Hasidic Jew has over 2000 descendants at her death

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Advocating, is that the same as getting?

The fact that they were brazen enough to advocate it at all is more than bad enough.

Uhhh...I said that, not you.

Again, they only get jurisdiction if all parties agree to it.

Who's to say that a woman or man might not be forced to comply with the ruling of a Sharia court by their ultra-traditional family?

Even your own article admits that the experiences recounted at that one particular court are hardly representative of the whole community.

But not all councils are as committed to liberal interpretations of sharia. Estimates of the number of mosques across the country range from 1,000 to 2,000. They serve a hugely diverse Muslim community - at 1.6 million people, Muslims are the largest religious minority in Britain. Each mosque has its own imams, some of whom are scholars like Sayeed, while others are simply devout Muslims fulfilling a need for religious guidance in their communities. The Islamic Sharia Council is one of the oldest and most respected, but it admits that there is no single body that can claim to be fully representative of all British Muslims.

Neither is there any regulation of imams, or any benchmark for the quality of advice that they give. Abdul Jalil Sajid, former secretary of the mosque and community affairs committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, estimates that 35% of imams are unqualified. No one knows how many of them are operating in sharia councils, applying their own interpretations of Islamic law.

According to Cassandra Balchin, of Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), too many of them promote a highly conservative interpretation of sharia that overemphasises the rights of the husband. "They don't seem to recognise the multiple forms of divorce that are available to women," she says. "There are usually no women involved, whereas in a lot of Muslim countries you can have women judges involved in family courts."

There is also the fact that you never disproved cases such as this.

that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.

You simply tried to poison the well against the source, and left it at that.

A beth din is required or preferred for the following matters:

-Validation of religious bills of divorce (get, pl. gittin).
-Kosher certification of restaurants and food manufacturers (Hechsher).
-Examination of shochetim and the control of the shechita inspectors
-Conversions to Judaism with at least one member of the court being a rabbi who is an expert on the laws of conversion.
-Supervising the building and maintenance of a mikvah.
-Determination of "personal status" (i.e. whether someone is a Jew according to halakha).
-The authorization and supervision of mohelim.
-Questions relating to burial practices and mourning.

They have the same legal standing as private arbiters, which is to say none unless the parties agree to it. I'm sure most if not all other religions have similar institutions. Are you done bringing up the specter of evil Muslim pseudo-courts yet?

Which is all well and good. However, you have yet to prove that Sharia courts are not used to make rulings on matters of child custody, and other such issues.

This would seriously overstep the boundaries of anything which this Jewish court you mention would be able to do.

Feeling threatened and being threatened are very different here in the real world.

Once again, the Madrid and London bombings and the various race riots that have occured across Europe would seem to be rather "threatening" to me.

Oh, and do Muslims actually have REAL political power unlike in Europe? Which might allow them fuck over the Marionites more effectively?

Give it a century. While Lebanon is an admittedly rather unique case, the simple fact of the matter remains that ethnic tensions, mass immigration, and former ethnic majorities in danger of losing their status don't exactly make for the most stable political environment.

We've already seen tensions boil over in France, Germany, Britain, and the Netherlands. If current trends continue, who knows how things might develop within the course of the next 20 or 30 years.

but profiling innocents who associate with them is a sure way to get more criminals.

What "innocents" are you referring to here? It would seem to me that several thousand (Hell! Possibly even tens or hundreds of thousands) of (mostly Muslim) alienated youths took to the streets and just started torching everything in sight.

EDIT: Not that I necessarily blame them given their circumstances.

How many such little scraps do you think it would take to kick off French revolution part deux, particularly after the Muslims have had a few decades to reinforce their numbers there and the natives have had all of those years to become progressively more and more uneasy and angry about it?

How does my wearing an orange shirt affect your life?

Do you even know what that means? Laissez-faire would mean less regulation you twit. Just because the phrase is French doesn't mean it implies greater government control.

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

I stated that I didn't care if you wore an orange shirt or a hijab, and that it'd be a cold day in Hell before the Euros ever deregulate (all those snotty little wage slaves in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Spain have become fat and spoiled on all of the rampant state protectionism surrounding their mediocre jobs apparently).

Ya gotta listen mang!

Oh good. Another one who thinks the status quo is wrong but doesn't have any fucking clue how to improve it. Line forms around the block.

I'm all ears for any suggestions you might offer.

You refuse to even acknowledge the immigrant's perspective.

No, you simply seem to be taking a "fuck the West, they deserve it" attitude about the whole thing. I have nothing against the Muslims. However, that doesn't mean that I'd simply let them take over if it were up to me to stop it.

But that part of the world has really secure borders right? It's not really easy to sneak across from there into say Russia and then into Europe, is it?

Dude, if they're willing to go that far out of their way simply to get into Western Europe, then they frankly DESERVE to get in.

Why not just make that the citizenship test?

I didn't say it was right, but your nightmare scenario has these Muslims coming over here and taking over the country. Which if they can't vote or hold elected office does seem to throw a wet blanket on their plans.

Frankly, this is one of the best arguments for why immigration should be more heavily regulated. The Euros apparently have absolutely no fucking clue how to even begin to deal with all of these immigrants, and as a consequnce, ethnic tensions are skyrocketing.

Why not take things more slowly?

[eion]

Again, they only get jurisdiction if all parties agree to it.

Who's to say that a woman or man might not be forced to comply with the ruling of a Sharia court by their ultra-traditional family?

Even your own article admits that the experiences recounted at that one particular court are hardly representative of the whole community.

But not all councils are as committed to liberal interpretations of sharia. Estimates of the number of mosques across the country range from 1,000 to 2,000. They serve a hugely diverse Muslim community - at 1.6 million people, Muslims are the largest religious minority in Britain. Each mosque has its own imams, some of whom are scholars like Sayeed, while others are simply devout Muslims fulfilling a need for religious guidance in their communities. The Islamic Sharia Council is one of the oldest and most respected, but it admits that there is no single body that can claim to be fully representative of all British Muslims.

Neither is there any regulation of imams, or any benchmark for the quality of advice that they give. Abdul Jalil Sajid, former secretary of the mosque and community affairs committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, estimates that 35% of imams are unqualified. No one knows how many of them are operating in sharia councils, applying their own interpretations of Islamic law.

According to Cassandra Balchin, of Women Living Under Muslim Laws (WLUML), too many of them promote a highly conservative interpretation of sharia that overemphasises the rights of the husband. "They don't seem to recognise the multiple forms of divorce that are available to women," she says. "There are usually no women involved, whereas in a lot of Muslim countries you can have women judges involved in family courts."

There is also the fact that you never disproved cases such as this.

that no Muslim woman may marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam and that any children of a woman who does should be taken from her until she marries a Muslim.

You simply tried to poison the well against the source, and left it at that..

Well unless "should be" has been redefined as "are" I don't really see how the pronouncements of a private mediation board can be applied to non-participants. I couldn't get married to an orthodox Jew unless I converted, at least if we wanted to get married in a temple by an orthodox rabbi. But there's no law stopping the two of us from going to the courthouse and getting hitched.
Again, for the hard of hearing:

THE SHARIA COURTS YOUR SOURCE LISTS ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THEM BY THEIR PARTICIPANTS. NO CHILDREN ARE BEING STOLEN AWAY FROM HOMES AGAINST THEIR PARENT'S WILL, you dumb fuck.

Feeling threatened and being threatened are very different here in the real world.

Once again, the Madrid and London bombings and the various race riots that have occured across Europe would seem to be rather "threatening" to me.

Yes, bombings bad. Riots bad. Does Europe still have courts and police officers? Or is our only refuge from crime to outlaw private religious schools and private arbitration?

We've already seen tensions boil over in France, Germany, Britain, and the Netherlands. If current trends continue, who knows how things might develop within the course of the next 20 or 30 years.

Why am I getting an image of Disco Stu trying to sell me a franchise? Current Trends rarely continue. Stock Markets crash, tensions ease, wars are averted.

but profiling innocents who associate with them is a sure way to get more criminals.

What "innocents" are you referring to here? It would seem to me that several thousand (Hell! Possibly even tens or hundreds of thousands) of (mostly Muslim) alienated youths took to the streets and just started torching everything in sight.

There are 16 million Muslims in the European Union at last count. Some of them have to be innocent.

How many such little scraps do you think it would take to kick off French revolution part deux, particularly after the Muslims have had a few decades to reinforce their numbers there and the natives have had all of those years to become progressively more and more uneasy and angry about it?

a while. These people have no formal political power. They can riot all they want, but they can't vote.

...all those snotty little wage slaves in France, Italy, Germany, Austria, and Spain have become fat and spoiled on all of the rampant state protectionism surrounding their mediocre jobs apparently

You clearly want what's best for the French, Italian, German, Austrian, and Spanish working class. Do you have a newsletter I can subscribe to and throw in the trash?
How can someone be poor and spoiled? Germany by the way has the fourth largest economy in the world, but clearly you know better.

Oh good. Another one who thinks the status quo is wrong but doesn't have any fucking clue how to improve it. Line forms around the block.

I'm all ears for any suggestions you might offer.

Clearly not because I've been repeating one suggestion you keeping ignoring: organic assimilation. The next generation will always be more assimilated than the last. Giving them a path to citizenship EU wide would absolutely speed that along. Let them have their Chinatown for now, later they'll want to move to the suburbs.

You refuse to even acknowledge the immigrant's perspective.

No, you simply seem to be taking a "fuck the West, they deserve it" attitude about the whole thing. I have nothing against the Muslims. However, that doesn't mean that I'd simply let them take over if it were up to me to stop it.

Europe spent the years between World War I & II screwing over the Middle East as much as possible. They made their own bed, and if the worst that happens is a few more brown faces on the streets and a Lebanese take-out on every corner they've gotten off very lucky. North America has been the destination for immigrants for the past 200+ years, and we are all the stronger for it. Europe could stand to be a little less white.

Say it with me, Immigration is only evil if you make immigrants evil.

Dude, if they're willing to go that far out of their way simply to get into Western Europe, then they frankly DESERVE to get in.

Why not just make that the citizenship test?

German Citizenship Test: Are you German (y/n)?

I didn't say it was right, but your nightmare scenario has these Muslims coming over here and taking over the country. Which if they can't vote or hold elected office does seem to throw a wet blanket on their plans.

Frankly, this is one of the best arguments for why immigration should be more heavily regulated. The Euros apparently have absolutely no fucking clue how to even begin to deal with all of these immigrants, and as a consequnce, ethnic tensions are skyrocketing.

If Europe is incapable of regulating itself, who is going to ride in and save them?

[Hillary]

I have yet to meet anyone who holds both these viewpoints.

I was actually referring more to individuals like Christopher Hitchens, who are, for all intents and purposes, Left Wingers that support "free expression," "cultural relativism," and population control, but just plain hate themselves the fuck out of Muslims in Europe (largely for ideological reasons).

People of his ilk are a rather contradictory minority I will admit, but they do exist.

The simple fact of the matter is that if you are going to tacitly consent to A), you've really got no business bitching about its consequences, or B). Its like championing Democracy and then getting all bent out of shape because your canidate lost.

Hitchens is pretty damning of all three Abrahamic religions, not just Islam. You appear to be confusing criticism of Islamic extremists with complete Islamophobia. It is possible to oppose Muslim fundies without being opposed to Muslims in general.

Your use of the term "assimilating" (hint, foreigners are not the fucking Borg) suggests you may number amongst that particular group of fucknuggets.

Call me ethnocentric, but I happen to believe that my culture is worth preserving.

That's not to say that I'm against immigration or cultural diffusion. However, I'd be lying if I said that l didn't find the find of Western culture in Europe being completely swallowed by Isalm to be somewhat distressing.

What is your culture? I live in London, where people have been complaining about immigrants since the Romans invaded. Funnily enough, it appears to have survived and thrived over the years. Its identity has, no doubt, changed significantly over this period and will certainly have been influenced by the arrival of new people with different cultures.

As has been said elsewhere in this thread, immigrants tend to become more integrated with successive generations. They bring their own culture with them and we usually end up with more enhanced lives as a result.

The argument that preserving culture is paramount completely ignores the fact that culture is an ever-evolving beast. What would have been thought of as the British culture 100 years ago is very different to what it is now.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Well unless "should be" has been redefined as "are" I don't really see how the pronouncements of a private mediation board can be applied to non-participants.

THE SHARIA COURTS YOUR SOURCE LISTS ONLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO THEM BY THEIR PARTICIPANTS. NO CHILDREN ARE BEING STOLEN AWAY FROM HOMES AGAINST THEIR PARENT'S WILL, you dumb fuck.

I'm only going to explain this to you one more time Eion. What is to stop the ultra-traditional Patriarch of some Muslim family from forcing his daughter to attend one of these courts, and the ultra-traditional Imam in charge of it from not giving a damn and laying some completely ludicrous fundy pronouncement anyway?

We already know that honor killings are hardly uheard of among the Muslim community in the UK (so don't even pretent like the ultra-traditional patriarchs I described don't exist), and the article you cited basically admits to the fact that there are probably more fundy Sharia courts out there than there are Liberal ones, and that women can often be "shamed" by their community into seeking a sharia judgement.

Seriously pal, put one and one together here. The system represents abuse just waiting to happen.

Yes, bombings bad. Riots bad. Does Europe still have courts and police officers?

And if 20% of Europe's population (which is what at least one study has predicted the Muslim population in Europe will be by 2050 http://www.cfr.org/publication/8252/europe.html) happens to made up of said disillusioned and radicalism vulnerable Muslims, how many police officers do you think it would take to quell the unrest they might cause?

Why am I getting an image of Disco Stu trying to sell me a franchise? Current Trends rarely continue.

Show evidence. Don't blindly assert. The simple fact of the matter is that these are clearly observable trends taking place in contemporary Europe, which quite a few sociologists predict will continue well into the remaining parts of this century.

To put it bluntly, "something's gotta give" on either one side or the other or things are simply going to continue to deteriorate. Ignoring the problem and pretending like nothing's wrong is a surefire recipe for disaster.

There are 16 million Muslims in the European Union at last count. Some of them have to be innocent.

Did I ever say that every Muslim in the EU was guilty? However, surely you would agree that hundreds of thousands of Muslim youths rioting over multiple countries demonstrates a rather disturbing trend?

These people have no formal political power.

Who in the Hell ever said that one needs formal political power to stage a revolution? In my studies, it would generally seem to be precisely those who are disenfranchised who desire such social upheavals the most strongly.

This isn't to say that I'm insinuating that there is going to be any kind of Muslim revolution in Europe. However, the fact of the matter remains that you are playing with matches with a rather brazen "what's the worst that could happen" attitude. Frankly, you might be surprised at how quickly things can tend to ignite.

Besides, how long do you think the French are going to be able to get away with holding such strict citizenship laws while their immigrant population skyrockets?

How can someone be poor and spoiled? Germany by the way has the fourth largest economy in the world, but clearly you know better.

I said that they were "fat" and "spoiled," not "poor." In any case, I believe that Europe's slow growth economies and high unemployment (which as has already been mentioned, tends to primarily fuck over the hordes of Muslim immigrants flooding into the EU every year) kind of speaks for itself.

Clearly not because I've been repeating one suggestion you keeping ignoring: organic assimilation.

In other words, the "lets shove our fingers in our ears, hum really, really loudly, and pretend like absolutely NOTHING is wrong" option.

North America has been the destination for immigrants for the past 200+ years, and we are all the stronger for it. Europe could stand to be a little less white.

Europe is not the US. As your own sources on citizenship in EU nations, and mine concerning the rampant unemployment among immigrants point out, Europe apparently isn't geared either economically, socially, or politcially to recieve millions of immigrants.

The fact that the native European population happens to be in rapid decline, and that said immigrants have an observable habit of dragging Islamic extremism along with them is only icing on the shit-storm cake.

If Europe is incapable of regulating itself, who is going to ride in and save them?

They are, and no one else. Regulation is a Hell of a lot more rational than the "que syrah, syrah" attitude you are currently pilfering.

I live in London, where people have been complaining about immigrants since the Romans invaded. Funnily enough, it appears to have survived and thrived over the years.

The celtic peoples of Britain who were forced into isolated holdouts like Ireland, Scotland, and Wales only to be assfucked by successive waves of Roman, Saxon, and Norman settlers would prbably disagree with you.

Life goes on. However, there is no guarentee that it will be pleasant for your particular group if you don't take at least some measures to look out for your own self interests.

[Simon_Jester]

I DO respect this ladies apparent ability to remember names and dates. SHe was also apparently still very active when she died despite her age

Mental exercise will do that for you, and keeping that baobob tree of a family straight would involve a lot of mental exercise.

Nitpick: The jury is currently out Mary Tudor. She is now in the process of being reassessed and rehabilitated by a number of scholars. It is now understood that "Bloody Mary" was not at all an accurate epitaph and that our understanding of Mary Tudor is corrupted by centuries of Protestant propaganda. See Eamon Duffy's work especially (http://www.yalebooks.co.uk/yale/display ... 0300152166).

Replace Mary Tudor with Philip II of Spain, maybe?
__________

Maybe, and maybe not. Who knows? It is quite possible that this tidal wave of current immigration will stir up enough reactionary sentiment that the Europeans will reverse current trends.

...Or that the immigrants will assimilate, or that the status quo will proceed more or less unchanged (Muslim minority in no way overriding the prevailing local culture). Remember that you're talking about Muslim populations that are minorities on the order of 10%.

You could equally well argue that everyone in the US will be "forced to learn Spanish!" by 2100 because "The Hispanics are outbreeding us white people!!" And frankly, I'm not sure I should consider your argument any more credible or respectable than I would that argument.

When two cultures compete, it tends to become something of an issue of "survival of the fittest." It remains to be seen which side wants to win this particular clash more.

Citation requested. Among other things, most of the success the Muslim minority has had in imposing their model of how law and social systems should work has been internal. There's a huge difference between the 10-20% Muslim minority being able to get members of their own group to stay barefoot, pregnant, and be-burqaed, and their ability to impose that on outsiders.

Actually, I meant the term in more of a societal context. The West appears to be of two completely different minds about the issue.

For me, the problem is that I remember the same thing being said before: people in the US were talking this way about the Irish and Italian Catholics back in the 1800s and early 1900s. It was asinine then, and I'm not at all satisfied that it isn't now.

And their own government funded fundamentalist Muslim schools?

I don't believe so, but they are definitely pushing for it. The scary part is that some people are actually taking them seriously.

Who's "they?" How large a fraction of the Muslim population, or the general population, is "they?" If 1% of people in Britain are Muslim fundies calling for the establishment of government-funded madrassas to teach children to be Muslim fundies... how is that more of a problem than 1% of people in Britain being reactionary Christian fundies who think all problems with the country would be resolved if they'd just go back to beating children in schools again?

And I'd bet good money on at least 1% of (old, crazy) British people believing that.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Remember that you're talking about Muslim populations that are minorities on the order of 10%.

Which is expected by some to double by 2050. If it gets to the point where 20-25% of Europe's population is made up of Muslims, with a good 30%+ of the populations of countries like France, Germany, and the UK being Muslim in basis, while the native population continues to be decline (which isn't even counting the other immigrant populations coming into Europe), we could see some legitimate social and cultural change.

You could equally well argue that everyone in the US will be "forced to learn Spanish!" by 2100 because "The Hispanics are outbreeding us white people!!" And frankly, I'm not sure I should consider your argument any more credible or respectable than I would that argument.

Once again, however; we are faced with the unfortunate reality that Europe isn't the US. In most European nations, it is an absolute bitch to recieve citizenship, and immigrants are therefore disenfranchised. Additionally, the inflexibility of the European economic model has taken a rather heavy toll on employment in immigrant communities.

This has resulted in a lot of unrest, disillusionment, and ethnic tension within immigrant Muslim communities in the EU, which often drives their members into reactionary religious and cultural isolationism and even fundamentalism. The danger here lies in the fact that Muslim fundamentalism, at least in its current form, tends to be quite a bit more dangerous and aggressive than the Christian variety.

Among other things, most of the success the Muslim minority has had in imposing their model of how law and social systems should work has been internal. There's a huge difference between the 10-20% Muslim minority being able to get members of their own group to stay barefoot, pregnant, and be-burqaed, and their ability to impose that on outsiders.

If 20-30% of a given nation's population comes to be represented by an ethnic group which has a habit of endorsing such views, it might not even matter whether they actively "impose" their views on anyone else or not.

They will have effectively hijacked a signifant portion of that nation's culture.

Who's "they?" How large a fraction of the Muslim population, or the general population, is "they?" If 1% of people in Britain are Muslim fundies calling for the establishment of government-funded madrassas to teach children to be Muslim fundies

As I have told Eious, I have absolutely no idea what exact "percentage" of Muslims represent such views. I'm not even sure if anyone has done research into the matter.

However, the fact of the matter remains that most sociologists I've read seem to agree that fundamentalism and religious conservativism among Muslim Europeans isn't some minority trend. It seems to be rather wide spread.

[Simon_Jester]

Remember that you're talking about Muslim populations that are minorities on the order of 10%.

Which is expected by some to double by 2050. If it gets to the point where 20-25% of Europe's population is made up of Muslims, with a good 30%+ of the populations of countries like France, Germany, and the UK being Muslim in basis, while the native population continues to be decline (which isn't even counting the other immigrant populations coming into Europe), we could see some legitimate social and cultural change.

On the order of, the nice man with the silly name said.

20% minorities, even 30% minorities, don't reliably get to set the legal system of the area they live in. Often, they don't even have enough push to get blatantly discriminatory laws repealed, let alone change the system in their favor.

Moreover, your entire argument revolves around the argument that over the next forty years, those Muslim communities will NOT start assimilating, despite the presumably superior cultural and legal-custom system they'd be assimilating to. I'm skeptical; I like to think that democracies with civil rights have a good enough system that people offered a chance to join will tend to want to. Not all of them, of course, but enough to seriously blunt the 'threat' of an unassimilated minority growing so large that it gets to rewrite the national constitution.
_______

Once again, however; we are faced with the unfortunate reality that Europe isn't the US. In most European nations, it is an absolute bitch to recieve citizenship, and immigrants are therefore disenfranchised. Additionally, the inflexibility of the European economic model has taken a rather heavy toll on employment in immigrant communities.

That's a problem worth looking at, but it's also a problem that can be attacked from both sides of the line. European citizenship laws evolved in an era of minimal immigration, when most foreigners in a European country were from other European countries that they'd probably want to go back to some day. They can change over time to favor assimilation just as the demographic trends can change over time.
_________

If 20-30% of a given nation's population comes to be represented by an ethnic group which has a habit of endorsing such views, it might not even matter whether they actively "impose" their views on anyone else or not.

They will have effectively hijacked a signifant portion of that nation's culture.

Which is about the state the US finds itself in. Not good... but on the other hand, we're a hell of a long way from the Christian equivalent of extreme sharia law. Remember, if those immigrant populations don't have the vote, they can't change the laws. There's no way in hell that politicians who have to respond to actual voters will impose objectionable laws on those voters at the behest of nonvoters.

As I have told Eious, I have absolutely no idea what exact "percentage" of Muslims represent such views. I'm not even sure if anyone has done research into the matter.

However, the fact of the matter remains that most sociologists I've read seem to agree that fundamentalism and religious conservativism among Muslim Europeans isn't some minority trend. It seems to be rather wide spread.

OK, but think about the demographics. If 10% of the people in Country X are Muslims, the odds are that less than 10% of the people in Country X are agitating for fundamentalist Muslim schools. Even if "religion conservatism" is widespread, you'll see:
-Second and third generation immigrants who would honestly rather live under the local legal regime, even if their parents don't like it;
-Immigrants of all generations who didn't like sharia even back home, and may have immigrated in part to get away from it;
-Immigrants who love sharia to pieces, but have a different take on it than the one advocated by the main fundamentalist groups.

We could very easily be talking about 1%, 2%, or 5% here. That's not a real threat.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

20% minorities, even 30% minorities, don't reliably get to set the legal system of the area they live in. Often, they don't even have enough push to get blatantly discriminatory laws repealed, let alone change the system in their favor.

While it probably wouldn't be too much of a stretch to say that some from of "islamization" of European cultural and political norms could make itself visible over the course of the next century, I'm not trying to argue that France is going to turn into Iran at any point in the forseeable future.

What I'm more worried about is some repeat of the civil rights crisis that we experienced in the US during the 1960s. We've already seen extensive race riots in Europe. Its not hard to imagine the escalation of the ethnic tensions which caused these riots gradually turning Europe into a powder keg just waiting to explode. Extremist politcial sentiments thrive in such environments.

The very last thing we need is some Al Qaeda-esque radical Islamic version of the Balck Panther Party.

Moreover, your entire argument revolves around the argument that over the next forty years, those Muslim communities will NOT start assimilating, despite the presumably superior cultural and legal-custom system they'd be assimilating to.

Some Mulisms undoubtedly are assimilating. Given enough time, that number might even become an unstoppable majority (if it isn't already).

However, Islam's cultural stubborness can hardly be denied, and the current injustices being visited on the European Muslim community are only fueling its resolve.

As I have been arguing all along, something has got to change in the European system. Exactly what this might happen to be (more relaxed labor laws, immigration reform, more readily available citizenship, higher birthrates, etca, etca) is entirely up to them. However, something definitely has to change.

Neither side is blameless.

OK, but think about the demographics. If 10% of the people in Country X are Muslims, the odds are that less than 10% of the people in Country X are agitating for fundamentalist Muslim schools. Even if "religion conservatism" is widespread, you'll see:
-Second and third generation immigrants who would honestly rather live under the local legal regime, even if their parents don't like it;
-Immigrants of all generations who didn't like sharia even back home, and may have immigrated in part to get away from it;
-Immigrants who love sharia to pieces, but have a different take on it than the one advocated by the main fundamentalist groups.

Never underestimate an extremely vocal and politically determined minority. God knows that the evangelicals here in the US have been able to enact legislation far beyond what their proportion in the total population might suggest.

[Simon_Jester]

What I'm more worried about is some repeat of the civil rights crisis that we experienced in the US during the 1960s. We've already seen extensive race riots in Europe. Its not hard to imagine the escalation of the ethnic tensions which caused these riots gradually turning Europe into a powder keg just waiting to explode. Extremist politcial sentiments thrive in such environments.

The very last thing we need is some Al Qaeda-esque radical Islamic version of the Balck Panther Party.

Thing is, that's bad, but it's not a disaster of the first magnitude. It's just another round of civil unrest; Europe has had dozens of rounds of civil unrest over the past few centuries.

And here I thought you were predicting a continent-wide erasure of 'Western' culture at the expense of Islamic fundamentalist culture or something... weird, huh?

Never underestimate an extremely vocal and politically determined minority. God knows that the evangelicals here in the US have been able to enact legislation far beyond what their proportion in the total population might suggest.

But their actual proportion is above 10% even after dropping all the Christians in the US who aren't really along with the program. They are far more numerous in the US than their Muslim counterparts will ever be in Europe... and even so they haven't actually managed to wreck the secular democratic system in the US. Damage, hell yes; destroy, no.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

It's just another round of civil unrest; Europe has had dozens of rounds of civil unrest over the past few centuries

Which happened to result in such wonderful experiences as the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of Red Communism, and WW2. I think Europe might be better off nipping this one in the bud before it gets to quite that point.

And here I thought you were predicting a continent-wide erasure of 'Western' culture at the expense of Islamic fundamentalist culture or something... weird, huh?

Well, yea...In an unlikely nightmare scenario which, if it it ever were to occur, wouldn't happen for at least another century or two.

However, for that to happen, current trends would have to remain more or less exactly the same for a rather extended period. The Muslims would have to keep pouring into Europe at their current rate and all of the actual "white, western" people would have to be braindead enough to think that it was a good idea to persist in their obstinate refusal to well, you know...reproduce.

It is unlikely, but stranger things have happened I suppose. While I fully expect some overly anal history nerd to rip me a new one over this, it is worth noting that classical Greek and Roman civilization shared a somewhat similar fate.

But their actual proportion is above 10% even after dropping all the Christians in the US who aren't really along with the program.

Once again, we'll simply have to see how things pan out over the course of the next few decades.

Will we see a Europe full of secular Muslims, or a Sharia law abiding Euro George W. talking about how Allah told him to invade Sweden? Time will tell.

[eion]

I'm only going to explain this to you one more time Eion. What is to stop the ultra-traditional Patriarch of some Muslim family from forcing his daughter to attend one of these courts, and the ultra-traditional Imam in charge of it from not giving a damn and laying some completely ludicrous fundy pronouncement anyway?

What's to stop them?

-The daughter's own will (Women are not the weak shell-shocked robots you make them out to be, and even when they are, we have these wonderful things called social workers who are fairly competent at rooting out miss-treatment of women.)
-The law (Murder is still illegal in the U.K. last I checked, and attempted murder is still pretty high up on the "don't do it" list too), oh there is this: The Forced Marriage Protection Order which grants UK courts the power to intervene in forced marriages.

If you want to debate Sharia courts in the UK, which we've already established have no more authority than my neighbor in deciding law, please cite some actual fucking examples instead of these bullshit hypotheticals.

We already know that honor killings are hardly uheard of among the Muslim community in the UK (so don't even pretent like the ultra-traditional patriarchs I described don't exist), and the article you cited basically admits to the fact that there are probably more fundy Sharia courts out there than there are Liberal ones, and that women can often be "shamed" by their community into seeking a sharia judgement.

Seriously pal, put one and one together here. The system represents abuse just waiting to happen.

Sigh.

Okay, the dreaded HK.

In 2004/05 there were 859 homicides in England & Wales. Estimates for the same year of the number of "honor killings" are about a dozen. Let's make it 24 just for safety.

Of those, 2/3rds are committed by Muslims, but you can also find examples of Hindu, Sikh and even eastern European (gasp, good, God fearing Europeans committing honor killings!)

So that means that that 15.84 "honor killings" occurred in England & Wales probably attributable to Muslims. Which accounts for, let's see that's 1.863% of all homicides in England and Wales for 2004/2005.

My, this is a big problem. By way of comparison, firearms were used in 73 (8.5%) homicides in 2004/05 in England & Wales.

sources:
Wikipedia on Honor Killings (verified info via refs)
Home Office Statistical Bulletin: Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005

[Simon_Jester]

It's just another round of civil unrest; Europe has had dozens of rounds of civil unrest over the past few centuries

Which happened to result in such wonderful experiences as the Napoleonic Wars, the rise of Red Communism, and WW2. I think Europe might be better off nipping this one in the bud before it gets to quite that point.

You're forgetting things like the round of troubles they had post-WWII with the Red Brigades in Italy and such (which came to nothing), the Liberal Revolution of 1848 (which came to not very much),...

Yes, civil unrest is bad, quite bad, disaster of the decade-scale bad. But it's not a first-order disaster in its own right, and it's definitely not an imminent "No! My culture! It's going to VANISH!" crisis.

It is unlikely, but stranger things have happened I suppose. While I fully expect some overly anal history nerd to rip me a new one over this, it is worth noting that classical Greek and Roman civilization shared a somewhat similar fate.

Would you care to expand on that? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

-The daughter's own will (Women are not the weak shell-shocked robots you make them out to be, and even when they are, we have these wonderful things called social workers who are fairly competent at rooting out miss-treatment of women.)

Oh please! You'd be surprised what a family can force its members to do either through guilt, intimidation, or outright force.

If some belligerant father (or Hell, even mother) wants to drag their 12 year old daughter down to the local Imam and get him to justify a certain marriage or practice, the odds are in their favor for being able to do so. Whether the state considers it to be "legal" or not depends entirely upon them finding out about it, which isn't always a given.

there is this: The Forced Marriage Protection Order which grants UK courts the power to intervene in forced marriages.

Good for them. That's exactly the kind of action I have been advocating, and you have apparently been arguing against, this whole time in case you haven't noticed.

In 2004/05 there were 859 homicides in England & Wales. Estimates for the same year of the number of "honor killings" are about a dozen. Let's make it 24 just for safety.

I never said that they were particularly common, only that such things happen. Do you think every Christian fundamentalist beats their children to death with rubber tubes too? The fact that they don't, doesn't change the fact that quite a few of them exist.

it's definitely not an imminent "No! My culture! It's going to VANISH!" crisis.

I didn't say that it was. I only said that it was indicative of some rather disturbing trends in European society, which should be countered if at all possible.

Would you care to expand on that? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.

I was mainly referring to the manner in which traditional "classical" society became more and more inundated with "barbarian" cultural and genetic influences in later antiquity.

A Europe in which Muslims make up the majority of the population would be no more "Western," than the "Holy Roman Empire" was Roman.

[eion]

-The daughter's own will (Women are not the weak shell-shocked robots you make them out to be, and even when they are, we have these wonderful things called social workers who are fairly competent at rooting out miss-treatment of women.)

Oh please! You'd be surprised what a family can force its members to do either through guilt, intimidation, or outright force.

Again, I'm done arguing hypotheticals. If you've got a case of a Sharia panel in the UK doing such a thing, we can talk about that.

there is this: The Forced Marriage Protection Order which grants UK courts the power to intervene in forced marriages.

Good for them. That's exactly the kind of action I have been advocating, and you have apparently been arguing against, this whole time in case you haven't noticed.

Yeah, but you've also been saying that we should deport or reduce Muslin immigration because they maintain PRIVATE religious bodies to regulate PRIVATE religious matters, and that the government should be ashamed for recognizing they have the same authority my neighbor has in ruling on law. Again, in most cases, no legal marriage exists, and the Forced Marriage Protection Orders can actually be applied to non-legal marriages. You can't hold divorce hearings in a government court for a second spouse in a country that doesn't recognize plural marriage.

In 2004/05 there were 859 homicides in England & Wales. Estimates for the same year of the number of "honor killings" are about a dozen. Let's make it 24 just for safety.

I never said that they were particularly common, only that such things happen. Do you think every Christian fundamentalist beats their children to death with rubber tubes too? The fact that they don't, doesn't change the fact that quite a few of them exist.

Beating your kids half to death = against the law. Killing your spouse = against the law. And if there's a conspiracy to commit murder as in honor killings, guess what, you can charge the imams who advised it too!

I was mainly referring to the manner in which traditional "classical" society became more and more inundated with "barbarian" cultural and genetic influences in later antiquity.

A Europe in which Muslims make up the majority of the population would be no more "Western," than the "Holy Roman Empire" was Roman.

There was no one day when Rome fell. The barbarians didn't swoop in and the next day everyone was shiting out the window because the plumbing didn't work. Rome's decline happened over centuries, literally hundreds and hundreds of years. The barbarians didn't want to destroy civilization, they wanted civilization, and for the most part people didn't care. They exchanged Romulus Augustulus for Odoacer and life went on pretty much the same. "The sacking of Rome" everyone talks about, when the Visigoths swooped in and actually killed very few people and just stole a bunch of stuff, in a city not many people cared about, happened 60 years before the last emperor in the west.

And "Genetic Influence"? I don't even know how you wrote that with a straight face. So the Germanic people are genetically less prone to civilization than the Italians? I want you to replace "Germanic" with "Black" and "Italian" with "White" and see if you can see the problem with that statement.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Yeah, but you've also been saying that we should deport or reduce Muslin immigration because they maintain PRIVATE religious bodies to regulate PRIVATE religious matters, and that the government should be ashamed for recognizing they have the same authority my neighbor has in ruling on law.

First off, I didn't say jack shit about deporting Muslims. I simply stated that reducing immigration was one possible solution out of many.

Furthermore, I don't give a damn what religious practices the Muslims adhere to. I only ask that the state don't give into their every superfluous demand.

And if there's a conspiracy to commit murder as in honor killings, guess what, you can charge the imams who advised it too!

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Oh wait! Didn't you say that this would just "alienate" muslims earlier?

There was no one day when Rome fell. The barbarians didn't swoop in and the next day everyone was shiting out the window because the plumbing didn't work.

No shit Sherlock! I never claimed that it did! In fact I have been arguing quite the opposite for quite a while.

They exchanged Romulus Augustulus for Odoacer and life went on pretty much the same.

You make the total breakdown of society in Roman Europe sound almost pleasant. Whitewashing things just a tad there don't you think?

Rome's decline happened over centuries, literally hundreds and hundreds of years. The barbarians didn't want to destroy civilization, they wanted civilization, and for the most part people didn't care.

Uhhh...What part of this doesn't sound like what's currently happening in Europe to you?

And "Genetic Influence"? I don't even know how you wrote that with a straight face. So the Germanic people are genetically less prone to civilization than the Italians?

Once again dude, why in the Hell does everything have to be some kind of racialized strawman with you?

Some of the predominant genetic influences in my family are Irish, Scottish, and French-Canadian (Guals/Picts/Celts), Norwegian (Viking), and Prussian (German). Sure, I happen to have Italian in there too, but that is completely besides the point.

The simple fact of the matter here is that the Greeks and Romans conquered the ancient world, promptly became a minority in their own empires, and then had their entire civilization and culture gradually, but nevertheless completely supplanted by Barbarians. Seeing as how we basically represent the Greeks and Romans in this scenario, I'm saying that it might be a good idea to at least try and avoid the same fate.

As I said earlier, however; such "clashes of civilizations" generally tend to go to whichever side wants them more (what can I say, I'm a fan of Nietzsche). If the Euros drown in Islam, they will ultimately have no one to blame but themselves.

Who knows, they might even need the Muslims to pick up the cultural slack.

[Simon_Jester]

Furthermore, I don't give a damn what religious practices the Muslims adhere to. I only ask that the state don't give into their every superfluous demand.

Which it doesn't, so everything is happy days, right?

Rome's decline happened over centuries, literally hundreds and hundreds of years. The barbarians didn't want to destroy civilization, they wanted civilization, and for the most part people didn't care.

Uhhh...What part of this doesn't sound like what's currently happening in Europe to you?

The part where the "barbarians" aren't actually invading, but are instead wandering into the "Empire" looking for migrant work and setting up their own little Chinatown-like communities where the central government humors their silly little prejudices because they can't really justify doing anything else in light of the way they treat other religious groups.

This is very different from armies with banners marching in, stealing all the valuable portables, setting what's left over on fire, marching out, and conquering a few frontier provinces en passant.

Other things present in the fall of Rome and absent in modern Europe are:
-Frequent civil wars over who gets to run the place,
-Progressive reduction of the population into slavery/serfdom
-Major epidemics...

You get the idea.

And "Genetic Influence"? I don't even know how you wrote that with a straight face. So the Germanic people are genetically less prone to civilization than the Italians?

Once again dude, why in the Hell does everything have to be some kind of racialized strawman with you?

Simple. Your argument about the fall of the Roman Empire invokes the idea of genetic influence from the barbarians- which strongly implies that the German invaders were somehow genetically contaminating the more civilized Romans. Which is stupid.

The simple fact of the matter here is that the Greeks and Romans conquered the ancient world, promptly became a minority in their own empires, and then had their entire civilization and culture gradually, but nevertheless completely supplanted by Barbarians. Seeing as how we basically represent the Greeks and Romans in this scenario, I'm saying that it might be a good idea to at least try and avoid the same fate.

In that case, the first step would be to understand what their fate was and how they came to it, which you do not seem to have done. It is difficult to avoid someone's fate when you don't understand what happened to them beyond the superficials.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

The part where the "barbarians" aren't actually invading, but are instead wandering into the "Empire" looking for migrant work and setting up their own little Chinatown-like communities

As Eious pointed out, the actual "fall" of Rome was more symbolic than anything else. The Empire had been rotting from the inside out for centuries. It had been more Barbarian than Roman for quite a while by that point.

Frequent civil wars over who gets to run the place

World War 1, World War 2, the Cold War, etca, etca...The 20th Century wasn't exactly kind to Europe. In many ways, they are only now recovering.

Progressive reduction of the population into slavery/serfdom

It might not be due to slavery, but the population of Europe is definitely in decline. Additionally, there is the fact that (if studies are to be believed) fewer Europeans subscribe to or understand their own traditional cultural values than at any other point in history.

Your argument about the fall of the Roman Empire invokes the idea of genetic influence from the barbarians- which strongly implies that the German invaders were somehow genetically contaminating the more civilized Romans.

Once again, you are puting a racist spin on the idea that I never did. I never said that such mixing was bad. I simply stated that it happened.

In any case, however; it was certainly bad for the Romans.

It is difficult to avoid someone's fate when you don't understand what happened to them beyond the superficials.

It is not exactly the same. However, you have to admit that there are a number of, quite frankly, disturbing parallels.

[ray245]

And "Genetic Influence"? I don't even know how you wrote that with a straight face. So the Germanic people are genetically less prone to civilization than the Italians?

Once again dude, why in the Hell does everything have to be some kind of racialized strawman with you?

Simple. Your argument about the fall of the Roman Empire invokes the idea of genetic influence from the barbarians- which strongly implies that the German invaders were somehow genetically contaminating the more civilized Romans. Which is stupid.

That's even more funny considering that the romans are a multi-cultural Empire as opposed to a mono-culture Empire...and why the hell are we talking about the Roman Empire down here anyway?

[eion]

I don't give a damn what religious practices the Muslims adhere to. I only ask that the state don't give into their every superflous demand.

Please, oh please, show my an example where the UK has given Muslims something they wouldn't give any other religious group? You want to secularize Europe quicker, disestablish all the state religions and then you can stand on sure footing.

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Oh wait! didn't you say that this would just "alienate" muslims earlier?

Where did I claim one shouldn't charge and prosecute people for murder and conspiracy to commit murder? Quote me.

They exchanged Romulus Augustulus for Odoacer and life went on pretty much the same.

You make the total breakdown of society in Roman Europe sound almost pleasant. Whitewashing things just a tad there don't you think?

It was not a breakdown. It was a transition from a distant and decadent empire to local kingdoms; which is exactly what Gaul was before the Romans got there. They fact that they could no longer maintain intercontinental trade has nothing to do with how ethical their culture was. You make it sound like conquest and enslavement was a really good thing for the Gaul peasants. The local chiefs made out alright enough; Caesar made them Senators after all.

Rome's decline happened over centuries, literally hundreds and hundreds of years. The barbarians didn't want to destroy civilization, they wanted civilization, and for the most part people didn't care.

Uhhh...What part of this doesn't sound like what's currently happening in Europe to you?

The part where you claim the Muslims want to create an Islamo-fascist Europe with Sharia law border to border? The Italian Kings were Christians. Rome was Christian. This was Christian on Christian war.

And "Genetic Influence"? I don't even know how you wrote that with a straight face. So the Germanic people are genetically less prone to civilization than the Italians?

The simple fact of the matter here is that the Greeks and Romans conquered the ancient world, promptly became a minority in their own empires, and then had their entire civilization and culture gradually, but nevertheless completely supplanted by Barbarians. Seeing as how we basically represent the Greeks and Romans in this scenario, I'm saying that it might be a good idea to at least try and avoid the same fate.

Why do you seem to have this preconception of Barbarians as cultureless killing machines?
Septimius Severus was the first non-Italian emperor. He took office in CE 193. The “Barbarians” for the most part very quickly Romanized.
They had kings, courts, standing armies. Rome wasn't the only civilization around, "dude". Just because there were a dominant military power doesn't mean they didn't have cultural neighbors. You're creating this false dichotomy: It's European Christian civilization or no civilization!

Rome's borders did not encompass the entire ancient world, unless Scotland, China, India, Persia, etc weren’t invented till CE 800: they encompassed the Mediterranean coast and some distance inward.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

That's even more funny considering that the romans are a multi-cultural Empire as opposed to a mono-culture Empire

The European Colonial empires weren't multi-cultural? I think that you'd better rethink that.

why the hell are we talking about the Roman Empire down here anyway?

I compared the worst case scenario of mass Muslim immigration to Europe to the gradual "barbarization" of the classical world in later antiquity.

[ray245]

That's even more funny considering that the romans are a multi-cultural Empire as opposed to a mono-culture Empire

The European Colonial empires weren't multi-cultural? I think that you'd better rethink that.

Except that the European colonial Empire didn't even consider most of its people to be its citizens, nor did they attempt to give citizenship to them.

As Eious pointed out, the actual "fall" of Rome was more symbolic than anything else. The Empire had been rotting from the inside out for centuries. It had been more Barbarian than Roman for quite a while by that point.

What? What about the growth experienced in Roman Africa during the late imperial era? And what do you mean by the Roman Empire as more barbarian than Roman?

[eion]

As Eious pointed out

Why the -us?

It's celtic, not latin. e-i-o-n

The same root name as Ian, John, Sean, Giovanni, Hans, Ivan, Jean.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Except that the European colonial Empire didn't even consider most of its people to be its citizens, nor did they attempt to give citizenship to them.

You're getting too hung up on superficial details Ray. It is more or less the same thing. The "colonized" are migrating to the "colonizer's" land.

disestablish all the state religions and then you can stand on sure footing.

Do it then. I have no problem with it.

It was not a breakdown. It was a transition from a distant and decadent empire to local kingdoms; which is exactly what Gaul was before the Romans got there.

Poor, dirty, corrupt, and woefully ignorant kingdoms embroiled in near constant warfare. Don't misrepresent the situation Eious (excuse me "Eion"). The fall of the Roman Empire was anything but pleasant.

The part where you claim the Muslims want to create an Islamo-fascist Europe with Sharia law border to border?

Where did I ever claim such a thing? I have in fact stated quite the opposite.

The Italian Kings were Christians. Rome was Christian. This was Christian on Christian war.

You seem to be forgetting that the conversion of the Empire to Christianity was another symptom of the gradual supplanting of classical civilization.

Why do you seem to have this preconception of Barbarians as cultureless killing machines?

Possibly because the ones who sacked the Empire were? In any case, you are missing my point.

[ray245]

Except that the European colonial Empire didn't even consider most of its people to be its citizens, nor did they attempt to give citizenship to them.

You're getting too hung up on superficial details Ray. It is more or less the same thing. The "colonized" are migrating to the "colonizer's" land.

You missed my entire point. The colonial empires didn't attempt to integrate the various people which they have conquered, while the Romans were actively integrating those barbarians into the Roman society.

The Europeans didn't have anything comparable to the Auxilia system that was being used by the Romans in terms of scale, where they grant citizenship to those who has completed their service after 25 years.

Possibly because the ones who sacked the Empire were? In any case, you are missing my point.

Yeah, lumping all the various barbarians tribes into one, and ignore the fact that many people who are defending the Roman Empire from collapse have barbarian origins, like Stilicho and Aetius.

[PkbonupePeter_Kcos8]

Ray, no offense man, but you're mincing over minutiae. I never said that the situation in late antiquity and in Europe today were identical, only that they shared a few similarities.

The colonial empires didn't attempt to integrate the various people which they have conquered,

No, they didn't. However, hordes of Muslim immigrants from former colonial possessions seem to be trying to integrate into European culture now nevertheless.

The Europeans didn't have anything comparable to the Auxilia system that was being used by the Romans in terms of scale, where they grant citizenship to those who has completed their service after 25 years.

What in the Hell does that have to do with anything?

Yeah, lumping all the various barbarians tribes into one

Dude, if you want to start a whole conversation about the differences between the Goths, Franks, and the Lombards, feel free to run over to the history forum and get started on it. For the purposes of this conversation, however; it is more than sufficient simply to refer to them as "Barbarians" who just so happened to kill a fuck load of people in the former Roman Empire.

the fact that many people who are defending the Roman Empire from collapse have barbarian origins, like Stilicho and Aetius.

Did I deny this? No.

Is it relevant to the conversation? Once again, no.