and healthy one.

Is this going to be another case where you can't substantiate this and then pretend you meant something else?

BBC: The ex-Muslim Brittons who are persecuted for being atheists
The Independent: leaving Islam was the hardest thing I have done
The Telegraph: Muslim apostates threatened over Christianity
The Guardian: as a Muslim woman I see the veil as a rejection of progressive values

Those articles will give you a taste of the ordinary pressures that brown people face from the Muslim community, whether about the Ramadan, the Islamic clothes, pork, alcohol, etc. After reading all of this, tell me if you still believe freedom of religion prevails in Muslim communities in the UK.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Same in France, where Muslim cities have enjoyed double education spendings since decades. So what? Integration is different from assimilation.

So are those areas in France doing well educationally? Going to university?

Once integrated the majority of Muslims still advocate for an Islamic civilizational model. It's not an economic problem, it's a cultural one: you do not ditch your family's values and culture when you get your diploma. Muslims have a different culture, different values, different societal model, different desires.

For one, they don't have as many kids once they get on the career ladder, same as their counterparts from a range of races in the UK.

~ BBC: The ex-Muslim Brittons who are persecuted for being atheists
The Independent: leaving Islam was the hardest thing I have done
The Telegraph: Muslim apostates threatened over Christianity
The Guardian: as a Muslim woman I see the veil as a rejection of progressive values

Those articles will give you a taste of the ordinary pressures that brown people face from the Muslim community, whether about the Ramadan, the Islamic clothes, pork, alcohol, etc. After reading all of this, tell me if you still believe freedom of religion prevails in Muslim communities in the UK.

Strange.

I made the point about primacy of law in the UK and you claimed it does not in the suburbs. (Particularly you claim, muslim suburbs)

In Scotland, integration has largely gone well as it has because the muslims there have been richer, better off. In other parts of the UK, muslims are less likely to be in higher education and more likely to be unemployed in many areas.

Simply, raise their prospects and change their views.

Many commentators and politicians approach integration as a cultural question, arguing that more should be done to persuade British Muslims to accept “British values”. Perhaps we’d be better off taking an economic perspective, accepting that a better aim is making them better off.
Worried about the rising number of Muslim children in our schools? Then you should hope they pass their exams, go to good universities and get well-paid jobs. Especially the girls. Really, turn more Muslims into fully paid-up members of the Waitrose-shopping, Audi-driving, Boden-wearing middle-classes and their values will take care of themselves. Link.

You say that France has spent lots in muslim areas. Well, if it has focused that spending and encouraged integration then there should be better results than you are prophesying.

 

[Auvergnat]

So are those areas in France doing well educationally? Going to university?

Of course. Now we have islamists who are judges, teachers, policemen, soldiers, who funded Islamist medias, Islamist schools, Mosques, etc.

Integration works in France. The problem is not integration, it is assimilation. People do not change their culture and morale values once they get an engineering degree!

Strange

Not at all. :lol:

If you had some experience of Muslim communities (rather than scattered Muslims blending in English environments) you would know this is fairly common. This reaction of yours simply show your ignorance of them and your positive prejudices. And since medias are mostly written by white leftists from bourgeois circles, with no first hand experience of Muslim communities and afraid of criticizing a community, you are misinformed.

In Scotland, integration has largely gone well as it has because the muslims there have been richer, better off.

I doubt that you have any better idea of what happens in Scottish suburbs, but I guess there are more Muslims per capita around London than in Scotland. You can assimilate an individual, not a people. Once there are too many of them in the same place, they assimilate your kids rather than the opposite.

In other parts of the UK, muslims are less likely to be in higher education and more likely to be unemployed in many areas.

Less likely than who? Population in general or people from the same social classes?

There is no reason that poor Muslim kids should perform better than white English kids, with whom they compete for the best jobs. The diffusion on the social ladder is always statistically low, for Muslims or others, in any country. And of course there is discrimination in employment, there will always be.

If your plan is that we just have to create a perfectly egalitarian world and change human nature, then it's a crappy plan. And a wrong one anyway: culture and morale are not affected by income.

Simply, raise their prospects and change their views.

Poor white kids do not turn into death cult fanatics. Why is that?

 

[Infinite Chaos]

Of course. Now we have islamists who are judges, teachers, policemen, soldiers, who funded Islamist medias, Islamist schools, Mosques, etc.

Integration works in France. The problem is not integration, it is assimilation. People do not change their culture and morale values once they get an engineering degree!

Then, like we had to once, your country has to deal with a population that feels disenfranchised and powerless to change its economic prospects.

~ If you had some experience of Muslim communities (rather than scattered Muslims blending in English environments) you would know this is fairly common. This reaction of yours simply show your ignorance of them and your positive prejudices. And since medias are mostly written by white leftists from bourgeois circles, with no first hand experience of Muslim communities and afraid of criticizing a community, you are misinformed.

I've lived in nations that were 90% muslim and the last one was approx. 50% muslim (Nigeria) so I think I have pretty good experience of muslims. What's yours? You ever visit or dine with muslims, speak with them about their dreams and aspirations for their kids?

I doubt that you have any better idea of what happens in Scottish suburbs

You're not doing very well with your guesses so far. :lamo

but I guess there are more Muslims per capita around London than in Scotland.

One correct guess so far.

You can assimilate an individual, not a people. Once there are too many of them in the same place, they assimilate your kids rather than the opposite.

They're doing really well in Scotland..

Less likely than who? Population in general or people from the same social classes?

The population in general, did you read my link?

There is no reason that poor Muslim kids should perform better than white English kids, with whom they compete for the best jobs. The diffusion on the social ladder is always statistically low, for Muslims or others, in any country.

Right now, all kids from poor families and areas in London are doing better at school and have better prospects of university than any other kids in general. The test will be whether those kids (muslims / Sikhs / west Indians etc etc) have better prospects of jobs after university than their predecessors.

And of course there is discrimination in employment, there will always be.

And with that, we come to one reason muslims find it hard to assimilate especially if the host culture is suspicious and uninterested in assimilating them whatever they do.

~ If your plan is that we just have to create a perfectly egalitarian world and change human nature, then it's a crappy plan. And a wrong one anyway: culture and morale are not affected by income.

You have proof to suggest otherwise? The whole article I linked you suggests otherwise so I have backed my argument up.

~ Poor white kids do not turn into death cult fanatics. Why is that?

Ah, you must not have the killer clown craze in France yet then. Right now up here near the Scottish borders in the Lake District, people are more at risk from idiots dressed as killer clowns and chasing kids with axes and worse than they are from jihadi muslims.

 

[truthatallcost]

According to the French government in 2010 there were between 5 and 6 million Muslims in France.

Learn more here: Islam in France - Wikipedia

The French brought this problem on themselves by establishing colonies in Muslim areas.

Some sources say 3 million, some say 5 million, some say 7.5 million. I get the feeling that the French government doesn't know how many there are. Similar to the USA not knowing how many illegal immigrants are in the country.

 

[truthatallcost]

False equivalency: the 9/11 hijackers weren't immigrants.

Care to show me where I called them immigrants?

I'm comparing the terrorism of Irish American immigrants with the terrorism of American Muslim immigrants. That's fair, isn't it?

It's fair to compare something that doesn't exist with something that does?

 

[Moot]

Care to show me where I called them immigrants?




It's fair to compare something that doesn't exist with something that does?

We were talking about Muslim immigrants as compared to your Irish ancestors...when you mentioned the 9/11 hijackers as if they represented American Muslim immigrants.

I think it's fair to compare Irish immigrant terrorism and Muslim immigrant terrorism...yes. I posted several links about it. But who could forget that Irish Americans funded the IRA and all horrible bombings that killed hundreds of people? Not me, I was in London and had shopped at Harrod's the day before it was bombed by the IRA. So don't tell me it didn't exist.