Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[Jamie76 0]

I once had to do research on Islam in one of my classes in college. For those that practice moderate Islam, it truly is a nice religion. I compare it to moderate Christianity. When you start looking at the extreme side of it though, Christian fundamentalists do not even compare to Islamic fundamentalists. When you look at Islam in that light, you wonder how such a good religion (one of the Abrahamic religions to which Christianity and Judaism are as well) became so corrupted.

I'm sorry, but I wish there was a way to weed out each one of these fanatics and get rid of them.

[Stabu 0]

This is a very serious problem for Europe. The basic problem is this: the US wisely restricts its immigration and because of its less generous welfare benefits the Muslims who move to the US tend to be hard working citizens who want to integrate into the American society. The Muslims who are moving to Europe move there because of Europe's generous welfare benefits and thus Europe gets the worst immigrants from the whole Middle East, i.e. criminals, troublemakers and bums. Because of our high minimum wage laws and strict working regulations the immigrants can't even integrate even if they would like too. They simply can't get a job. This means that they all end up in welfare and are pushed into these slums. In these slums without work, living as second class citizens, they become radicalized. They never learn the native languages of their respective countries, they never integrate and they end up causing trouble and crime. The situation is the worst in France and Sweden where there are de facto small city states (such as current Andorra, San Marino, Holy See or Monaco etc. are) within the country where Sharia law is practiced and where the police have no authority - they won't even step into these areas without armoured cars. The problems are getting rather large in Belgium, the Netherlands, the UK and Norway as well.

Our legal systems are incapable of dealing with this situation. For example, in the Finnish legal system the maximum penalty for any crime (including murder) is 14 years in jail. If you conduct the crime the first time (like murder) you can only get 5 years in jail. Many first time rapists just get a fine and are released under parole. This criminal law system seems very lax on American standards, but it works well for the general Finnish population. After all, we have one of the lowest crime rates in the whole world (and the second most guns after the Americans for that matter). These penalties how ever work poorly for crimes committed by immigrants. My example will make this clear. One year ago (in a famous court case) three Somali immigrants Michael Andrew Lofo, Gak Willyang Mogdam and Muawia Abuzaid Tutu Atiya got 4, 4 respectively 2 years in prison for a crime called "cruel rape". These three men had captured a drunken 30 year old woman, taken her into their apartment, raped her and then cut her perineum open with scissors. The court could at best give these men 5 years in jail but they chose to give less because these men defended their act saying that it's "part of the African culture". The following day the major of Oulu (the city where this crime took place) spoke that this crime shouldn't cause any hatred towards immigrants, since they are just "people who's ways are different from our own" (the major had all the right to be worried about hate crimes for that matter, since Finland has the most hate crimes per capita against immigrants in the western world even if Finland has the least amount of immigrants percentage vice in the whole western world). Often the Helsinki courts have refused to convict African immigrants to jail for beating their wives and children with e.g. baseball bats on the basis that this is "a part of the Africa culture". The problem is that the immigrants have learned to use this weakness as a seemingly excuse for any crime they commit and Finns fall for it. When they get these penalties with few years in prison they just laugh them off. I would laugh at this all too, if it wouldn’t be so extremely sad and such a worrisome development.

The general problem of Europe is that the birth rates for original Europeans are around one child per woman, while the rates of these immigrants tend to be four children per woman. This means that the European original population halves every generation while the immigration population doubles (at the same time more immigrants come in so it at least triples). This means that most parts of Europe have turned into de facto Islamic nations by around 2030. The only nations in Old Europe that will likely escaping this fate seem to be Finland, Ireland and Iceland, since these three countries have rather strict immigration laws and they are in outlying parts of the map in general. Before this point the European welfare states won't any longer be sustainable, meaning that welfare benefits will be reduced and millions of people will fall of a broken welfare system. The result is likely going to be very ugly and I suspect that we may see some old fashioned Hobbesian anarchy taking place, since in many countries there is a mixed up immigrant population without any commonly spoken langue.

[Stabu 0]

I once had to do research on Islam in one of my classes in college. For those that practice moderate Islam, it truly is a nice religion. I compare it to moderate Christianity. When you start looking at the extreme side of it though, Christian fundamentalists do not even compare to Islamic fundamentalists. When you look at Islam in that light, you wonder how such a good religion (one of the Abrahamic religions to which Christianity and Judaism are as well) became so corrupted.

I'm sorry, but I wish there was a way to weed out each one of these fanatics and get rid of them.

I don't really blame Islam either. In Indonesia for example, it's a moderate and tolerant religion (they even have porn mags for example). The main problem is the Arabic Middle Eastern Islam. This is extremistic because of three main reasons:

1) They have oil and oil allows these countries to get a lot of money in without changing their economic structure or beliefs which would have to be modernized if they would want to compete in a global economy.

2) The US bombs, occupies and wages war with practically every single country in the Middle East. This fact steams up more Muslim extremism and this is one of the main reasons why European Muslims are extremists as well. They watch the same TV channels and read the same papers etc. which are extremely anti-American for a very good reason.

3) Most Middle Eastern countries are ruled by dictators and the only way to show dissatisfaction against these rulers is to protest in the name of religion. Which is precisely what they Middle Eastern Muslims are doing.

[bhajishah 4]

TRY it INSHALLAH, you might like it

[one...two...tree 2,762]

All Muslims???

[mRx 16]

2) The US bombs, occupies and wages war with practically every single country in the Middle East.

Oh really?

We are the bad guys?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

2) The US bombs, occupies and wages war with practically every single country in the Middle East.

Oh really?

We are the bad guys?

I think its easy to forget that people in those countries have political opinions of their own and don't lap up the rhetoric that we're spoon-fed through the media and our elected representatives.

Take South Korea for example. The US 'liberated' that country decades ago - and still maintains strong political ties with it. Nevertheless there is a notable degree of resentment towards the US among its citizenry.

Edited September 8, 2007 by Number 6

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

All Muslims???

All religious fanatics that try to push their ####### on others.

[Scott & Lai 12]

Take South Korea for example. The US 'liberated' that country decades ago - and still maintains strong political ties with it. Nevertheless there is a notable degree of resentment towards the US among its citizenry.

Perhaps we should pull all of our troops out of there, and leave them to fend for themselves when North Korea decides to take over

Edited September 8, 2007 by Scott & Lai

[mRx 16]

Take South Korea for example. The US 'liberated' that country decades ago - and still maintains strong political ties with it. Nevertheless there is a notable degree of resentment towards the US among its citizenry.

Perhaps we should pull all of our troops out of there, and leave them to fend for themselves when North Korea decides to take over

I found that it was mostly the younger generation of ignorant Korean college kids that resents the US. The old timers that experienced the Korean War have a much better opinion of the US than the new generation does.

[chri'stina 190]

Not religion per se...just Fundamentalism and the belief in absolutes (no one else is allowed to believe differently)...it's sort of reactionary to Relativism.

On this one, I beg to differ. Organised religion is stuffed with dangerous dogma and leaders who are far more interested in power and money than creed. I know I am making a sweeping generalisation, but this is my view.

Faith, belief in a higher power, whatever you want to call it, carry on.

Anyone who believes that there is only one way to salvation, nirvana, heaven, whatever, is dangerous. So yes, dogmatism is a threat, but dogma in of itself isn't necessarily dangerous. For example, believing the murder is wrong could be considered a moral truth, but even with such an obvious truth, there are circumstances when it is the lesser of two evils.

I guess I'm dangerous then. However I would not force people to believe what I do. But I don't think me believing it makes me dangerous. I think it's more dangerous to not know or understand what one believes.

[chri'stina 190]

So, what is really the difference between Sharia Law and Xian Law? They both want to impose religious laws upon ALL citizens.....

*rolls eyes*

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Not religion per se...just Fundamentalism and the belief in absolutes (no one else is allowed to believe differently)...it's sort of reactionary to Relativism.

On this one, I beg to differ. Organised religion is stuffed with dangerous dogma and leaders who are far more interested in power and money than creed. I know I am making a sweeping generalisation, but this is my view.

Faith, belief in a higher power, whatever you want to call it, carry on.

Anyone who believes that there is only one way to salvation, nirvana, heaven, whatever, is dangerous. So yes, dogmatism is a threat, but dogma in of itself isn't necessarily dangerous. For example, believing the murder is wrong could be considered a moral truth, but even with such an obvious truth, there are circumstances when it is the lesser of two evils.

I guess I'm dangerous then. However I would not force people to believe what I do. But I don't think me believing it makes me dangerous. I think it's more dangerous to not know or understand what one believes.

Although I am Christian, I don't believe that the kingdom of heaven is only open for Christians...I just can't imagine a God who excludes people based on their religious convictions. I don't believe that Christ meant it as literal as some Christians take it to mean. IMO, to believe that everyone else is excluded or doomed to an eternal hell is dangerous - it defies logic that even someone who is 'good' isn't good enough for God and effects how people regard non-Christians (or anyone not a member of that religion). No matter how you package it, a life eternal goes beyond religion and into the heart and soul of a person. A good person is a good person, regardless of what they call themselves.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Take South Korea for example. The US 'liberated' that country decades ago - and still maintains strong political ties with it. Nevertheless there is a notable degree of resentment towards the US among its citizenry.

Perhaps we should pull all of our troops out of there, and leave them to fend for themselves when North Korea decides to take over

It doesn't change that the US tends to ride roughshod over the political opinions of other countries, not excluding its own allies.