Anti-dhimmitude in Holland. From Reuters:
AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - If the Netherlands becomes the first European country to ban the burqa and other Muslim face veils this month, Hope says she'll resort to wearing a surgical mask to dress in accordance with her religious beliefs."I'll wear one of those things they wore during the SARS epidemic if I have to," said the Dutch-born Muslim, one of about 50 women in the Netherlands who wear the head-to-toe burqa or the niqab, a face veil that conceals everything but the eyes.
"I'm very practical," the 22-year-old added.
Last December, parliament voted to forbid women from wearing the burqa or any Muslim face coverings in public, justifying the move in part as a security measure.
The cabinet is awaiting the results of a study into the legality of such a ban under European human rights laws, before making its final decision. The results are expected in the second half of this month.
She should be happy to get rid of the body bag and be happier to get unveiled.
I would be a little nervous if I walked downtown and was surrounded by people in ski masks. She needs to kneel down, face Mecca and thank the Parliament for wanting to ban it.
How about the human rights of those poor enslaved women who are smothered under the yoke of Islam?
Liberate them from the burqa and niqab!
So much of Islam flatly contradicts, or is contradicted by, the non-Islamic world, that if only Infidels remain firm, and refuse to change their own laws, customs, manners, understandings, they will make the conduct of Muslim life difficult. Muslims abroad can call upon, and do, the financial resources in the world (those offered by Saudi Arabia, the U.A.E., Kuwait, Iran, and others) that pay for the building and maintenance of mosques and madrasas, and for lawyers to promote Muslim suits intended to change those laws that stand in the way of the spread of Islam -- and the Jihad has no other goal but the spread of Islam, by whatever means, until everywhere Islam "dominates and is not to be dominated." Infidels are disorganized, inclined to be lazy or deny the evidence of their senses, hoping that if something is not identified or recognized, it somehow will not exist. But eventually enough of them will come to the conclusion that anything and everything that discourages a large-scale Muslim presence in the Lands of the Infidels is all to the good, and this can be achieved by a combination of laws, or rather refusal to change our laws, and by private action (which would include alertness to the rewriting of textbooks for school adoption, and the varieties of Muslim apologetics too often offered at universities, beginning with sanitized versions of the Qur'an, and careful avoidance of the Hadith and of much of the contents of the Sira, and extending to the kind of highly selective syllabus that Khaled Abu el Fadl, or Omid Safi, or so many others, think they can continue to slip by other faculty members, and be accepted by students too unwary, and unschooled in the subject, to have any idea of what is being force-fed them). There are even ways to prevent the Al-Jazeera worldview, which to the extent that it istaken seriously (and why would it not be taken seriously by its audience?), molds minds that become dangerous to the wellbeing of Infidels, from spreading its venom. Infidel hackers, capable of interrupting programs with unseemly material that would make the Muslim pater familias less likely to want al-Jazeera or similar sites available for family viewing, could do whatever it is they do elsewhere -- but this time not out of whim, but for a reason.
"The large-scale presence of Muslims in the Lands of the Infidels has created for Infidels, mainly in Western Europe but not only there, a situation that is much more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without that large-scale presence. "
That statement is either True or False.
If you think it is True, if you think that you, or I, or anyone can adduce enough evidence to support it, the question then becomes: what do Infidels do to discourage that large-scale presence, to put a halt to its further growth,to undo what, out of negligence and ignorance, has already been allowed to happen.
They can pass all the laws they want. Unless they start to address the problem of demographics it won't matter a bit. The Muslims will outbreed the native Dutch and vote for whatever they want.
Nothing else matters apart from the demographics.
Forced birth control ought to help with demographics. And if the governments are supporting them via welfare, they can give them an option. Birth control, or go back to your home country.
Hugh,
That question should be asked by every Western
voter.
One realistic solution is to cut off the
welfare/jiyza to mohammadans. Why are we subsidizing
the demographic war against us?
The next is to use the cartoon bomb, expand
upon it, push it further and further. Mocking
the deranged psychopath Mohammad should be a
daily, or at least twice weekly, affair.
I'll wear one of those things they wore during the SARS epidemic if I have to," said the Dutch-born Muslim...."I'm very practical," the 22-year-old added.
How about a paper bag?
It's apparent that the Islamic attitude toward personal freedom and totalitarianism has made inroads among its opponents. In a free country people should be able to dress as they wish. If there are security concerns, then searches are not wrong as long as they're conducted appropriately and in accordance with the law. Forced birth control would ally the West with Communist China. Western Europe's secularist inability to produce the next generation by encouraging planned barrenhood is part of demographic Jihad - in fact, it's exactly what makes it Jihad. If the overwhelming majority of Europeans weren't so afraid of parenthood and welcomed new life into the world, there'd be no reason to fear that the Muslim percentage of the population would rise. Just another indication that secular elements in Europe, while continuators of some good elements of the Enlightenment, continue to contribute to Europe's difficulty understanding its own identity. The foolish refusal to acknowledge over a thousand years of European history (the Jewish and Christian legacy) is a significant contribution to dhimmitude of the mind. The revivisence of Manichean attitudes toward good and evil (the foolish view that absolute evil and absolute good can be identified in the historical process) contributes nothing to the important project of identifying strategies to combat Jihad. The problem is not that Muslims have the good sense to love children and want to reproduce their own kind, but that, mired in sybaritic lifestyles (sometimes not too distant from the ugly features of Islamic eschatology) many European and American secularists selfishly confuse liberty with license. The future belongs to those who have the courage and unselfishness required to procreate the next generation.
I don't mean forced sterility. When these people are off the rolls and can support themselves, then have another child.
Unless they are willing to work and be responsible for their families , then what is the choice? Why should the taxpayers bear the burden for their beliefs (have many children so we can take over)?
Read today that British Airways will require all passengers to the US to provide an address for their first nights stay in the US.
These and other numerous security measures that are now such an irksome irritant to air travel, have come about because of the depredations of the religious comptriots of this woman. She now insists that she will wear a surgical mask to hide her face. It should be pointed out to her that all these measures are being undertaken for security reasons - in the main because of muslims, and not just to irritate muslims.
But as Celcius points out, and many have done so over the last 4 years - all this is of no avail if the demographic problem is not addressed.
The reason why many muslims go to Europe, Canada, especially over the US, is the very easy social safety nets for these loafers! the goverment gives
them more in the west than in ther own countries!
Hello, Freewoman,
I'm all for restricting welfare to the truly needy. And incentives for fathers especially to support their own children are a very good thing, indeed. Allowing the growth of microcultures eremetically sealed off from the larger culture is more of a problem in Europe than here. Every opportunity here for challenging interaction with American Muslims should be encouraged. Equipping undergraduates with bibliographys that will motivate them to challenge multiculturalist professors' spin on Islam is one approach. Exploiting every work opportunity to share with Muslims our reasoned rejection of Jihad and Dhimmitude is another. Insisting that all imams in every mosque speak English is another. Challenging Muslims publicly to civil debates on radio and television is another. In a free society there are many opportunities to challenge totalitarian ideologies.
I agree with you Tom!!!
American posted: One realistic solution is to cut off the welfare/jiyza to mohammadans. Why are we subsidizing the demographic war against us?
Here is a titbit of what are up against in Britain.
Hate-filled Muslim returns By ANIL PABLA
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006100547,00.html
In Britain, some 50% of the muslim population is unemployed i.e., is recipient to state benefits. This includes housing allowance, electricity, gas, cars and telephone bills, and even mobile phones.
The rest of the 50% are mainly "employed" in halal shops and that sort of thing. In effect, surviving on second hand Welfare.
There also have been "requests" from the muslim community, that the state should help in the cost for pilgrimmage to Mecca.
PS
Do read the comments at the end of the article in The Sun such as this one
It’s time that people of the free world woke up to the fact that we are at war with these people. If this person holds such hateful opinions then perhaps he should be kicked out of the country.
Some people are catching on.
Personally I have no problem with them wearing the burqa as such. Just like I have no problem with girls wearing low riding jeans, mini-skirts or in fact, nothing at all. However, Muslim women in burqas should be forced to take them off in banks, schools or when requested for identity checks (when a store assistant wants to check your photo against that on your credit card for example).
No burqas. To me, they represent oppression of women, denial of freedom, inequality, property, slavery. They represent all that is wrong with Islam.
Tom,
"...good sense to love children..."???
I know you are not saying just because I don't have offspring that I hate children. But what point are you trying to make?
If you truly love children, have as many as you can take care of (but even so don't wear out the planet.) And if you truly love children don't bring them into a hate filled cult.
"head-to-toe burqa or the niqab...I'm very practical," the 22-year-old added."
ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL!!!!
I do think it's a shame to have to put more pressure on these women, some of whom will probably be between a rock and a hard place due to family pressure. However, I agree that it's necessary to stand firm on the basic European concept that in public you show your face.
If the Dutch would just outlaw Islam in their country that would solve all the problems from this group. No more burqas, no more riots, no more burning cars, no more being on the public dole, no more raping Western women because of the way they dress, no more bomb threats or death threats, no more attacks on artists and writers, etc. No morre Islam, No more problems!
Perhaps Im looking at this too simply, but I have a problem with banning women from wearing their traditional garb.
I understand that there are security concerns, but they can be addressed quite easily in the places where it is most important; banks, public transportation, police stations, etc.
If someone wants to disguise themselves in an effort to commit some crime or attack, they could just as easily wear sunglasses and a hat, or considering the makeup of the population, simply remain nonchalant and blend right in.
On the other hand, if this measure was proposed in an effort to make the Netherlands an uncomfortable place for muslims to take up residence, then Im all for it. I guess it depends on the motive.
"Hope says she'll resort to wearing a surgical mask to dress in accordance with her religious beliefs."
Wearing surgical masks to protest the dess code is rather strange.
New Muslim convert Michael Jackson, who wears the surgical mask in big cities because of his fears of breathing in too much carbon monoxide, will instantly be in solidarity with the protesting Muslim women of the Netherlands.
Michael Jackson likes to be in solidarity with Muslim women. He was recently found in a women's bathroom in Dubai wearing a burqa as he was applying his cosmetic makeup.
I know you are not saying just because I don't have offspring that I hate children. But what point are you trying to make?
If you truly love children, have as many as you can take care of (but even so don't wear out the planet.) And if you truly love children don't bring them into a hate filled cult.
Posted by: JaimeZepeda at March 7, 2006 07:59 PM
I was a bit confused by Tom's comment about children myself, since muslims do not spawn offspring like rats because they love kids; they overbreed because Islam dictates this obscene practice. Birth control is forbidden in Islam, and muslims are obligated to proliferate profusely, regardless of their ability to provide sustenance for their burgeoning tribes.
Third world denizens and third world immigrants who flock to greener pastures (the West)have the highest birthrates in the world. The average muslim family has ten children. One muslim male can easily father forty children if he has multiple wives. Women marry very young and bear children until menopause, and many boast that the female uterus is Islam's secret weapon. So I think Tom was saying that muslims are not afraid to reproduce; Western birthrates have fallen precipitously and unless the trends change, it is only a matter of time before muslims outnumber the rest of us. IF that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves, although I shudder at the thought of an Islamic totalitarian hell on earth. We cannot allow such a nightmare to become reality.
Want to wear they wear them?. Go to wear they wear them. Freaks.
"Western birthrates have fallen precipitously and unless the trends change, it is only a matter of time before muslims outnumber the rest of us. IF that happens, we have no one to blame but ourselves, "
Ourselves to blame for not finding valid methods for limiting their reproduction, not for 'failing' to over-reproduce ourselves.
Real integration, no polygamy, muslim women having careers is the answer to that one, not western women becoming breeding machines.
I remember a few decades back when over-population was a popular fear. Then the marxists and others talked it out of the eco moment, out of the Sierra Club. And I remember them saying over-population wasn't a worry because as the masses became more educated and shared in the wealth, everyone would have fewer children. True enough - it happened for some and the European and North American growth rates did level off. But other groups thought they could win their agendas by spawning like salmon.
That's not democracy. That is s**tting in the community well so we all die.
If we don't have population control, then what will be the fate of all of us? And if we do impliment controls what better target group than those who cost us the most and would destroy us anyway?
"...Perhaps Im looking at this too simply, but I have a problem with banning women from wearing their traditional garb..."
From a posting above.
Indeed, you are looking at this rather simply. 30 years ago you wouldn't see hijab, jilbab, bilbab or burkha in most Mohammedan countries. Only in desert holes like SA, Yemen, Afghanistan etc. it was rather common.
But with the "Islamic revolution' in Iran, with the enormous amounts of Saudi money spent to built mosques and madrassahs in Islamic countries as well as in the lands of the infidels, who allowed Mohammedans to settle, ignorant of what Islam teaches,behind enemy lines, Islam was emboldened and encouraged to 'revive' itself.
My travels in Islamic countries in the seventies were truly an eye-opener, something I wouldn't miss. It helped me to gain invaluable insight into the psychology of the Mussulman, and I personally see it as a great tragedy that this fanatical, totalitarian system is now forced onto the believers as well as on the unsuspecting infidels.
First of all, Islam does NOT forbid contraception, but it does oppose "contraceptives" that prevent fertilization of the ovum, correctly deeming them to be abortofacients.
Single people or married couples without children often make very significant contributions to society. The issue is not childlessness, but planned barrenhood by married couples who could have children, but won't. The view that the state or the Church should regulate fertility is totalitarian. Many people in China leave because the government forces women who want to have a third child to abort. None of the hysterical propoganda predictions made in THE BIOLOGICAL TIME BOMB by Paul Ehrlich were correct. UNDERpopulation is a serious problem in Europe threatening the elderly because there are insufficient workers to pay into social security. Of course, I'm not advocating that every married couple should have a dozen kids, but I'm strongly suggesting that how many children to have is a decision to be made by the couple and not the Church or the state.
It's also quite wrong to imagine that Muslims who carry the burden of belief in a false religion are no longer human beings. If you prick them they bleed. When they have children, they're as susceptible to the charm of their own children as any other human beings.
To suggest that people who have large families are "spawning like salmon" is to understand human procreation as animal activity rather than the deeply human thing that it is. This attitude toward children and families is, IMHO, deeply injurious to democracy. I believe that secularists have an important role to play in forcing people with religious convictions to bring reason to bear on their beliefs. But secularists have also done a major disservice to society by devaluing marriage and family. Ninety percent of men arrested for violent crimes have had no father married to their mothers. The most violent people toward children are live-in boyfriends and after that single mothers. Of course, this does not mean there is no child abuse in traditional families, but statistics show that the rates are much lower in families where the couple has been married only to each other. Secularists also have damaged society by teaching people that children are an entitlement connected with wealth (if you can afford a surrogate mother and male and female gametes and an attorney to draw up the contract).
If Europe does not rediscover family values, demographic Jihad will bring about Eurabia in about forty years.
Muslims are human beings just like the rest of us, and as troubling as their religious beliefs are, until there is evidence that they are supporting Jihad their human rights must be respected. I favor a moratorium on immigration of Muslims for security reasons, but for those who are citizens it's imperative that we not become like our enemies and deny people their human rights until they have been convicted of a crime or proven that they are security threats.
Hello, Lili,
I agree with you that polygamy should be forbidden by the government because it's incompatible with the dignity of women. But regarding mothers as "breeders" is a major tactical error made by feminists. Good parenting which requires quantity and not just quality time produces far more satisfaction (which esplains why so many women don't buy into the idea "I can have it all - career AND family"). I'm not saying that women are the nurturers and should be the ones to take care of the kids. I'm saying that both men and women, if their values are deep and not superficial, value children and prioritize their children over career. It's not only women, but men as well, who need to be turned toward children and family. Therapists of all kinds today are hearing from teens and children that they wish their parents hadn't prioritized careers.
Rod Dreher's CRUNCHY CONS, an important new book showing how cultural conservatives have much in common with decentralist demands of anarchists and thinkers like Schumacher (SMALL IS BEAUTIFUL) makes many of these points more eloquently than I can. The bottom line here is that democracy cannot survive the collapse of the family.
"When they have children, they're as susceptible to the charm of their own children as any other human beings. "
Tom, a few weeks ago I would have agreed with you to some extent (not regarding treatment of girls). Now I am aware that large numbers of Palestinian children are brought up in a death cult - suicide for jihad: http://www.mideastnewswire.com/archive/me_rights_abuse_children.html#pa_kids_edu
They may love their children, but they sure don't express it the same way...
Tom, I just saw your mention of 'breeders'. The negative term I used was 'breeding machines' - i.e. no longer permitted to be full human beings but more or less forced to constantly reproduce from teens to menopause. A very few western women love having children so much that they do/would want to do this - fine if that is so. That used to be the sole function of the Roman matron, BTW - from this comes the term 'effete', i.e. totally worn out by childbearing.
I was just concerned because some people (thankfully not in this thread) seem to think that the answer is for non-muslim women to try and 'catch up'.
Regarding the huge value of at-home parenting, I agree. LOL, not being a high-energy person, if/when I have children I'll definitely just focus on loving and enjoying them for a few years.
Tom,
I agree with a lot of what you say. But Paul Ehrlich right or wrong, spawning like salmon or engaging in devine activities (and they were pretty much devine -wink, wink) - it doesn't matter. I am still stuck in traffic, the surf is too crowded, and my state of California is going to run out of water real soon. Please don't let my last days be fleeing some guy with a ruler trying to measure my beard.
My statement stands. For whatever reason anyone is doing it, stop peeing in the pool. Overpopulation doesn't help and Jesus said nothing against wearing a rubber.
Anyway, Lili has the most realistic solution which is to encourage Muslim women to come into the 21st century. Nobody in this country is going to deny anyone the right to have more children than they want.
Thanks for the link, Lili! Truly appalling!
Lili, I think having children must be a shared decision; if a man forces his wife to be a "breeder", this is utterly wrong. And, yes, my impression is that this might be quite common in the Muslim world.
However, in our culture, I think marital intimacy and respect for women is deeply threatened by the contraceptive mentality. Young men no longer think of how to improve themselves intellectually, physically, financially, etc. so they can be worthy of the woman they love. They think of scoring and settling down later. Meanwhile, they develop habits of sexual selfishness which will later undermine the self-giving required in a happy marriage. When a couple studies together their fertility and finds other ways to express their love for each other during fertile periods (if they don't want another child at the moment), their commencement of intercourse after a short period of abstinence is experience as another honeymoon and a renewal of marital love. The divorce rate among couples practicing natural family planning is under five percent. The contraceptive mentality helps "men" to remain perpetual adolescents and encourages an attitude of entitlement toward orgasms, rather than connecting sexual encounter with self-donation, commitment, and interpersonal growth. Why do we call it "adult material", rather than "adolescent or boy material". A woman's body is not something other than her self, and to objectify her body by reducing it to a source for male pleasure (even in marriage) is a reductionist approach to intimacy. Far better to integrate pleasure, self-donation, commitment, and mutuality. All these attitudes would deeply challenge Islamic sexual mores.
Hi, Jaime!
Check out Rod Dreher's CRUNCHY CONS for ideas on how to be ecologically responsible, escape the rat race, eat well, and escape freeway traffic!
"in Britain, some 50% of the muslim population is unemployed i.e., is recipient to state benefits. This includes housing allowance, electricity, gas, cars and telephone bills, and even mobile phones.
The rest of the 50% are mainly "employed" in halal shops and that sort of thing. In effect, surviving on second hand Welfare."
DP111 -> ever notice the enormous problem we have in the UK with thousands of Chinese folks depending on handouts from the state?
me neither.
There's not only a proposed ban on burquas, there's also talk of suspending or lowering welfare unemployment benefits for burqua wearers. The idea is that these people choose with their style of life and religious idea(l)s to be permanently unemployed. For instance, there was the case of a muslim school teacher who was fired from her muslim school(!) because she was too strict and wanted to wear a burqua all the time. Amsterdam social service then stated that as long as she persevered in wearing a burqua she herself was hindering her own chances of future employment and therefore deserved no full unemployment benefits!
Miranda:
Sounds like blow-back from the Theo Van Gogh murder. Wasn't his killer on benefits because his "religious observance" prohibited him from doing work that brought him into contact with women?
Source: http://www.islamfortoday.com/yab01.htm
It's time to save our Islamic faith
"How did Islam, which was driven by the pursuit of knowledge, become so submerged in frightful ignorance?"
By Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, Muslim author and broadcaster
I AM a British Asian, born and brought up in Uganda; a terribly flawed but practising Shia Muslim, with one son from a previous marriage and now married to an Englishman with an eight year-old mixed-race daughter.
I don't wear hijab (my mother and grandmother never did, either) but I do fast, pray and give to charity, thus fulfilling my obligations to the basic pillars of Islam. I was brought up to respect all faiths and the human rights of individuals.
In the merciless eyes of the faith police that we now have within Muslim communities, this set of beliefs makes me a kaffir, an infidel, an enemy of "true" Muslims. So they write to me and to each other about how I should be punished, intimidated, even killed. Poison is thrown at my children. I have had to become seriously attentive to security measures, and other liberal Muslims have been similarly targeted.
(snip, the rest of the article is not relevant)
This is one of the best arguments I've heard so far for a ban on hijab, niqab and burkas.
Imli
If the entire West banned all religious headdress, the moderates would be relieved, and the extremists would go scurrying back to their warrens.
Put on a Burka and raid their neighborhoods!
Oh........even better.......find a black Arabian Horse......put on your Burka........light your torch.........and ride....ride....ride.....into their neighborhoods screaming Allah is Great..........while torching their cars on fire! TIT FOR TAT!
Imli, that is interesting. "I don't wear hijab (my mother and grandmother never did, either) but I do fast, pray and give to charity, thus fulfilling my obligations to the basic pillars of Islam." - as you know, this type of Iman basically thinks you are asking for molestation/rape because you don't cover up sufficiently: http://www.askimam.org/fatwa/fatwa.php?askid=e135f89f42d893a9a6d1a75db7c0b787
So what are you and other reasonable muslims who want to live in a secular state (which I hope you do?) DOING ABOUT IT??
I don't often use capital letters in my posts - but this is really the basic question to all reasonable muslims: what are you doing to exclude the fundamentalists from Islam, to clarify your position, to give yourselves a clear 'secular muslim' type of title that you can unite under and that non-muslims can recognise you by?
Unfortunately the term 'muslim' has been made so negative by terrorists and fundamentalists (even those who want to change our societies 'peacefully'), that it needs to be qualified.
Aren't you angry that these fundamentalists are taking over your religion? Telling you how to live, telling US how to live? Re-claim your religion from these monsters!
That is a lie for starters. Islam started primarily as a political enterprise, then backed it up with violence of the most gruesome sort. If Yasmin AB does not know this, she is woefully ignorant.
I'm loth to put any value on the writings Yasmin AB as she was one of the cheerleaders in that notorious Question Time programme on BBC immediately after 9/11.
When that programme was heavily criticised, she came out with an article arguing for Reformation of islam. Yet again ignorance or simply trying to pull the wool over ever-ready gullible Guardian and Independent readers.
archduke posted: DP111 -> ever notice the enormous problem we have in the UK with thousands of Chinese folks depending on handouts from the state?....me neither.
True. They are too busy working night and day, educating their children, taking them to music lessons, and extra classes on hard subjects such as Maths and Physics.
Its really fortunate that we dont have a problem with Chinese who are muslims as well- we would really be in the doodah then.
Most muslim women don't want to lose their "cover alls"
I think it gives them something to hide their shame behind.
It is not a civil right to advocate the fighting against, subduing and humiliating, and killing of non-Muslims.
Jihad, Shari'a, and Dhimma are central to Islam because its god commands them. Islam always leads back to Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira, in which Allah and his (false) prophet call for warfare against the Infidel to make the world Islam.
In light of this, it is entirely appropriate for Infidel societies wishing to continue to exist to end all expressions of that ideology within their borders.
Islam must cease to be.
"True. They [chinese] are too busy working night and day, educating their children, taking them to music lessons, and extra classes on hard subjects such as Maths and Physics."
Same here in NZ. Their academic achievements put european-descent kiwis to shame. Our classical music tradition is basically in their hands now, since theirs seem to be the only young people prepared to put in the hard hours of practice. Their parents devote themselves to educating their children, and have sensible sized families to be able to achieve that. They are generally 'perfect citizens'.
No government should force birth control but there are practical solutions to the problem of Muslim immigrants in Europe. Here are eight modest proposals:
1. End welfare payments to immigrants.
2: Those immigrants who will not work should be deported.
3: Require as a condition to remain, the immigrant must agree to integrate into European society, that would include no burqas, no polygamy, no child marriage, and no criminal activities. Those who violate these conditions will be immediately deported.
4: Outlaw all arranged marriages. If Muslims want an arranged marriage with someone from the old country they have to live with their new spouse there. No spouse would be given an entry permit.
5: Require all immigrants to send their children to European schools to learn European culture, religion, languages, and customs.
6: Any minor children of parents who attempt keep their children from integrating into European society will be declared unfit or abusive parents and their children removed and adopted out to European families.
7: Allow no more mosques or Islamic schools on the basis, not of religion, but because of the political ideology expounded. Just as no European country would allow Nazi schools or centers, the political expressions of Islam should be regulated.
8: All Muslims who voluntarily leave Europe will keep their property and given the equivalent of six months welfare payment to take with them. Those deported will have all assets confiscated.
One can freely wear the burqa Saudi Arabia and last I heard it was required there.
Personally I find them threatening - and I think that we have to get around something in our minds - not to find them threatening. And that says a lot in itself.
It is an advertisement for Islam – and sentiments like the Prophet Mohammed expressed - 'I am a really stupid woman who can’t control my sexuality' - dress.
WAKE UP ISLAMIC WOMEN!!!!
Thing is they even have to wear this black dress in the Saudi desert sun - and they think that they are 'special'. If you don't put anything in - you will not get anything out!
Forcing the women to be dumb and subservient is the Shar’ia way.
If Mohammed was right - let him be proved right. Let the boy and the girl compete mentally.
But if your school is burning down - make sure you have on your burqa - girls. Otherwise you will be forced to remain in the burning building until you do put your burqa on; as happened to a group of Saudi school girls who were forced by the Islamic police in Saudi Arabia - to remain in their school as the building burned down. Outrageous!
Western women are trying to help you!!
Thanks - but no thanks - to the burqa in Europe.
I hope this goes through -
Provoslavni, I can't agree with you more. But please add on point 8 that when they leave voluntarily; they can never come back. Let's face it, muslims have no place in Europe. At the same time westerners have no place in the islamic world. We just don't mix and we should not live together.
On point 1: end all family allowance to muslim immigrants. They have not earned the right to this priviledge.
On point 2: also muslim women who do not want to work should be deported. Only if the family lives without social benefits nor has family allowance, they earn the right to choose if the woman wants to work or be a housewife
On poitn 4: also outlaw mixed marriages, european women should not be allowed to marry muslim men and take them here. These women usually adapt to muslim habits and should live in a muslim country accordingly. Besides children of these marriages are often muslim and they have a better future in a muslim country. They should also not be able to get an european nationality.
On point 6: I would not let have these children been adopted by european parents but rather deport the whole family. These children might have been already influenced by their parents and spread their poison at school. Non of the other children should be confrontated with muslim poison.
Point 7: excisting mosques, islamic schools should be closed. They violate with point # 3 or intergrating in european society. Islam is a foreign religion.