Europe hostile to muslim world?

['Abd Al-Maajid]

:sl:
I live in India and don't know much about European Union and muslims living there, but it makes me think 'Is EU acting hostilely towards muslim world?' as some news like banning of hijab in France and banning of Minarets in Switzerland and the popular slogans in EU 'Stop Islamification of Europe!' surface the internet.
Anyone, brothers or sisters from Europe tell me (I know many people here are from Europe) the situation of the muslims in EU.
Thank you.

[Supreme]

Muslims in the EU are granted (for the most part) equal rights, and apart from the odd persecution, should be able to live their life like a non Muslim. On the whole, Muslims in Europe are treated far better than their counterparts in China, Russia and America. However, what we are seeing is a clash of cultures, the West and the Muslim world. Therefore, just as there are far right extremists groups that exist in the Middle East that try and prevent the Westernisation of the Middle East, such as Al Queda and others, so there are far right extremists in Europe trying to prevent the Islamification of European culture. Both are rational concerns; both the Islamic World and Europe fear the others culture in case that culture, in unlikely circumstances, 'takes over' that country. It's fear- the ban of minarets, the ban of burkhas- it's fear, not hatred, and it's fear of the unknown, fear of change, paranoia almost. It's like in India, when Islam first arrived; Muslims feared Hindu culture and Hindus were upset about being subjegated to Islamic rule. Both cultures feared each other, but as we are seeing today, there's no country on the Earth like India where religions co exist as they do. That's why I like India, and it's cultural diversity.

If this post makes no sense, that's because its midnight.

['Abd Al-Maajid]

..., there's no country on the Earth like India where religions co exist as they do. That's why I like India, and it's cultural diversity.

Lets swap our nationalities then ;D;D;D:lol:
Sorry:omg: if that was facetious.

[Beardo]

I've been to UK only a couple of times. But I hear there are Niqaabis and men in their Sunnat Attire walking in the streets.

What a pleasant thought.

The other day I went to go to the copy machine store, and I saw a Muslim brother from the Masjid riding on his bicycle. He rode up and shook my hand, and went on riding again. What a beautiful experience that was. Made my day really.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

['Abd Al-Maajid]

The other day I went to go to the copy machine store, and I saw a Muslim brother from the Masjid riding on his bicycle. He rode up and shook my hand, and went on riding again. What a beautiful experience that was. Made my day really.

Yes, definitely that would make anyone's day.:statisfie

[Beardo]

Yes, definitely that would make anyone's day.:statisfie

You live in India, you see Muslims all over the place! ...Right?

['Abd Al-Maajid]

Yes. I live in Hyderabad, and it's one of the Muslim dominant cities in India. In my neighbourhood there is a mosque every 0.5 km. Can you believe that? I'm proud to live here, in fact 95% of the people I know are Muslims (i.e. friends, neighbours and colleagues).;D

[Beardo]

Yes. I live in Hyderabad, and it's one of the Muslim dominant cities in India. In my neighbourhood there is a mosque every 0.5 km. Can you believe that? I'm proud to live here, in fact 95% of the people I know are Muslims (i.e. friends, neighbours and colleagues).;D

I envy you brother, Masha'Allah.

How's internet connection though? :X Do you get disconnected often?

['Abd Al-Maajid]

How's internet connection though? :X Do you get disconnected often?

It's fine but yes, it gets disconnected but not too often. Why would you ask that?

['Abd Al-Maajid]

In my neighbourhood there is a mosque every 0.5 km. Can you believe that? ...in fact 95% of the people I know are Muslims (i.e. friends, neighbours and colleagues).;D

Despite here being such a majority of muslims and many mosques some people dont even say their obligatory prayers imsad

[KAding]

Legally Muslims are fairly well protected against persecution in Europe. In general they may for example freely built mosques, openly preach their religion and perform dawah, and anyone may convert to Islam. Also keep in mind that France is not really representative for European countries. A bit like Saudi Arabia is not representative for Muslim countries.

The problem for Muslims in Europe is not so much legally, but rather public perception of Islam, which often is hostile. In part this is because Islam is simply an orthodox religion, which is often frowned upon in an increasingly secular Europe. The same hostility usually exists towards Christian cults or religions like Scientology. Religions that are perceived as less legalistic and more individualistic like Buddhism do not suffer from this image problem. Governments also fear Islamic terrorism, which also puts pressure on Muslims I suppose, as they feel targeted by law enforcement.

By and large concerns about Islam doctrine specifically among non-Muslims revolve around different views on gender equality, gay rights and freedom of speech. Non-muslims will generally disagree strongly with the idea behind the hijab, that women must cover up for men. Rightly or wrongly they see it as a symbol of a patriarchal society where women are subjugated by men. On top of that many secularists believe that in some jobs people should not openly show their religious affiliation. Because of this there are often debates in Europe whether women who wear hijab should be allowed to teach in public schools or whether public servants who work 'front office' can wear a hijab. In some European countries there is also debate about whether children in schools should be allowed to wear headscarf's or not. There is also the occasional agitation about Muslim men refusing to, for example, shake hands with women or an Imam preaching against homosexuality.

Next to these 'doctrinal' differences there is also increasing social tension. Rapid muslim immigration has really changed some neighborhoods. Where there used to be 'European' bakeries on street corners you now have kebab-shops. In some neighborhoods Arabic is almost a dominant language, which apparently causes unease or even resentment among those Europeans who stay behind and who feel increasingly alienated from their own neighborhoods. To make matters worse immigrants from Muslim countries are often overrepresented in crime statistics, making them an easy target for demagogues who rail against immigration. When huge mosques get built in an area some people also start getting very uncomfortable.

So IMHO there are four sources for this hostility towards Islam:
- general hostility towards any kind of 'orthodox' interpretation of religion
- unease about Islamic positions on gender equality, homosexuality and blasphemy
- unease about social change in neighborhoods because of Muslim immigration
- law enforcement concern about violent jihad at home and abroad

Keep in mind that these observations are generalizations. As a non-Muslim it is obviously hard for me to tell you how this hostility affects Muslims in their daily lives. I'm sure others can shed more light on that matter.

[KAding]

Muslims in the EU are granted (for the most part) equal rights, and apart from the odd persecution, should be able to live their life like a non Muslim. On the whole, Muslims in Europe are treated far better than their counterparts in China, Russia and America. However, what we are seeing is a clash of cultures, the West and the Muslim world. Therefore, just as there are far right extremists groups that exist in the Middle East that try and prevent the Westernisation of the Middle East, such as Al Queda and others, so there are far right extremists in Europe trying to prevent the Islamification of European culture. Both are rational concerns; both the Islamic World and Europe fear the others culture in case that culture, in unlikely circumstances, 'takes over' that country. It's fear- the ban of minarets, the ban of burkhas- it's fear, not hatred, and it's fear of the unknown, fear of change, paranoia almost.

Good analysis. I agree. People everywhere try and protect their culture. Sure, in Europe political theorists and statesmen have at one point decided to embrace liberalism and built in all kinds of constitutional guarantees. But that does not mean that cultural and social change no longer upsets normal people. It can and probably will still lead to a backlash or cause unrest. Conservative Muslims rail against Western influences in the Islamic world, while conservatives in Europe rail against Islamic influences.

It's like in India, when Islam first arrived; Muslims feared Hindu culture and Hindus were upset about being subjegated to Islamic rule. Both cultures feared each other, but as we are seeing today, there's no country on the Earth like India where religions co exist as they do. That's why I like India, and it's cultural diversity.

Not to turn this into a thread about India. But I thought that lots of people die each year in India in all kinds of religious unrest? Much can be said about religious strife in Europe, but at least it rarely turns violent.

[aadil77]

So IMHO there are four sources for this hostility towards Islam:
- general hostility towards any kind of 'orthodox' interpretation of religion
- unease about Islamic positions on gender equality, homosexuality and blasphemy
- unease about social change in neighborhoods because of Muslim immigration
- law enforcement concern about violent jihad at home and abroad

Keep in mind that these observations are generalizations. As a non-Muslim it is obviously hard for me to tell you how this hostility affects Muslims in their daily lives. I'm sure others can shed more light on that matter.

I'll agree with that. Islam is completely orthodox, I've noticed some groups have tried to to take away 'violent' verses and meanings away like they've done with christianity to make it compatible, all lovey dovey and pacifist.

The thing is those parts of islam are never gonna be taken away and I don't see why it matters because it will never effect anyone in europe.

[جوري]

Once they take war and treaty powers out of the U.S or any other constitution:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...randtreaty.htm

can they come and speak of which verses need to be separated from the Quran.
Islam is a complete way of life, it isn't to be modulated to suit the secularist agenda (no discussion)

:w:

[aliatifsiddiqui]

asak friends....im new to this...plz mk me feel at home :P
i wanted 2 learn more abt the new islamophobia brewing in france.fining 750 euros for wearing burqas in public..thts so mean...wat will do wid all dat money?? buy 2 nokia N900??

[جوري]

they'll use it to campaign against Muslims in some other fashion.. maybe ban prayer or fast or something!

:w:

[JoshuaD]

Once they take war and treaty powers out of the U.S or any other constitution:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/proj...randtreaty.htm

can they come and speak of which verses need to be separated from the Quran.
Islam is a complete way of life, it isn't to be modulated to suit the secularist agenda (no discussion)

:w:

The is a discussion about European hostility to Muslims, the constitution of the USA therefore has absolutely no relevance. :confused:

[جوري]

The is a discussion about European hostility to Muslims, the constitution of the USA therefore has absolutely no relevance. :confused:

My comment was supplementary to Aadil's post. Perhaps if you'd follow the entire thread you wouldn't be so confused?


all the best!

['Abd Al-Maajid]

In China, last Ramadan, in some province government banned mulims from fasting, anyone knew about it? However this post is irrelevant to this thread as this thread is dealing with the EU.

[malayloveislam]

We Asian Muslims are actually afraid to go to EU when we heard about this issue... it's not like what had been implied in a country who promotes human rights and civilization like France (Fraternite, Egalite, Liberte)... even Muslims had been assumed as the threat to EU community while most of them are trying to seek diplomatic help from EU or seeking refuge in EU in the understanding that they can practice their life freely there.

I guess, many problems arise due to misunderstanding of other's point of culture and too many conspiracy theories being made by human themselves. They become too paranoid of it.

We in Asia are actually more open toward difference despite of many accusations being casted to us by western imperial power. myself for example, I had been living in Buddhists surrondings without any problem and we're from Hadhrami Arab ancestries. I also have Orthodox Jew friends from Bnei Tmeinan (Yemeni Jews) and Ashkhenazim and we contacting each other although our country have no diplomatic treaties among each other. we try to find points of similarity among us without losing respect on each other.

[Skavau]

Europe is at the current time scared, distrustful and slightly confused of devoted Muslims. There are many reasons for this, some which are not to do with Islam at all - but a projection of history.

[Supreme]

Europe is at the current time scared, distrustful and slightly confused of devoted Muslims. There are many reasons for this, some which are not to do with Islam at all - but a projection of history.

It's fear- fear is the worst enemy of any country because it eventually leads to hatred.

[★мαячαн★]

I'm born an bred here in the UK and think personally that we are not particularly treated in a negative manner or aimed at. Ofcourse there are misconceptions but i think that we all have too work with the people we live with, and help them understand we ent gonna blow them up or the next man on the street. These confusions seem to be due to the way in which some communities seem to live ina parallel world only, not intermixing adn tehrefore cauing amnimosity between people i guess. but on the whole i think that they aren't particularly making ti a bad place for Muslims. I lead a very good life here and i'm not sure i would recieve all the freedom even in a Muslim country. If you live in a country you respect there laws and beliefs and if you stongly disagree then you should feel free to leave i guess, wherever in the world you are.. If someone enters a Muslim county and disobeys the laws then we have severe repuricusions (which is another topic) but therefore we should respect views of other nations and try to live in harmony (cheesy line :D) :)

[KAding]

We in Asia are actually more open toward difference despite of many accusations being casted to us by western imperial power. myself for example, I had been living in Buddhists surrondings without any problem and we're from Hadhrami Arab ancestries. I also have Orthodox Jew friends from Bnei Tmeinan (Yemeni Jews) and Ashkhenazim and we contacting each other although our country have no diplomatic treaties among each other. we try to find points of similarity among us without losing respect on each other.

That may be true. But the simple fact is that a whole lot more restrictions are put on religious freedom in Malaysia than in European countries. In many states Non-Muslims can't preach their religion to Muslims and apostasy is illegal. From what I read it is also often difficult to built churches or temples for non-Muslims. Restrictions like these simply do not exist in any European countries, not even the feared secular French state.

Also keep in mind that Islam is a new religion in Europe, while Buddhism, Christianity and Hinduism have been part of Malaysian society for centuries. All societies need time to adjust to the new realities of a multi-religious make-up.

[Amadeus85]

Europe is hostile to muslim world, because many many Europeans lost their faith in God and many many european christians replaced submission to the Creator for religion of human rights. I often hang out with traditional catholics and among them there is no hatred to islam or other religions. I am also a traditionalist and I respect Islam and I see its good points.

[Skavau]

Europe is hostile to muslim world, because many many Europeans lost their faith in God and many many european christians replaced submission to the Creator for religion of human rights. I often hang out with traditional catholics and among them there is no hatred to islam or other religions. I am also a traditionalist and I respect Islam and I see its good points.

The irony of course being (In Europe) is that most anti-immigration, anti-Islamic political parties, pressures groups and such tend to claim that their motives are Christian and their interests being to maintain that 'Christian' heritage.

Many non-religious liberals, socialists often speak out for Islam (the most famous of course being George Galloway).

In the USA, of course the contempt comes from evangelical and fundamentalist Christians based on fear of Islamic terrorism (and just about everything) trumped up by Faux News, their pastors, and their televangelists.

[north_malaysian]

:sl:
I live in India and don't know much about European Union and muslims living there, but it makes me think 'Is EU acting hostilely towards muslim world?' as some news like banning of hijab in France and banning of Minarets in Switzerland and the popular slogans in EU 'Stop Islamification of Europe!' surface the internet.
Anyone, brothers or sisters from Europe tell me (I know many people here are from Europe) the situation of the muslims in EU.
Thank you.

Switzerland is not an EU member...

[north_malaysian]

How about this: In Malaysia (A Muslim country), all male students are not allowed to keep beards in public schools... (if any of you Malaysians knew of any public schools allowing this.. please tell me..)

[Amadeus85]

The irony of course being (In Europe) is that most anti-immigration, anti-Islamic political parties, pressures groups and such tend to claim that their motives are Christian and their interests being to maintain that 'Christian' heritage.

Many non-religious liberals, socialists often speak out for Islam (the most famous of course being George Galloway).

In the USA, of course the contempt comes from evangelical and fundamentalist Christians based on fear of Islamic terrorism (and just about everything) trumped up by Faux News, their pastors, and their televangelists.

The irony is that those christians (like for example Geert Wilders) want to defend christian values like for example tolerance to same sex marriages, feminism or secular state :). This is their christian heritage :skeleton:

These are christians who, like I said before, replaced God with the idol of human rights.

Christian should struggle for social reign of Christ The King.

[Amadeus85]

There is also one important fact - racism and its reasons. Racism is the child of modernity and secularism. Racism was born in Europe and USA as the sign of fear to "aliens" when the religious life was fading - in XIX century. Nowadays racism is strongest in countries with largest numbers of atheists - England, USA, Sweden, Holland. Racism is a reaction of middle class in secular societies against foreigners. Because religious societies are theocratic and the "foreigners issues" are dealed in different way.

[Supreme]

There is also one important fact - racism and its reasons. Racism is the child of modernity and secularism. Racism was born in Europe and USA as the sign of fear to "aliens" when the religious life was fading - in XIX century. Nowadays racism is strongest in countries with largest numbers of atheists - England, USA, Sweden, Holland. Racism is a reaction of middle class in secular societies against foreigners. Because religious societies are theocratic and the "foreigners issues" are dealed in different way.

Racism has always existed, you can't possibly hope to blame secularism for it. If anything, secularism has helped extinguish racism to some extent, as people from minority faiths are not treated as second class citizens by the state.

[Skavau]

The irony is that those christians (like for example Geert Wilders) want to defend christian values like for example tolerance to same sex marriages, feminism or secular state :). This is their christian heritage :skeleton:

Geert Wilder isn't a Christian. He's an atheist who considers himself allied culturally with Christians.

His reasons, whether you accept them or not for opposing Islam are based in humanitarian concerns, not religious.

Christian should struggle for social reign of Christ The King.

How fascist of you.

[Skavau]

There is also one important fact - racism and its reasons. Racism is the child of modernity and secularism. Racism was born in Europe and USA as the sign of fear to "aliens" when the religious life was fading - in XIX century. Nowadays racism is strongest in countries with largest numbers of atheists - England, USA, Sweden, Holland. Racism is a reaction of middle class in secular societies against foreigners. Because religious societies are theocratic and the "foreigners issues" are dealed in different way.

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read in a long time.

I challenge you to back a single claim in this paragraph up. None of it is sources, all just speculation mixed with a bigoted rant against Secular Democracy. Indeed I find it quite redundant that you even claim this since you champion a time where things such as slavery, torture, religious war, fascism, totalitarianism, despotism existed. You champion a time where the Inquisition had effect, where the average life expectancy was under 40 years old, where diseases were considered punishments, curses or both. Where the masses languished in poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and under the control of others.

[Amadeus85]

Geert Wilder isn't a Christian. He's an atheist who considers himself allied culturally with Christians.

His reasons, whether you accept them or not for opposing Islam are based in humanitarian concerns, not religious.


How fascist of you.

Fascism, mix of socialism and nationalism(child of french revolution) is definitely modern doctrine, just like communism and national socialism.
So I have nothing to do with fascism :).

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Skavau;1276151]

This is the most ridiculous post I have ever read in a long time.

It was worth to write it then :).

I challenge you to back a single claim in this paragraph up. None of it is sources, all just speculation mixed with a bigoted rant against Secular Democracy. Indeed I find it quite redundant that you even claim this since you champion a time where things such as slavery, torture, religious war, fascism, totalitarianism, despotism existed. You champion a time where the Inquisition had effect, where the average life expectancy was under 40 years old, where diseases were considered punishments, curses or both. Where the masses languished in poverty, illiteracy, ignorance and under the control of others.

Technology, industry,is one thing and spirituality,morality is other thing. I call Medival best period in Europe's history. One continent under spiritual power of pope, and political power of catholic emperor. Bare in mind that Medival DID NOT invent things like concentration camps, Gulag, communism, national socialism, Holocaust, total war, genocides. Have You ever thought why Holocaust and artrocities of Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot DID HAPPEN after Enlightment and french revolution? From Robespierre and Napoleon was a straight path to Stalin and Hitler.

[Skavau]

Fascism, mix of socialism and nationalism(child of french revolution) is definitely modern doctrine, just like communism and national socialism.
So I have nothing to do with fascism .

You wish to impose an authoritarian system of control over people whether they want it or not. You wish to create a society of clerical fascism. It is a modern concept, but it is not what you do not want.

Technology, industry,is one thing and spirituality,morality is other thing. I call Medival best period in Europe's history. One continent under spiritual power of pope, and political power of catholic emperor. Bare in mind that Medival DID NOT invent things like concentration camps, Gulag, communism, national socialism, Holocaust, total war, genocides. Have You ever thought why Holocaust and artrocities of Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot DID HAPPEN after Enlightment and french revolution? From Robespierre and Napoleon was a straight path to Stalin and Hitler.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claims.

You call the medieval period the best period? Why? Because clerical fascists were in control? Never mind the rampant superstition, slavery, bigotry, disease, famine, warfare and general unpleasantness for the average person in that period - it was run and maintained by catholics.

Also, can you please tell me the specific period (Yes, I *do* want dates here) that you think was fantastic and under the "spiritual power of pope".

[Amadeus85]

[QUOTE=Skavau;1276350]

You wish to impose an authoritarian system of control over people whether they want it or not. You wish to create a society of clerical fascism. It is a modern concept, but it is not what you do not want.

Does a mother asks her child about decision? Doesnt mother forbids the child to touch fire or electricity? Should a child not listen to her mother? Here we have mother with 2 thousand years of experience.
Please don't tell me about "clerical fashism", You could also use sentence "the fight of class", this is old communistic sentence used by the red terrorists killing priest in eastern and central Europe.

You call the medieval period the best period? Why? Because clerical fascists were in control? Never mind the rampant superstition, slavery, bigotry, disease, famine, warfare and general unpleasantness for the average person in that period - it was run and maintained by catholics.

As I said, technology, materialistic life and spirituality are two different things. How can You know that Medieval couldn't exist till today and experience technological improvement. Bare in mind that last two true catholic, "Medieval" states did exist in half of XX century, Spain and Portugal.

Also, can you please tell me the specific period (Yes, I *do* want dates here) that you think was fantastic and under the "spiritual power of pope".

It's not easy to say, it depends on which european country we are talking about. For example Spain and Portugal managed to remain catholic (theocratic, because secular means atheistic) till half of XX century. Austria and Hungary till 1919, Colombia till 60's in XX century. And for example the revolution destroyed the catholic order in France in end of XVIII century, in England, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia reformation destroyed it in XVI century. The end of catholic order is always the acceptance of secular(atheistic) state. For me, Medieval means state ruled by God's law, reign of Christ who has two swords - Church and state. Secular means atheistic, reigns of unbelievers, sects, and the horned creature from undergdround.

[Skavau]

Does a mother asks her child about decision? Doesnt mother forbids the child to touch fire or electricity? Should a child not listen to her mother? Here we have mother with 2 thousand years of experience.
Please don't tell me about "clerical fashism", You could also use sentence "the fight of class", this is old communistic sentence used by the red terrorists killing priest in eastern and central Europe.

What a ridiculous analogy.

Just because a society works and persists does not mean that it is desirable. There were times in the Third Reich where everything was effectively stable. The trains ran on time and the average German life was solid. It does not mean however, that it was an ideal state.

As I said, technology, materialistic life and spirituality are two different things. How can You know that Medieval couldn't exist till today and experience technological improvement. Bare in mind that last two true catholic, "Medieval" states did exist in half of XX century, Spain and Portugal.

Because then it would not be medieval. It would be a modern state. This is horrendous really. Just because you want 'spirituality' at the expense of others. Just because you want the warm feeling bought on by clerical control over the fruitfulness of scientific "materialistic" advancement that you rely on every day: clean water, safe food, modern hygiene, modern medicine, modern transport, electricity, mass global communication (internet, mobile phones, television).

There can be no words to describe how you're not only biting the hand that feeds you, you're actively ravaging it from the core.

It's not easy to say, it depends on which european country we are talking about. For example Spain and Portugal managed to remain catholic (theocratic, because secular means atheistic)

So you can't even tell me what you mean by your 'ideal' period. No dates, only referencing Spain and Portugal Catholicism. Concerning Spain however - click here. Is that the period you're talking about?

Also Secularism is not atheistic. Secularism means that the political system cannot legislate on behalf of, or for religious interest groups promoting their own religious ideals onto society. A Secular state is effectively neutral on religious belief.

Austria and Hungary till 1919, Colombia till 60's in XX century. And for example the revolution destroyed the catholic order in France in end of XVIII century, in England, Germany, Holland and Scandinavia reformation destroyed it in XVI century. The end of catholic order is always the acceptance of secular(atheistic) state. For me, Medieval means state ruled by God's law, reign of Christ who has two swords - Church and state. Secular means atheistic, reigns of unbelievers, sects, and the horned creature from undergdround.

I can only describe the last sentence here as paranoid concepts born from absolutely nothing.

[Supreme]

Exactly. The UK is a secular state, China is an atheist state. Secular states do not persecute people on their beliefs, whereas China demonstrates that atheistic states discriminate and persecute theists.

[Amadeus85]

The Medieval was the time when people were closest so far to get know the Creator's plan of history, God's plan towards the human beings and the world. The man should get know the Creator's plan for the world, the man should not destroy divine order and law. God's law is put in natural law. Natural law is being created in tradition, in hundreds, thousands of years. Natural laws are - family, marriage(between man and woman), private posession, justice, religion (theocracy).

Medieval is state of mind, so it has no time borders. As I said, in middle of XX century, till death of gen. Francisco Franco Bahamonde, Spain was ruled by Medieval spirit. Till the death of Antonio Salazar in the middle of XX century, Portugal was fullfilled with Medieval spirit. Austria and Hungary till 1919 were Medieval states, catholic monarchies.

Secular state is the final victory of heretics, sects, atheists and unbelievers over the cosmic and divine catholic order. Catholic state means the reign of Christ, reign of truth, secular state means reign of people' desires, reign of mistakes. Secular state is the victory of the evil spirit, which now shows the effects - legalization of abortion, pornography, homo- relationships, euthanasia, the agreement of sects propaganda. The evil spirit is smiling. People are destroying themselves with smiles on faces and Lady Gaga's music in background.

Nowadays there is no even one catholic, Medieval state. But it doesnt mean that this idea is dead. Medieval spirituality lives in minds and souls of single people all over Europe and rest of World. It is idea that only the Creator can be the source of law and morality, not the failing and weak human's mind which erupted in communistic and nazi artrocities all over world. Now we dont carry swords and armors, but this Medieval state of mind and heart, allows us to improve ourselves, fight with our weaknesses, and live according to commandments and the teachings of one Holy Apostolic Roman Catholic Church

[Supreme]

Wait, what? A Catholic state would mean the rule of the Pope, not Jesus. And as history has shown, there's seldom anything special about the Pope, save selecting peadophiles as priests and ordering crusades.

[Skavau]

The Medieval was the time when people were closest so far to get know the Creator's plan of history, God's plan towards the human beings and the world. The man should get know the Creator's plan for the world, the man should not destroy divine order and law.

Babble

What does this have to do with the careless and inhumane destruction of the Medieval period? Oh wait, you're not interested in humanity. Just glorifying God.

God's law is put in natural law. Natural law is being created in tradition, in hundreds, thousands of years. Natural laws are - family, marriage(between man and woman), private posession, justice, religion (theocracy).

Hah, right. You're listing an arbitrary set of rules, or principles here and simply declaring them to be part of some 'natural law' (citation needed). Indeed Secular states accept some of these laws you declare anyway, and are much better at it than clerical rule would be. Private Property for example is much better defended by Libertarians than it is by theocratic rabble.

I note it ironic that you reference 'justice' by the way. 'Justice' appears to objectively mean the implementation of 'righteousness' into law. You have really not bothered in explaining to me what you understand to be justice. So far you have showed a total disregard or interest in the affairs of humanity in favour of the requirements of God. I'm not sure where 'justice' fits into this view at all.

Medieval is state of mind, so it has no time borders. As I said, in middle of XX century, till death of gen. Francisco Franco Bahamonde, Spain was ruled by Medieval spirit. Till the death of Antonio Salazar in the middle of XX century, Portugal was fullfilled with Medieval spirit. Austria and Hungary till 1919 were Medieval states, catholic monarchies.

Thankfully these times are over.

I think by 'Austria and Hungary' you mean Austro-Hungary, a war mongering expansionist state that played a noticeable role in getting World War One kick-started.

And, what? Francisco Franco, the leader of the Nationalist Spanish movement supported by both Mussolini and Adolph Hitler to other-throw the Spanish Republic? That Franco? The Franco that helped passively support the Axis forces in WW2? The Franco that began to prohibit (though not as harshly as other fascist states) dissenting points of view such as political parties and pressure groups?

Oh, nevermind that - since he made Catholicism the official religion of Spain.

Secular state is the final victory of heretics, sects, atheists and unbelievers over the cosmic and divine catholic order.

This is more paranoid speculation. I like Secularism for many reasons, none of them have anything to do with Catholicism specifically.

Catholic state means the reign of Christ, reign of truth, secular state means reign of people' desires, reign of mistakes. Secular state is the victory of the evil spirit, which now shows the effects - legalization of abortion, pornography, homo- relationships, euthanasia, the agreement of sects propaganda. The evil spirit is smiling. People are destroying themselves with smiles on faces and Lady Gaga's music in background.

I'm sorry that you don't like personal liberty. I'm sorry that after claiming that "natural law" had key concepts such as 'ownership, and justice' (terms that must be rooted in liberty) that you didn't really mean it.

[Amadeus85]

Wait, what? A Catholic state would mean the rule of the Pope, not Jesus. And as history has shown, there's seldom anything special about the Pope, save selecting peadophiles as priests and ordering crusades.

The reign of pope who represents Christ on Earth.
The crusades were just right.

[Amadeus85]

And, what? Francisco Franco, the leader of the Nationalist Spanish movement supported by both Mussolini and Adolph Hitler to other-throw the Spanish Republic? That Franco? The Franco that helped passively support the Axis forces in WW2? The Franco that began to prohibit (though not as harshly as other fascist states) dissenting points of view such as political parties and pressure groups?

Oh, nevermind that - since he made Catholicism the official religion of Spain.

All what I wanted to say in my answer to You I said in my previous large post. My attitude hasn't changed since then :).

But I must explain some things that You said about gen Francisco Franco Bahamonde, the general of last Crusade so far in Europe.

Mussolini and Hitler helped Franco because of great influence that russian soviets had in Spain those times. Both german national-socialists and italian fascists got involved in Spain, because they were afraid that republican and pro-communistic Spain would be russian soviet ally (which I guess would be just fine according to You or maybe not?)

Franco's Spain did not take part in War World II, as it was a civil war between modern ideologies born from enlightment, communism, anglo-saxon democracy and national socialism. Franco's Spain had transcendental political and social system, which didn't belong to modern times of mass genocide.

Franco did eliminate political parties and liberal democracy, because he thought that only the Creator can be the source of law, not humans, like it was in nazi, communistic and demo-liberal states.

[Skavau]

But I must explain some things that You said about gen Francisco Franco Bahamonde, the general of last Crusade so far in Europe.

Mussolini and Hitler helped Franco because of great influence that russian soviets had in Spain those times. Both german national-socialists and italian fascists got involved in Spain, because they were afraid that republican and pro-communistic Spain would be russian soviet ally (which I guess would be just fine according to You or maybe not?)

I have no idea what would've happened if the Republicans won the Civil War. I don't think Spain would've within Russian geographic distance to effectively set up a puppet Communist state. Nor do I think the strong religious traditions of that state would've allowed a communistic setup that harassed religion.

I suspect it would've reverted to secular democracy far more quickly than it did with Franco.

Franco's Spain did not take part in War World II, as it was a civil war between modern ideologies born from enlightment, communism, anglo-saxon democracy and national socialism. Franco's Spain had transcendental political and social system, which didn't belong to modern times of mass genocide.

World War II was an affair almost exclusively centering on Germany's aggression and expansion and previous failed attempts on how to deal with it. If Germany wasn't there, or if the NSDAP wasn't in power then almost certainly it would have been about dealing with the USSR instead - and that would've been a harder prospect to handle.

Franco did eliminate political parties and liberal democracy, because he thought that only the Creator can be the source of law, not humans, like it was in nazi, communistic and demo-liberal states.

Yes, perhaps like you Franco didn't care about humanity.

[JoshuaD]

Franco's Spain did not take part in War World II, as it was a civil war between modern ideologies born from enlightment, communism, anglo-saxon democracy and national socialism. Franco's Spain had transcendental political and social system, which didn't belong to modern times of mass genocide.

The only reason Spain didn't join the war was because Germany and Italy wouldn't accept his demands for doing so, he wanted food, military equipment and for Spain to take control of Gibraltar and the French North Africa. However they did help Nazi Germany, he created the Blue Division and allowed the German navy to use Spanish facilities.

I find it amazing that you can admire a military dictator who authorised murders and torture to maintain power, just because he was Catholic.

[Amadeus85]

The only reason Spain didn't join the war was because Germany and Italy wouldn't accept his demands for doing so, he wanted food, military equipment and for Spain to take control of Gibraltar and the French North Africa. However they did help Nazi Germany, he created the Blue Division and allowed the German navy to use Spanish facilities.

I find it amazing that you can admire a military dictator who authorised murders and torture to maintain power, just because he was Catholic.

Note - The Blue Division was made of volunteers, just like for example Legion Valonia from Belgium. It was not a division sent by spanish state. However, my attitude towards them is neutral. They wanted to fight against communists (not Russians), but on the other hand they did help the barbarian national socialistic Germany.

Try to read more about Spanish Civil War, read what the spanish left did before and during the war (killing of thousands of priests, raping and killing thousands of nuns, destroying hundreds years old churches) and why actually the war began (the murder of Calvo Sotelo by the republican militias). It was a war between a civilization and anti-civilization, between the supporters of God and personal enemis of God (read about La Passionaria). When You fight against devil, You can't act like little girl. Try to read something more than just wikipedia or books wrote by anglo-saxon authors, who always support the republican side.

[Santoku]

I'll agree with that. Islam is completely orthodox, I've noticed some groups have tried to to take away 'violent' verses and meanings away like they've done with christianity to make it compatible, all lovey dovey and pacifist.

The thing is those parts of islam are never gonna be taken away and I don't see why it matters because it will never effect anyone in europe.

So there have been Salman Rushie was never threatened with death? Murders have not been perpetrated or threatened to cause non-muslims fear?
Strange I recall many demonstrations where the threat "Death to those who insult Islam" was issued in all sincerity.

Tell me would a man who preached against Islam and called for the overthrow by whatever means of the State be supported by the state so that he can live very comfortable off the very people he wants to subjugate?

[سيف الله]

Salaam

I'll just give some general comments.

I’ll quote to two commentators on the prejudice directed towards Muslims in Euro-centric societies.

Shalom:

What are the significance and extent of Anti Arab racism?

Chomsky

In the United State, its really the last legitimate form of racism. You don’t have to try to cover it up. You may be racist towards other groups, but you have to pretend you aren’t. In the case of anti Arab racism there’s no pretence required. The things I mentioned before are a perfect example. Distinguished Harvard professors produce statements that regard as hideously racist if they were aimed at any other target – Jews: impossible; Blacks, Italians any of them, unacceptable – but if you say them about Arabs, its fine. Jack Shaheen is one scholar whos done a lot of research on images of Arabs in cinema. Its grotesque right up to the present day. There’s not even much to say about it; its open, its considered natural and normal that you should be an anti Arab racist. Nobody will use the term for it, but it’s the kind of attitude and discourse that we regard as hideously racists if it was directed at any other target. Its all over the place.

Achcar:

And anti Arab racism is probably the sharpest form of even something more general, Islamophobia

Chomsky

Well nobody makes that distinction – Arabs, Iranian, Islam its all the same thing

Achcar

Exactly try to put yourself in the shoes of a Muslim and monitor the mass media. Its appalling. You get the feeling of being assaulted permanently. I am not speaking of actual acts of racists aggression, the discrimination and all that. I am speaking just about the media. Edward Said touched upon that in Covering Islam. The situation has worsened a lot since that book was first published in 1981, and it reached a peak after 9/11. The sheer quantity of ant Islam insanities and racists categorisations being hurled by people who are in most cases totally ignorant is absolutely horrible. I cant measure the difference between Europe and United States but in any case, in Europe this Islamophobia is a huge and worrying phenomenon.

Perilous Power: The Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy: Dialogues on Terror, Democracy, War, and Justice


Right after 9/11 this is a sample of some of the views expressed

Silvio Berlusconi

We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilisation, which consist of value system that has given widespread prosperity in those country to embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect does not exist in the Islamic countries.

Sir John Keegan

Orientals, by contrast, shrink from pitched battle, which they often deride as a sort of game, preferring ambush, surprise, treachery and deceit as the best way to overcome an enemy. . . this war (in Afghanistan) belongs within the much larger spectrum of far older conflict between settled, creative productive Westerners and predatory, destructive Orientals.

Patricia Crone

Mohammads God endorsed a policy of conquest, instructing his believers to fight against unbelievers wherever they might be found. In short, Mohammed had to conquer, his followers liked to conquer, and his deity told him to conquer.

And so on and so forth. The secular intelligentsia is generally unfriendly to hostile towards Muslims and religious people in general. At one spectrum you have the Atheists (of the Dawkinite variety) who view religion as a ‘virus’ or ‘contagion’ of the mind and consider raising a child in a religious household as a form of ‘child abuse’. Since Religion is an ‘evil’ there can be no accommodation and it must be eradicated to ‘save’ mankind. They not only want to banish religion from the public space but would like to banish it from the private sphere as well.

At the more tolerant end there are secularists who are willing to accept the second best solution of confining religion to the private sphere as a matter of individual choice, a kind of pointless hobby. So they’d rather use soft methods to secularise the Muslim population by showing them how they ‘should’ behave.

Just two random examples the recent BBC Eastenders episode. Funny, but it does give you an idea of the ‘ideal’ type of Muslim from a Liberal perspective. (Moral of the story Non practicing Muslim = Good, Practicing Muslim = Bad). Or the recent programme on BBC 2 about Female Muslim drivers, reading the blurb it mentioned that one of them appearing was divorced (Why mention that?) I’m sure there are plenty of other examples.

You can conclude from this that in their eyes the only good Muslim is a non-Muslim.

On the British government side I think they have mixed views. They are definitely funding and supporting Muslim groups who suit their political interests. In fact it withdrew support from the MCB because of its unwillingness to submit to its dictates.

http://www.islamicboard.com/world-af...lim-group.html

In reference to the Gaza massacre again they play they play anti Antisemitism card. (The British government gave tacit support to Israel as they attacked Gaza).

However having said all this there’s plenty in Britain who are wary of marginalizing and trying to coerce Muslims into becoming more ‘British’. History if anything proves the inevitable dangers of it. Just look at the history of Ireland and the Catholic - Protestant divide. During the 19th C there was much Irish Catholic immigration to Britain and they suffered much prejudice from the populace due to their different customs and ways of life.

This lasted for decades and reached its peak during the 1920s and 1930s In Scotland, with the General Assembly in 1923 releasing a report entitled

"The Menace of the Irish Race to our Scottish Nationality", he said that it accused the Irish Roman Catholic population of being part of a papist conspiracy to subvert Presbyterian values and of being the principal cause of drunkenness, crime and financial imprudence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2014961.stm

In fact right up to the 1960s Irish Catholics had difficulties getting good jobs in Scotland. (Not to mention Northern Ireland). Cant remember the town but when one Irish person managed to get a job in a Bank the entire town took the day of to celebrate.



I think this is an interesting commentary on the parallels between prejudice directed towards Muslim and prejudice directed towards the Irish. The interesting insight for me is that reasons for the prejudice displayed is due to ongoing conflicts in the Middle East.

Anti-Irish racism in the late 20th century because there are so many parallels with the recent experience of the Muslim population. Racism occurs in a political context; in the case of the Irish in Britain it was the war in the North rather than IRA attacks on civilians (e.g. the Birmingham pub bombings) that gave it legs. The Prevention of Terrorism Act, pushed through after the bombings, had little effect on ‘terrorism’ but, by stigmatising the Irish population, effectively silenced criticism of British actions in Ireland.

To speak out was to be identified as a ‘terrorist sympathiser’. Long held notions of the primitive backwardness of Irish Catholicism were often invoked to explain the ‘fanaticism’ of Republicans and their supporters. A great deal of media time was spent examining the ways in which Catholic theology could be seen as justifying IRA actions – for example, the idea of a ‘just war’.

Demonisation of Republicans was common: media headlines often used the word ‘evil’ to describe both actions and the people who carried them out. Most venom was reserved for the small number of priests who were IRA supporters. Finally, and most importantly, the deeply held and particularly English view of the Irish as ‘thick Paddies’ came into its own in police or Special Branch-inspired media commentary on the methods, especially the mistakes, of IRA members.

Steve Garner, Racism in the Irish Experience, Pluto Press, 2004.

The situation with the Irish question is much better now especially in Scotland. However underneath the surface the old conflicts can rear its head

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExABpDCaepY

France has a history of unfriendliness to Muslims. This dates right back to the 19th Century. For example in the 19th century the only way you could become a French citizen (if you were a Muslim) was to renounce Islam. With Algeria they tried to make it become part of France. This goes on to the present day with the hysteria over Burkas and Veils (legislation targeting Muslims, Saorkozy reprimanding Obama for saying that Muslim women can wear what they like) and how Muslims in France aren’t ‘French’ enough.

Final comment

Restrictions like these simply do not exist in any European countries

On the restrictions part, you do get it, maybe not formally but informally. In the suburb live planning permission was refused for Mosque due to hostile reaction from residents. We did years later manage to get it up and running but its an 'Islamic Centre' not a Mosque. We keep a low profile so as not to upset the locals. And I’m sure this experience is replicated elsewhere and to many other areas of life as well.

to conclude from my experience in Britain, it may not be the most friendly place but it is one of the most tolerant countries. Compared to other European countries probably the best place to be if you are a Muslim.