oblivion wrote:I believe that atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, are fooling themselves. The spread of Islam throughout the world is being aggressively pursued.
And Christian fundamentalism is not???? As to fundie integration being better than Muslim integration: here in Germany, Muslims send their children to German schools. The (admitted,relatively few) fundies we have here insist on wanting to teach their children at home so as not to "pollute" them (home-schooling is not legal in Germany unless there are reasons of health). The "Green" political party has a head member who is a Turkish Muslim--there has however been no attempt by him or his fellow members to change German school books in favor of Muslim beliefs (see Texas). And among the Muslim communities here, I see no tendency to walk up to a person and claim that their religion is right and others (or lack of such) is wrong. I am also unaware of Muslims teaching their children here that the Earth is only 6000 years old (supposedly created 1000 years after the Sumerians invented glue....Sam Harris).
I am not naive. I realise their are fanatics everywere, especially under the guise of religion, but...
I know of no religion on this planet that is pursued as aggressively--in every sense of the word--as Christianity, especially fundamentalism.
I am surprised that you are not aware of the controversy. Regardless of where you are from, most European countries are being pressured on this subject. With a quick google search I came up with these stories related to Germany.
Everything from here on are quotes from internet sources.
Sharia Europe
Sharia law entered Europe after WWII when the weakened European nations retracted from their colonies, bringing to Europe their former colonial subjects as both refugees and cheap labor from such Muslim nations as Pakistan (UK), Turkey (Germany) and Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia (France).
Initially, Sharia law was applied discretely within the small Muslim communities of Europe. But after two generations of high birth rate and immigration, those communities have grown to where the Sharia law now challenges the Judeo-Christian foundations of their host European nations.
In Germany, for example, Muslim men have successfully used the Sharia law in court to defend their right to beat their wives and to practice polygamy.
In United Kingdom, where Islamic imams now outnumber Christian pastors and converting empty church buildings into mosques has become a cottage industry, the Archbishop of Canterbury - the leader of the Church of England - recently stated that adopting elements of the Sharia law into the English judicial system was “unavoidable”.
In France, home to an estimated 14 million Muslims, including 9 million illegal immigrants, the government no longer controls the banlieus, the densely-populated, predominantly Muslim ghettos that encircle most major French cities.
It is still legal in France to distribute Bibles and tracts but doing so in the banlieus, where the French police seldom enter, invites mob violence, and even the legality is expected to end by 2040 when France is projected to become a majority-Muslim nation (The Netherlands will become Western Europe's first majority-Muslim nation by 2015). Sharia is also gaining in North America.
http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia-europe.html
ISLAMIC GROUPS WANT SHARIA LAW IN GERMANY
http://www.realclearreligion.com/index_ ... e-585.html
German judge tries to introduce sharia law into her court
Last week, the German mass-circulation newspaper Bild asked in a front-page headline: “Where are we living?” The question was prompted by the ruling of a judge in a German court who cited the Koran in her rejection of a Muslim woman’s request for a quick divorce on grounds she was abused by her husband.
Judge Christa Datz-Winter said in a recommendation earlier this year that both partners came from a “Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife,” according to the court. The woman is a German of Moroccan descent married to a Moroccan citizen.
The judge argued that her case was not one of exceptional hardship in which fast-track divorce proceedings would be justified. When the woman protested, Datz-Winter cited a passage from the Quran to back up her argument that reads in part, “men are in charge of women.” The judge was removed from the case and the Frankfurt administrative court said it was considering disciplinary measures against her. Court vice president Bernhard Olp said Thursday the judge “regrets that the impression arose that she approves of violence in marriage.”
Lawmakers from Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats said traditional Islamic law, or Sharia, had no place in Germany. “The legal and moral concepts of Sharia have nothing to do with German jurisprudence,” Wolfgang Bosbach, a lawmaker with the Christian Democrats, told N24 television. “One thing must be clear: In Germany, only German law applies. Period.”
Germany’s Central Council of Muslims said in a statement: “Violence and abuse of people whether against men or women are, of course, naturally reasons to warrant a divorce in Islam as well.”
http://www.secularism.org.uk/germanjudg ... shari.html
Debate in Germany: "Are Sharia Laws and Human Rights Compatible?"
A Muslim woman, Heba Raouf Ezzat, defends Sharia at the German site Qantara.de, with thanks to Ali Dashti, who notes: "The Arabic word 'qantara' means 'bridge.' The Internet portal Qantara.de represents the concerted effort of the Federal Center for Political Education, Deutsche Welle, the Goethe Institut and the Institute for Foreign Relations to promote dialogue with the Islamic world. The project is funded by the German Foreign Office."
The Sharia law is not only compatible with human rights but also the most effective way to achieve human rights. Human rights violations in Muslim countries - whose regimes are usually supported by Western allies - are not due to Sharia law.
The violence in Islamic countries is mainly exercised by the state and dates back to the post-colonial era. There was an attempt to secularize the different laws of the Islamic societies and to remove Sharia. The legal systems of the late French and British colonial powers were seen as a model for the judicial reformation and as a basis for modernising the state.
However, these new secular and socialist regimes were totalitarian. They manipulated the up to then independent traditional religious institutions and appointed the heads of religious bodies and universities. Islam, when reduced to a penal code, was used to violate human rights.
Modern Islamic intellectuals were influenced by this. In their eyes the state was the means by which society and religion were being reshaped. In order to achieve an Islamic renaissance - and that is why Sharia has become the marker of the Muslim state – they tried to get their hands on the state.
It's interesting in this connection that just yesterday I posted Azzam Tamimi's criticism of Khaled Abou El Fadl, which centered on El Fadl's willingness to reinterpret Sharia law:
He gives an example how Shari'ah may be re-interpreted so as to conform to the values he believes to be absolute and universal. For example, El Fadl would like to abrogate the Qur'anic rule (Al-Ma'idah, 5:38) concerning the penalty for theft El Fadl, because he thinks it is inhumane and unjust even if his view is contrary to the understanding and practice of the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, himself and of his Companions and the scholars of Islam through the ages.
Does Heba Raouf Ezzat think that the amputation of hands for theft is compatible with human rights? Stoning for adultery? Death for apostasy? These are not the results of secularism or Westernization. These are pure Sharia. Would she deny that, or deny that they are incompatible with human rights? Either way, do her words then have any value at all?
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2005/01/debat ... tible.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 29,00.html
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/187053.php
http://tribes.tribe.net/58e5076b-0672-4 ... 3cb42a6dd2
