Islamic doctrine of "Hijra" - immigration as a weapon for islamic expansionism?

That's a very good point (which is basically also made by those who quoted ridiculous passages from the bible, like showtang043, thanks for your sincere post, as always), and I accept that point. So basically, most religious texts are somewhat open to interpretation and can be hijacked. And conversely, a religion can be badmouthed (as everyone in this thread seems to suggest, rightly or wrongly) by only pointing at the hijackers of the religion and suggesting that the whole religion is like that (which is what people accuse me of doing and which maybe the writers of the book/article I quoted are or are not doing, depending on the viewpoint).

So it seems to be the consensus among the usual suspects on this thread (the alliance between leftists and outspoken muslims who react angrily to any questioning of islam) that what is described in the article only exists in the authors' heads, they are making it up, and I am quoting it because I am a bigot and hate islam. That makes it easy - one does not have to discuss if there is some validity to it on the merits.

Better to shout down the person that posted the article than actually discussing and refuting its content, which really hardly anybody has done .

I never said that I agreed with the whole article. Actually, I would not have posted the article at all if I had not personally felt that there has been a radicalization among muslims in Europe, which seemed to mirror what the article describes - I remember that the few turkish kids in the small town I grew up in were fully integrated and seemed to "blend in", whereas nowadays it seems like you see more and more visible changes, starting with the dress code, and a much stronger segregation from the rest of the society than there used to be 20 years ago.

The article might allegedly be wrong in analyzing the cause of this, and certainly in making it seem like it is a worldwide conspiracy by all muslim immigrants, but I believe that even Mathloom agreed with the observation that a radicalization has taken place over the last 20 years (maybe the analysis of what caused this is different).

So I am disappointed that nobody really addresses the points of the article (even in a critical way) at all. Mathloom, would you really consider it so far-fetched to say that while the article might be wrong about and unfair to Islam as a whole, it might actually accurately describe the agenda of, e.g. wahhabists? Previous posts of yours seemed to indicate that you would see them in a similar light as the article describes it.

 

No, that is not true - I do think that it is obvious nonsense to paint with a broad brush and come up with a ridiculous theory that all muslim immigrants are part of a worldwide conspiracy to be sent as trojan horses to western countries and to then subjugate the population there step by step. However, I would not immediately say that the thought is far-fetched that it might be the agenda of wahhabists to instrumentalize muslim immigrants for that purpose, and to try to radicalize them into their way of thinking. That is a difference. Is that not understandable?

I respect your opinion. I am not sure I agree or disagree, but I do not understand the need by some to immediately shout down any discussion of it in a more (e.g. TooSmall, Herrera) or less (e.g. you, showtang) hostile way. You speak of a paranoid agenda. You have probably heard of the saying "only the paranoid survive" ).

 

Not that I would defend former years in Germany's history (before 1945), but I believe your criticism is unfair and unfounded when it comes to recent decades. E.g., more than 5 % of the German population are Muslim, whereas estimates for the US range between less than 1 % to about 2 % of the population.

 

That is very interesting. Not that I would compare myself in any way to them (obviously!), but the "one particular messenger is constantly getting attacked by a wide variety of people" certainly applied (during their lifetime) to "prophets" nowadays adored by members of the biggest religions, as well as to civil rights activists. Again, not comparing myself in any way to them, but this already shows how devoid of any substance your statement above is.

 

I wasn't really referring to your posts on this thread, neither did I say that I am offended (if I was that sensitive, it would certainly be easier not to start threads here - I can stand the heat when I am the one who caused it in the kitchen), I was more referring to your overall attitude in these kinds of threads - adding next to no substance (as much as I might butt heads with Mathloom, he, in contrast to you, provides a thoughtful perspective that is at least interesting to me to read, and posters like e.g. showtang make a sincere argument - you, on the other hand, just spew nonsensical crap).

 

Quod erat demonstrandum. No substance.

 

Anyone could take stuff like that from a phrasebook. I did study Latin in high school for 6 years and was really good at it, but it has been a while. Still, feel free to ask me if you need a bit of an education.

 

What substance? That would be a first...well, almost.

But I am not really interested in continuing this dialogue with you, do you have any comments on the substance of the article I posted?

 

True - as I wrote above in response to Ottomaton's post, I agree with that point.

Still, while it is wrong to demonize or generalize about the whole religion and its followers (see, I can accept valid points and am willing to learn), the description/criticism can be valid about the radical elements of a religion, no? And then the next question is how much influence these radical elements have over the initially and originally peaceful members of that religion.

And I guess then it is a valid discussion how to work on preventing a radicalization - I guess what many here say is that politicians like Wilders (and, on a much much smaller scale, people like me) who focus on the radical elements and make it seem like they define the religion actually turn this into a self-fulfilling prophecy - as the initially moderate and peaceful members of the religion feel unfairly excluded from society and unfairly attacked, they themselves turn to those who welcome them with open arms - the more radical members of their religion who can then say "I told you so, why do you want to befriend those who demonize you" - sort of a vicious circle.

That is also why - to answer your question, glynch - I only controversially discuss this topic here and not in "real life" - while I feel that people like Wilders and yes (gasp, Mathloom), Sarrazin, are right with some of their observations, I am not sure that highlighting them in the political sphere actually helps fixing them. On the other hand, I also do not think that shouting down any discussion of them when many people in society (as it is in Europe) feel that there are real concerns is the right way to deal with them. I am actually unsure what the best approach is, but I think there are some legitimate concerns. But that is why I like discussing these issues here - I test my own opinion on these issues by discussing them controversially, and learn in the process. How that is an "act of hatred, intolerance, bigotry, and most prevalent, Ignorance" - you tell me, across110thstreet (by the way, love that song).