TIMES OF INDIA: Gaddafy: Europe should convert to Islam

[GayLibertarian]

However, I don't think conversion here would look the same as conversion elsewhere

LOL.

"Conversion" in Islam is with a sword, a brick or AK-47 to the back of the throat.

You have to give it to the Islamofacists. There is no need to attack America ... with liberal retards like this helping them do it.

 

[Andalublue]

Has anyone else noticed that GL never engages in debate? S/he just says stuff and never responds, never discusses, never rebutts and certainly never justifies her/his position. Interwebbily deaf, it would appear.

 

[VanceMack]

I would think that if Europe want and is converting to Islam, then that is their choice. They have the right to convert and they will have to detail with the consequences of those actions. So if they become more stringent countries, then yes some gay bars would close, or rights of gays and women may be removed. Again, this is their choice. they are free to do this. However, I don't think conversion here would look the same as conversion elsewhere. Europe is to progressive to just negate all the history they have.

Free...

You keep saying this word...I do not think it means what you think it means...

 

[Andalublue]

Free...

You keep saying this word...I do not think it means what you think it means...

What he means is that a 'democratic' choice could be made to limit or abolish minority rights and protection. The tyranny of the majority would rule. No, that's not going to happen in Europe, we saw that happen a few decades ago, perhaps Hallam (strange monicker, it's the name of a part of South Yorkshire in N. England) isn't familiar with what that meant or how resoundingly it was defeated, and the words "never again" still mean something to most Europeans.

 

[hallam]

However, I don't think conversion here would look the same as conversion elsewhere

LOL.

"Conversion" in Islam is with a sword, a brick or AK-47 to the back of the throat.

You have to give it to the Islamofacists. There is no need to attack America ... with liberal retards like this helping them do it.

Well when I used the word "here" I was referring to Europe. Context matters. Maybe you should have read the next line? Further, if you think all conversions to Islam is with the sword, brick, or gun, then you really should start with looking at the facts. Most converts to these religions in Europe are not forced in anyway. They are brought to the religion with words and promises. Promises which those people either are still waiting for or think were fulfilled. Maybe looking the reality of conversion is the next best step. People in Europe, now at least, are not really convinced by violence and you most definitely can not claim that all of these converts are Arabic or Middle-Eastern? No they are white people and African Europeans who are fed up with the current institutions and grab at religion. Islam is just good at positioning itself to be the first, and usually last, thing these people grab. And considering I was voicing a freedom of choice and responsibility argument (something liberals don't actually fight for anymore), liberal is the exact opposite of an appropriate term.

 

[hallam]

What he means is that a 'democratic' choice could be made to limit or abolish minority rights and protection. The tyranny of the majority would rule. No, that's not going to happen in Europe, we saw that happen a few decades ago, perhaps Hallam (strange monicker, it's the name of a part of South Yorkshire in N. England) isn't familiar with what that meant or how resoundingly it was defeated, and the words "never again" still mean something to most Europeans.

Did you not read my last sentence: However, I don't think conversion here [Europe] would look the same as conversion elsewhere. Europe is to progressive to just negate all the history they have. I think I am familiar enough. I think I was making that point that they could do this but they wont. If they convert to Islam, Islamic republics in Europe would look more like Europe now, still, than any Middle-Eastern country. They wouldn't close the gay bars; they wouldn't reject womens rights. They will not throw away the lessens learned in the recent past as you say.

And my name comes from a Tennyson poem.

 

[Andalublue]

Did you not read my last sentence: However, I don't think conversion here [Europe] would look the same as conversion elsewhere. Europe is to progressive to just negate all the history they have. I think I am familiar enough. I think I was making that point that they could do this but they wont. If they convert to Islam, Islamic republics in Europe would look more like Europe now, still, than any Middle-Eastern country. They wouldn't close the gay bars; they wouldn't reject womens rights. They will not throw away the lessens learned in the recent past as you say.

And my name comes from a Tennyson poem.

Okay. I know plenty of Moslems who, whilst not agreeing with the morality of many modern Europeans, are prepared to live and let live, indeed are more than happy to do so. That works for me. I understood your comment

So if they become more stringent countries, then yes some gay bars would close, or rights of gays and women may be removed. Again, this is their choice.

to mean that if, at some point, the majority opinion favoured repression, so be it. That I would not accept. The tyranny of the majority is no longer acceptable and modern European political culture has enshrined protections against the ability of the majority to endanger the rights of minorities.

If I read you wrong, I apologise.

 

[hallam]

Okay. I know plenty of Moslems who, whilst not agreeing with the morality of many modern Europeans, are prepared to live and let live, indeed are more than happy to do so. That works for me. I understood your comment
to mean that if, at some point, the majority opinion favoured repression, so be it. That I would not accept. The tyranny of the majority is no longer acceptable and modern European political culture has enshrined protections against the ability of the majority to endanger the rights of minorities.

If I read you wrong, I apologise.

It was a hypothetical. It could happen hypothetically.

 

[Andalublue]

It was a hypothetical. It could happen hypothetically.

Well, hypothetically the far-right could take power and put the gays and the Moslems both in concentration camps. Again, there are safeguards in our European political culutres to prevent that from happening, even if they won majorities in popular votes.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

This isnt a declaration of whether it is 'right' or 'wrong', but it is certainly a potential reality, just as it is a reality that eventually the hispanics will be the dominant culture in America.

Would you agree that the members of the current dominant cultures, both in the US and Europe, have a right to impose policies to protect themselves from this eventuality?

 

[Andalublue]

Would you agree that the members of the current dominant cultures, both in the US and Europe, have a right to impose policies to protect themselves from this eventuality?

That entirely depends on the kind of policies you're talking about? Requiring langauge proficiency in the official/majority/native language is one thing, imposing discriminatory migration policies is a different order of measures. In the case of European culture, one reinforces that culture, the other undermines it. I'm sure there are other, perhaps better examples.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I consider both to be perfectly acceptable-- and commendable-- measures.

 

[hafez]

That entirely depends on the kind of policies you're talking about? Requiring langauge proficiency in the official/majority/native language is one thing, imposing discriminatory migration policies is a different order of measures. In the case of European culture, one reinforces that culture, the other undermines it. I'm sure there are other, perhaps better examples.

Europe has a very real chance of losing its identity and it is being robbed of them via the heinous policies of multiculturalism. The lack of critical thinking among many Europeans is astounding. It is one thing to regard another culture and wish to learn about it, but to accept a culture and its proponents as equals who have shown no real intentions of ever conforming to their host country is a gross mistake. The peoples of Europe must be able to be critical of Islam and Arabic culture and its many backwards and clearly inferior social norms and laws. By accepting these cultures as equally important to theirs Europe is playing a dangerous game with a culture that has time and again not only tried to directly conquer Europe. In fact the most recent attempt was near the gates of Vienna on Sept 11th 1683. Islam does not view Europe's culture as equal but instead inferior and decadent.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Mohmar Gaddhafi: Europe should convert to Islam
Link: Europe should convert to Islam: Gaddafi - Europe - World - The Times of India

I think Europe is already on the way ... Islam represents the highest number of converts in Europe (Christianity Today, c. 2008) and devout Muslims outnumber devout Christians in the UK, two to 1 (Daily Telegraph, c. 2009).

QUESTION: Should Europe convert to Islam? Is it beneficial? What abouts Women's rights? The rights of gays, lesbians and the transgendered? Amsterdam has the highest number of gay bars (per capita) in Europe ... would they have to close?

------------

The UK now has Sharia Courts operating throughout England, Scotland and Wales (there are no Sharia Courts in Northern Ireland) and France, Italy and Switzerland are about to give the ok for Sharia-compliance in 2011-2012.

The problem is: what about women, gays and those of the Jewish faith?

I don't see this as cause for alarm.

As a Christian, I think more people should become Christian, for what I believe would be to their benefit.
Athiests generally have the same opinion.
Hindu and Buddhists, probably not so much.

 

[Andalublue]

Europe has a very real chance of losing its identity and it is being robbed of them via the heinous policies of multiculturalism. The lack of critical thinking among many Europeans is astounding. It is one thing to regard another culture and wish to learn about it, but to accept a culture and its proponents as equals who have shown no real intentions of ever conforming to their host country is a gross mistake. The peoples of Europe must be able to be critical of Islam and Arabic culture and its many backwards and clearly inferior social norms and laws. By accepting these cultures as equally important to theirs Europe is playing a dangerous game with a culture that has time and again not only tried to directly conquer Europe. In fact the most recent attempt was near the gates of Vienna on Sept 11th 1683. Islam does not view Europe's culture as equal but instead inferior and decadent.

It has clearly escaped your attention that many of the "backwards and clearly inferior social norms" that you talk about remain, or are becoming, illegal in many parts of Europe. Is anyone proposing the recriminalisation of homosexuality in Europe along Sharia lines? No. Is anyone seeking to decriminalise female circumcision or honour killings? Newp.

Unlike you, I believe whole-heartedly in a multi-cultural Europe based on respect for difference and the rule of secular law. One predicates the other.

Europe has always been multi-cultural and it has always been those who opposed the peaceful co-habitation of different cultures that have committed the atrocities, from the Romans, through to the Nazis , via the Inquisition. If the Islamists sought to impose a mono-culture on the continent, they would be dealt with in the same way by the majority who believe in freedom of thought. The rhetorical division on this forum, and elsewhere, is that there are those who believe that all Moslems seek to impose a Qu'ran-based culture on Europe, and those who believe that such an aim is the goal of a minority, and that the majority of European Moslems (both the religious and the non-practicing) want to live a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, pluralist Europe as much as the majority of non-Moslems do. I think your namesake, Hafez-e Shirazi probably felt similarly.

 

[hafez]

It has clearly escaped your attention that many of the "backwards and clearly inferior social norms" that you talk about remain, or are becoming, illegal in many parts of Europe. Is anyone proposing the recriminalisation of homosexuality in Europe along Sharia lines? No. Is anyone seeking to decriminalise female circumcision or honour killings? Newp.

Unlike you, I believe whole-heartedly in a multi-cultural Europe based on respect for difference and the rule of secular law. One predicates the other.

Europe has always been multi-cultural and it has always been those who opposed the peaceful co-habitation of different cultures that have committed the atrocities, from the Romans, through to the Nazis , via the Inquisition. If the Islamists sought to impose a mono-culture on the continent, they would be dealt with in the same way by the majority who believe in freedom of thought. The rhetorical division on this forum, and elsewhere, is that there are those who believe that all Moslems seek to impose a Qu'ran-based culture on Europe, and those who believe that such an aim is the goal of a minority, and that the majority of European Moslems (both the religious and the non-practicing) want to live a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, pluralist Europe as much as the majority of non-Moslems do.

Repect the cultures of another nation and peoples is wholly different then trying to accept them as equal. Multiculturalism in Europe has never produced and is quite impossible of producing a singular coherent society whose people walk lock step in traditions. Multi culturalsim instead always produces fragmented micro societies within a larger macro society that in effect do not mingle or mix to any significant degree. Muslims live next to muslims, irish near irish, eastern europeans near eastern europeans etc. These micro societies have very different views which when taken as a whole in the macroscopic entity of a nation state produce only the illusion of tolerance and assimilation and people like you justify this by simply stating that they live in your country. The facts are european countries are very different and history bears this out through the very violent nature of european history. People of a feather flock together, ostriches don't run with eagles pretending they are flying.


edit: also multi-culturalism does exactly what it seeks to oppose. Racism. By infact emphasizing the difference."But the "differences" they have in mind are racial differences, which means we're being urged to glorify race, which means we're being asked to institutionalize separatism. "Racial identity" erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common." Michael Berliner.

 

[VanceMack]

Would you agree that the members of the current dominant cultures, both in the US and Europe, have a right to impose policies to protect themselves from this eventuality?

I suspect the South Afrikans foresaw a time when apartheid ended that the minority group would be completely overwhelmed. They put protective measures in place and were labelled racist, even though they settled the land and brought in free Africans to work the mines.

So while I understand your question, I guess Im not really sure as to the answer. How do you create policies that preserve the minority culture when the majority have the clout and votes to undo it. In our country I would say you look to the constitution, but what happens when you have enough votes to change those protections or outright eliminate them? And I am not familiar enough with all of the European countries and their constitutions...I dont know what Bill of Rights they have that are there to protect the rights of the minorities.

 

[Andalublue]

Repect the cultures of another nation and peoples is wholly different then trying to accept them as equal. Multiculturalism in Europe has never produced and is quite impossible of producing a singular coherent society whose people walk lock step in traditions. Multi culturalsim instead always produces fragmented micro societies within a larger macro society that in effect do not mingle or mix to any significant degree. Muslims live next to muslims, irish near irish, eastern europeans near eastern europeans etc. These micro societies have very different views which when taken as a whole in the macroscopic entity of a nation state produce only the illusion of tolerance and assimilation and people like you justify this by simply stating that they live in your country. The facts are european countries are very different and history bears this out through the very violent nature of european history. People of a feather flock together, ostriches don't run with eagles pretending they are flying.

You've obviously never been to London. I used to live in a street in Hackney which had a synagogue at one end and a Mosque at the other. You think there were running battles in front of my front door? On the High Street there were Turkish groceries right next door to Greek patisseries and opposite, a bagel shop and a South Indian restaurant. In the 5 years I lived there, how often did I hear the Turks bad-mouthing the Greeks or the Jews? Not once. That was multi-culturalism in action, and a great place to live. I'm not saying there aren't tensions, but those antagonisms are the tiny minority. I heard more divisive, sectarian language when I returned to my home-town in the 100% white, 90% Protestant rural area where I grew up. The imagining of inter-cultural strife is far more rampant and dangerous than the reality of co-existence.

 

[Coronado]

You've obviously never been to London. I used to live in a street in Hackney which had a synagogue at one end and a Mosque at the other. You think there were running battles in front of my front door?

You'd have to have a Protestant church at one end and a Catholic church at the other for that to happen ...

 

[hafez]

This is a chart of english demographics in 2001. you can CLEARLY see that the societies are fragmented no unified and co-mingling.

 

[VanceMack]

You've obviously never been to London. I used to live in a street in Hackney which had a synagogue at one end and a Mosque at the other. You think there were running battles in front of my front door? On the High Street there were Turkish groceries right next door to Greek patisseries and opposite, a bagel shop and a South Indian restaurant. In the 5 years I lived there, how often did I hear the Turks bad-mouthing the Greeks or the Jews? Not once. That was multi-culturalism in action, and a great place to live. I'm not saying there aren't tensions, but those antagonisms are the tiny minority. I heard more divisive, sectarian language when I returned to my home-town in the 100% white, 90% Protestant rural area where I grew up. The imagining of inter-cultural strife is far more rampant and dangerous than the reality of co-existence.

I understand what you are saying...but be honest...what happens when there IS a muslim majority and muslim extremists start killing people? Muslims start choosing sides. I think the British Muslim is very similar to the average American Muslim...they enjoy a nice blend of American culture that moderates the religiosity. I dont think ANYONE EVER has anything to fear from MOST muslims. but thats ALWAYS been the case. Its the extremists that pop up and start issuing fatwahs because someone drew a cartoon with the prophet and a grenade in his beard. Then you start having radical 'muslims' stirring up violence. Then you have this guy


and this guy

YouTube - British Islamic extremists

and next thing you know...****s blowing up...

Muslims are their own worst enemy...because the majority are silent or tolerate the radical muslims.

 

[Andalublue]

This is a chart of english demographics in 2001. you can CLEARLY see that the societies are fragmented no unified and co-mingling.

That's meant to be a map of England? I really can't work out what it's meant to represent. Can you quote a source? One thing you CAN tell is that the minority religions all do indeed co-habit the central-left-hand-side of the diagram, I guess that is meant to represent the central-northern industrial belt from Birmingham in the south to Leeds in the north and Liverpool in the west to Hull in the east. The more homogenous, rural areas remain heavily Christian dominated, but are very sparsely populated. It's a very weird looking representation nevertheless.

 

[hafez]

That's meant to be a map of England? I really can't work out what it's meant to represent. Can you quote a source? One thing you CAN tell is that the minority religions all do indeed co-habit the central-left-hand-side of the diagram, I guess that is meant to represent the central-northern industrial belt from Birmingham in the south to Leeds in the north and Liverpool in the west to Hull in the east. The more homogenous, rural areas remain heavily Christian dominated, but are very sparsely populated. It's a very weird looking representation nevertheless.

well in respect to the ideal theory of multi culturalism you would expect to see an even distribution of cultures throughout all of england, but the diagrams above clearly indicate that human nature is reigning supreme over the ideology of true multi-culturalism. In an ideal multi cultural environment there should be no distinct nomative differences among areas, as in the percentage of a particular ethnic group should never exceed a value that disproportionately disrupts the even distribution of the ethnic groups of an area. for example.

say we have 5 ethnic groups that live in a certain area and for the sake of complexity lets assume they each make up 20% of the entire population. You would expect to see that 20% of any given population would be evenly distributed in such a way that neither group has a dominate presence in a single area or province. However this is clearly not the case. The ethnic groups are not comngling and are infact the huge majority of ethnic groups are sticking together with their like which is completely contradictory to a multi culturalistic society.

 

[Andalublue]

I understand what you are saying...but be honest...what happens when there IS a muslim majority and muslim extremists start killing people? Muslims start choosing sides. I think the British Muslim is very similar to the average American Muslim...they enjoy a nice blend of American culture that moderates the religiosity. I dont think ANYONE EVER has anything to fear from MOST muslims. but thats ALWAYS been the case. Its the extremists that pop up and start issuing fatwahs because someone drew a cartoon with the prophet and a grenade in his beard. Then you start having radical 'muslims' stirring up violence. Then you have this guy


and this guy

YouTube - British Islamic extremists

and next thing you know...****s blowing up...

Muslims are their own worst enemy...because the majority are silent or tolerate the radical muslims.

You make some good points, but is that a real CNN report? The reporter certainly doesn't sound like a CNN reporter and makes a few basic pronunciation and spelling mistakes that CNN wouldn't make. I suspect it is someone using CNN pictures and writing their own words. Ah, just looked. infolivetv Live Television from Jerusalem.

Having said that, there are extremists but they enjoy far less support than this report would have you believe. The main interviewee, Anjum Choudary is a fairly pathetic character who leads a radical student group, Al-Muhajiroon/Islam4UK which has been expelled from all mainstream Moslem organisations in Britain. Their supporters number a few dozen and the organisation has been proscribed under counter-terrorism measures. No one, neither the British government, nor British Moslems are tolerating them.

 

[Gardener]

The rhetorical division on this forum, and elsewhere, is that there are those who believe that all Moslems seek to impose a Qu'ran-based culture on Europe, and those who believe that such an aim is the goal of a minority, and that the majority of European Moslems (both the religious and the non-practicing) want to live a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, pluralist Europe as much as the majority of non-Moslems do.

I see the actual divide as being between those who recognize the very real threats Islamism poses to liberal values, and those who prefer to stick their fingers in their ears and say "nah nah nah" over and over again. You make a claim that people see "ALL" Muslims in a certain light, but I see a far greater number whose apologia is such that it seeks to minimize rather than maximize the degree to which Muslims hold beliefs antithetical to a free and liberal society. When a majority want free speech curtailed in cases of speech critical of Islam, or when sizeable minorities want the introduction of Sharia Law, seeking to characterize these beliefs as representing only a tiny fringe is just as misguided as portraying them as unanimous.