Most Europeans want to STOP migration from Muslim countries, study finds

If you could be more specific about the problem you have with "Islamists". Who are Islamists and what are four or five points of contention you have with them?

 

Mandelus it just is not true as far as the world is concerned that Muslims have remained silent regarding ISIS, or even Salafism. After every terrorist attack Muslims are brought onto our tv's ad discount them and frequently go on Marches against them - though these frequently are not reported. At the same time they are getting well fed up of this. The psychology behind this demand is that all Muslims have a responsibility for these attacks, that somehow they have an ability to stop them when overwhelmingly, 90%, of these killings are done against Muslims themselves. There is a double standard going on here. Did we ask the Irish to go on Marches against the IRA to show they were not terrorists. No we did not. David Schneider puts this double standard very well in his version of antisemitism

http://jfjfp.com/?p=87366

Have a think about it. and all that being said if in Germany Muslims have not made a point of protesting every extremist attack then they are very much in the minority.

(I am off on child looking after duty)

 

Sure ... we have smart main stream media where it is more important to report 10 min long in which costume Beyoncé was at Gremmy 2016 awards as to report such things ...
But honestly out of my "little cosmos" in my city where we have a note able Turkish minority etc. There was not a single demonstration of Muslims against the Islamic terror! But we had a dozen demonstrations after the coup against Erdogan for and against Erdogan, as well of Kurds against Turkey and so on ... and all of them are Muslims, but only very few Islamists!
Such things I criticize, because if a comedian made bad Islam joke, the few Islamists are on the street of course! This silent majority is bad...

 

OK no problem:

Islamists are Muslims who make the belief "Islam" above all other social things and demand that the world must revolve around this belief and its actual or obligatory teachings. Because the Qur'an as well as the Bible offers a lot of space for interpretation and the translations are questionable. The infamous word "jihad", for example, is usually interpreted as a war against unbelievers, but it also means a peaceful mission to Islam, which is overlooked mostly ... or did you know this?

My problem with Islamists is:

#1
Islamists are forcing other Muslims, as well as non-Muslims, to follow their interpretation of Islam. They claim that only their interpretation is the true Islam and everyone who is different is an enemy that is to be combated! This is an unacceptable attitude for me!
#2
Islamists act as rat pipers, meaning that they seek contact with disillusioned and thereby more unstable young people in society and give the impression that they understand them only, and so they soften the hearts, then to throw their propaganda into their brains! They are no different than other political rat pipers such as Neo Nazis to catch young people.
#3
Islamists reject any integration into the country where they live. They live as a state in the state and fight the countries from the inside, but they also use the democratic protection they have in terms of freedom of speech. This freedom they should not have, for they deny this freedom to all others who are against it and they miss-use it to attack others!
#4
Islamists tell they want to open dialogue, but they actually bury it in reality. They just want to have a chance to spread propaganda, but as soon as the discussion is bad for them, and they are pushed to the wall with arguments, they break down and often they become violent.



In sum, Islamists are radical persons who stand against all our values and achievements, but enjoy the advantages of these things for their struggle against us.
Not all Islamists are terrorists, but they are the precursor of terror and the spiritual breeding ground from which the terrorists recruit their followers. In the alteration of an old saying, not only is he guilty of throwing the bomb, but also the one who calls to throw one! For the latter, Islamists are to be blamed!

But these Islamists are the clear and minor minority among the 2 billion Muslims. Of course there are also strictly religious Muslims, just as in every religion there are strictly religious people. Not every strictly religious Muslim is an Islamist and just because someone like Osama Bin is dressed is not making him an Islamist or even a terrorist.
Also, it is fact that there are radicals in every religion, there are also radical political people and all radicals have a brain damage ... otherwise their idiotic views can not be explained.
The problem with the Islamists is, however, that they pull a religion into the mud and, as I said, the willing breeding ground for Islamic terrorists!

 

To clear things up: I am a European and Australian citizen; I am not an American citizen. Also, I am a baptised Roman Catholic who embraces many Buddhist elements and practices.

I can agree with many of your points and I acknowledge the reformation of Christianity led by Martin Luther. I am not saying that it is absolutely impossible for Germany to reform Islam, what I will say is that it will be extremely difficult to rewrite the Islamic code into a peace loving, tolerant and accepting ideology. You will have more than Luther's 95 theses for this suggested Islamic reformation.

Now there are major differences between Christianity and Islam. The raw Christian ideology promoted self-sacrifice which emulated Jesus who was a peaceful person. Therefore in its infancy, Christians would be willing to kill themselves by asking the Romans to crucify them. Christians had no intention of self-sacrifice by killing others with the intention for them to convert or submit. Muslims wish to emulate Muhammad who was a violent barbaric warlord, a stark contrast to Jesus. Muslims promote self-sacrifice in the name of Muhammad and Allah with the intention of maximum collateral damage.

I will acknowledge that many Turkish people are peaceful Muslims that integrate relatively successfully in comparison to other Muslims; however there are a few fatal flaws that you haven’t mentioned when it comes to assimilating Muslims into Western democracies:
- The Turkish people have taken around 100 years to get to where they are and there is still a danger of Turkey going back to an Islamic State under Sharia Law.

- The 1 million Muslims that Germany took in are Arab Muslims, not Turkish Muslims. Arab Muslims are probably the most radicalised.

I am not trying to be negative, if you are confident that you can reform Islam within you own country and you are willing to take the risk, go for it. But don’t expect other EU states do follow. Germany might have the resources to monitor every mosque and Islamic organization; many countries in the EU don’t have these sort of resources.

Your point is fair about the Bosnian Muslim example. I have no issues with Muslims living in Western democracies provided they obey our Laws and universal human rights, contribute to the country, and don’t incite violence and hatred. Any person irrespective of faith that is violently protesting to incite hatred and violence should be put in prison or deported.

On the sub-theme of the USA and Saudi Arabia: Maybe the USA is going to abandon the Saudi Arabian alliance soon. The reason being that Saudi Arabia is largely responsible for all the Radical/Jihadist Muslims in the USA, all the Radical/Jihadist organisations in the USA and all the Radical/Jihadist Muslim associations in American colleges and universities who are corrupting the youth. Also the USA doesn’t need Saudi oil anymore as Canada, Venezuela and Russia can supply plenty.

On the sub-theme of Iran and its variants of Islamic rule: Iran has been a basket case of despots and tyrants like the vast majority of Arab Muslim states. Some people that I have spoken to who are Zoroastrian Iranian believed that under the Shah, things were great. There was freedom and liberty. I think we can say with certainty that after the fall of the Shah, Iran has turned into a despotic, tyrannical regime that is a global menace.

 

Depends who was sampled, where they were sampled, how questions are framed, and when a poll was taken. Lots of variables when it comes to polling-and as we saw with your pre-election polls Trump didn't stand a chance. Trust polls if you like; I prefer to remain sceptical.

https://followmyvote.com/polls-still-reliable-2016/

 

Firstly Iran is not Arabic. Secondly that country functioned perfectly well under a secular and democratically elected government, until in 1953 America and the CIA decided that oil was more important than democracy, overthrew Mossadegh, installed a vicious, murderous and authoritarian puppet regime under the Shah who was ultimately deposed in the Islamic revolution, and the rest is history.
If you don't want to encourage animosity and fundamentalist terrorism there's a very simple solution-quit sticking your nose into other people's business and screwing up their countries. And that's what America does, and that's why people become radicalised and fly aeroplanes into tall buildings. Your 'global menace' is the United States, and poll after poll cites the US as the greatest threat to world peace.
As for the fantasy that things were 'great' under Pahlavi, here's the reality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Imperial_State_of_Iran

 

1. I never said Iran was an Arab country. I said it was like the vast majority of despotic tyrannical Arab Muslim regimes.

2. People fly aeroplanes into tall buildings because they have been brainwashed by a barbaric 7th century warlord ideology, that if they kill non-believers they will go to heaven with lots of virgins. It is a dangerously effective ideology, especially if people are indoctrinated from a very young age.

3. I never said things were great under the Shah, I said I was told that they were by some Zoroastrian Iranians.

 

Those people aren't indoctrinated out of a vacuum. Do you think it might have something to do with their countries being invaded, bombed, manipulated and generally (*)(*)(*)(*)ed with for decades by us in the 'enlightened' and sanctimonious West? Poke a Tiger with your stick by all means, but you better be ready to deal with its teeth. It's no good acting outraged when blowback happens due to your own actions.

 

Is this not a universal tendency irrespective of religion, philosophy or ideology? Most people desire that the world follow their ideology. For example, Christians want the whole world to be converted to the Gospel. Socialists want the whole world to one day be a social democratic utopia. It's only natural that if you believe that your way is the best way that you want the rest of the world to embrace that way. The fact that Islamists like any other major tendency have the same objective isn't inherently wrong. If you are talking about the use of force to compel everyone to follow a certain ideology, than that is not something inherent to Islamists either. Like Christian missionaries, Islamists use peaceful methods of outreach and proselytism to encourage others to adapt their views.

I wish you could provide some examples for this claim; particularly your claim that Islamists are forcing non-Muslims to follow their interpretation of Islam. I have never come across such a phenomenon. In fact, I see that the opposite is true, namely, that people who are "Islamists" are often politically persecuted and suppressed in their own countries. Take for example the brutal suppression of Islamists in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. Islamists are frequently banned from participation in mainstream politics in their own countries, and their members are routinely rounded up and imprisoned. Are you in favor of this?

This sociological phenomenon shows a failure of the mainstream political, social, economic and religious systems of the world, rather than any problem with Islamists. Religion, especially Islam, from its founding moment, is a message directed primarily to the marginalized segments of society. It gives them a sense of belonging and purpose to otherwise empty and meaningless lives. I'm aware than in Europe as in the Muslim world, people who are attracted to their message are marginalized segments of society, such as drug addicts, criminals, etc. This to me is a positive aspect of "Islamism".
You compare it to neo-Nazis. It's quite obvious that neo-Nazis do not reform the young people they recruit into being moral law-abiding citizens. Neo-Nazis are well known, especially in Russia and eastern Europe, for being violent, engaging in acts of street violence and thuggery. Members of Islamist groups, however, are quite different, both in Europe and the Muslim world. They may be recruited from the same marginalized segment of society, but the Islamist programme reforms them in making them disciplined, moral, religious and family-centered people. Once again, I see the failure of mainstream political groups in not being able to reach out to the marginalized. Rather than blaming Islamists or others for attracting marginalized people, you have to direct your criticism to mainstream politics and ask yourself why that is happening.

I question whether rejection of integration is a negative thing. The whole point of a free and open society is that individuals or groups are free to associate and disassociate with whoever they want. As for your claim "[they] fight the countries from inside" you did not provide a specific example(s). I don't see any Islamist insurgency aimed at toppling any government of Europe from the inside. All I see are Islamists engaging in peaceful and law abiding methods to criticize governments and states, but that is surely legal and in fact a tendency common to many other groups.

Furthermore, it is troubling that you advocate for denying freedom of speech to Islamists as you claim "they deny this freedom to all others who are against it"...you did not provide any specific examples. Since Islamists are not empowered anywhere in Europe your claim is doubly false; where are they denying anyone else freedom of speech? There seems to be a common theme in your points which is misinformation and making generalized, stereotypical claims
without substance

Again you did not provide any specific example of this supposed phenomenon. Where have Islamists, especially mainstream Islamists, engaged in acts of violence? In the world I see the opposite is true, namely, Islamists are more often the victims of state sanctioned violence against them, as I mentioned, in Egypt, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, Bangladesh, etc.

 

No it has to do with the Islamic ideology. Islam has been at war with itself and everyone else for 1400 years.

 

And so has Christianity-or hadn't you noticed? Then we have paedophile priests, covered up by that guy in the frock in Rome, nuns abusing children. What kind of ideology is that? Then we have Bush talking about 'crusades'...

 

In Islam, the violence is generally towards women, homosexuals, non-believers and different Islamic sects. We have 1400 years of evidence to support this and a book written by the First Prophet of Islam called the Quran.

 

Hey, I never said that all Christians are perfect. However Islam directly endorses and advocates paedophilia in the Quran, also female genital mutilation, beating women, death to homosexuals, polygamy, suicide, death of non-believers etc etc etc. The Radical/Jihadist Muslims are talking about Crusades, not Christians. Do you know the actual reason why the Crusades occurred? It was because Muslims were killing civilian Christians that were on their way to the Holy Land. So the Knights begun to protect civilians who wanted to make a pilgrimage to Holy Land in peace.

 

When did we stop throwing gays in jail, and how long did it take for women to fight (literally) for the right to vote? Virtually everything you cite from the Koran is echoed in the Christian bible. Christianity has absolutely no moral high ground to preach from.

 

Claims without any evidence.

 

Surprised that Poland resists more than Hungary ... I would have guessed Hungary was at least 80% opposed. Wonder how many many Syrians and Afghans would support the infusion of a million white refugees from northern Europe?

 

Really? You are just trolling surely?

 

I wonder how many Saudi Arabians or Iranians would support a few million white refugees of non-muslim faith to settle in their capital cities in one go? Who wish to build temples and churchs that will not submit?

 

Telling women how to dress is ridiculous. No other religion passes forward such inhuman values. They're brainwashed into thinking that this fine but it's not. And it's only a minor example yet still so pathetic and very telling.

 

Not at all. Your remarks about the Qur'an show that you never bothered to read the book. Take for example your claim that Qur'an encourages pedophilia. The opposite is true, the Qur'an says to marry women when they reach maturity/adolescence (bulugh) (Surah 4 verse 6)

Then you said the Qur'an encourages female genital mutilation. Another claim without evidence. The Qur'an never mentions female genital mutilation, let alone prescribes it.

You said the Qur'an encourages polygamy. Many other religions practice polygamy, such as Jews and fundamentalist Mormons. If you say polygamy is immoral, that is a subjective argument, the same can be said about same-sex marriage.

You said the Qur'an encourages suicide. Another false claim. The Qur'an says "Do not kill yourselves" (Sura 4 verse 29)

You said the Qur'an commands that all non-believers be murdered. A claim that has no substantiation whatsoever.

If I were you I would actually study the Book and get my facts right before proceeding to embarrass myself with inaccurate claims.

 

Many religions tell women how to dress, especially Christianity and Judaism. Orthodox Jewish women are told to shave their heads and wear whigs. The New testament instructs Christians women to remain silent in church and cover their head.

Your claim "no other religion passes forward such inhuman values" is clearly false.

 

Poland is a Catholic country and Poles are generally a religious bunch who think the Pope is a god.

 

There are a few major differences between Islam and Christianity. The stark contrast is the comparison of Jesus (which Christians strive to emulate) and Muhammad (which Muslims strive to emulate). Now where does it say in the Christian Bible that non-believers should killed, that women should be beaten, that homosexuals should killed, that female genital mutilation is ok, etc etc. That's right; none of it is in the Bible.

I don't care what religion you choose, provided it doesn't incite violence and hatred, that it is tolerant of other faiths and beliefs, and that it respects and obeys the sovereign laws of the host nation. Unfortunately, a barbaric, violent and unreformed 7th century ideology from Arabia doesn't seem to tick all these boxes.

 

Indeed, and Jewish women are segregated from men in synagogue, and have to sit behind a screen in case they drive the men into a frenzy of sexual temptation!