I never really understood why Americans say "Europe's doomed because of its many Muslims".

Some European countries really do have a large number of Muslims (Germany and UK 5 percent, Switzerland 4 percent,...), but on the other hand, many European countries only have between 0 and 2 percent Muslim population (Ireland, Poland, Czech Republic, Portugal,...). The USA already have between 2 and 3 percent Muslims with the number of immigrants still increasing very fast, while immigration to most European countries (except the UK and France) is slowing down.

I'm pretty sure, that the future's in South America, because the USA and Europe will be both turn Muslim if things aren't going to change fast.

Posted by: Daniel at March 8, 2007 1:28 PM

The institution by Congress of "Islamic family law" courts in the US would be a blatant violation of the 1st amendment, that Congress shall make no laws on the subject of religion.

I don't think that this can come to pass through an act of Congress. Could the courts themselves cede part of their jurisdiction?

The native American autonomy seems a poor analogy. These were nations present in North America prior to the US, and were dealt with as such (often treacherously, admittedly) through negotiation, treaty and, at times, war.

Posted by: Dhimmisoftheworldunite at March 8, 2007 1:30 PM

I believe that the idea of shariah law in the United States represents real progress.

Progress that is, back to 7th Century.

I wonder if the promoters of the SPP who favor embracing 3rd world corruption as part of their vision for the United States; also promote this idea too?

Why is this idea first floated in 1993, surfacing at all in 2007?

Posted by: witness at March 8, 2007 1:41 PM

Our culture may die, but at least it will die with its political correctness intact.

Never let it be said that we let a deliberate invasion by people bent on destroying our way of life stand in the way of our principles!!

Posted by: PMK at March 8, 2007 1:50 PM

Daniel according to the CIA World Factbook the Muslim population of Britain stands at 2.7%. In France the figure is somewhere between 5 – 10%.

Posted by: Mert at March 8, 2007 1:51 PM

Little by little.
Cabbies in airports, allowing students to have a seperate place to pray and go during mealtime at Ramedan, and now a Muslim student sueing a school district for holding a graduation in a Baptist Church.
This was on FOXNEWS this morning about the graduation. The student said that his religion prevented him fro going in a Church.???
I thought we had been told on here by trolls that they had visited Churches?

Posted by: auntbea at March 8, 2007 1:53 PM

The institution by Congress of "Islamic family law" courts in the US would be a blatant violation of the 1st amendment, that Congress shall make no laws on the subject of religion

Well we all know how the followers of islam feel about following american law, to them it doesn't exist. As far as Congressman Ellison is concerned, he may be able to make a case for it, which at that point his true color (green or better yet cowardly yellow) will show all of us what his true intent is.

Posted by: gaelen at March 8, 2007 1:54 PM

"To have it seem that this initiative is originating from overseas or from organizations financed overseas, would create a very negative impression that would likely destroy this effort."

Unfortunately, I know people for whom this reminder is targeting. As long as the group is indigenous, and "fighting the good fight of independence", they would gladly go along.

I'm starting to think that Robert's solution of drafting new nationalization and immigration applications is not enough.

Posted by: deesine at March 8, 2007 1:57 PM

One other thing, the basis of the argument using the native american tribal court as a template for implementing sharia is kind of like cheating. Tribal law was established for indigenous native american peoples, in fact declaring the native american nation as a sovereign nation. The muslim people are immigrants just like the rest of us, no one else qualifies under federal tribal law.

Posted by: gaelen at March 8, 2007 2:00 PM

"To have it (the initiative to adpot Sharia Law) seem that this initiative is originating from overseas or from organizations financed overseas, would create a very negative impression that would likely destroy this effort".

Actually, I'd say the mere fact the initiative originates from the Muslim community is sufficient enough to create a negative impression for me. The initiative does not have to originate from the KSA or Iran or UAE or wherever.

Fight the future.

Posted by: omvi at March 8, 2007 2:03 PM

We've already had one civil war.

Posted by: MP at March 8, 2007 2:10 PM

How can sharia law ever pass constitutional muster when blue laws could not? If the anti-religion folks had had their way, even Christmas as a national holiday would have been made unconstitutional because of its religious origins.

Sharia law in the US just seems incomprehensible, not just because of our traditions, but because of our legal system. "Separate but equal" was struck down decades ago. If the government couldn't maintain separate school systems how can it maintain separate court systems? How can Sharia law not meet the same definition and so fail the same test?

Do verdicts in a Muslim court get appealed to a state or federal court? What mechanism is there to enforce any decision handed down? Is the secular government expected to do it? There you have a clear case of "separate but equal".

Posted by: PMK at March 8, 2007 2:12 PM

"Wait 20-50 years. The muslim population will increase by leaps and bounds.

Due to: Immigration and conversion by those members of American society who want to undermine "white" America."
Posted by americaningermany

Right you are. Not to mention that they breed like rats.

As you know, the same suggestion was raised in Canada. Muslim women were the most outspoken critics of the idea.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at March 8, 2007 2:15 PM

Even if you vote liberal and want a global village you will baulk when your child or yourself are forced to conform to the Sharia law that your hug the third world attitude has brought you. The shame is that these average middle class Guardian readers are insulated from the world they have such strong opinions about by money. They don’t send there kids to inner city schools or god forbid invite Somali immigrants into their homes, but their plans for the world must be implemented all the same.

The problem theses privileged few have come from the people who actually do live amongst the crime and the jihad that their open door policy brings to this small country. These working class people are the ones who are going to vote BNP or UKIP. These are the people you meet everyday in the street. The truth is unless you are middle class and privileged enough to have the time to ponder an ideal world, you will not meet a single white person who thinks Britain is not screwed up. I have yet to meet anybody who believes the Muslims in Britain have anything to offer.

And that is the immovable rock that the Muslims will have to beat themselves against if they are to conquer Britain. People do not like jihad in Britain. This is not Spain where blowing up a train on the right day will determine an election. Here we would vote the opposite way out of sheer bloody spite.

Even Hitler had something to offer the German people. Islam offers nothing but pain to everybody it meets including itself.

Posted by: Mert at March 8, 2007 2:19 PM

This story shows why a nation can never be too "Islamophobic". This bunch is constantly striving to dominate the world, by quiet means as well as by violent ones, one nation at a time. They act like termites and are far more destructive.

Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at March 8, 2007 2:20 PM

"Why is this idea first floated in 1993, surfacing at all in 2007?"

Posted by: witness

Critical mass of Muslims in some communities and the confluence of events, such as the election of a Muslim congressman and the evolution of political correctness to the point where freedom to practice your religion allows you to claim dispensation to disregard all civil laws that you don't like (like the airport cabbies).

Posted by: PMK at March 8, 2007 2:22 PM

Here is the link to the story about the student. the more they wear the public down on these little things the more they will dull our senses the same way we all let so many things get changed by the anti-Christians all this time. And now that I know how long Muslims have been planning this I think they may have been in the background of getting all these things outlawed in the past thirty years.

http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Mar08/0,4670,ChurchGraduationSuit,00.html

As an example I watched the movie "Close Encounters of the the Third Kind" the other day. Before the volunteers were to go on the spaceship they had a prayer meeting with a priest in full garb. This was Steven Spielberg and it was only in 1979!
How much has changed in this time and I'm suspecting we have been 'worked on' more than we realise.

Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at March 8, 2007 2:27 PM

Testing (had, indeed still have, machine problems)

Posted by: Sir Henry Morgan at March 8, 2007 2:33 PM

By the way does the term (used by our President)
"Legislating From The Bench" sound familiar to you. They don't need states or congress to pass new laws only interpret the old ones to suit them.

Judges in the USA are doing this every day.

Aunt Bea

Posted by: auntbea at March 8, 2007 2:39 PM

Sharia law needs to be banned by an irrevokable constitutional amendment that cannot be overturned at a later date. The first step to implementing such a singular amendment is to officially declare sharia law to be a complete and total violation of human rights, which it is. Until Islam rehabilitates itself and its legal code, such barbaric jurisprudence should be given short shrift.

A simple and immediate initial legal finding should be that halal slaughter — which consists of slashing an animal's throat without anaesthetization and letting it slowly bleed to death — is inhumane and therefore to be banned throughout the United States.

As a sidebar, does anyone else find it rather conspicuous that organizations like PETA and the ALF remain astonishingly silent about this barbaric practice? People who are concerned about making America into a Muslim-unfriendly nation really need to browbeat these "animal rights" groups over their hypocritical negligence regarding this.

Another critical path is to legally prohibit any public wearing of the burqa or niqab. There already exist laws that apply to the wearing of disguises in public. The potential security breach represented by someone wearing such concealing garb is ample reason to make this illegal. The single example of Britain’s most wanted terrorist suspect wearing a burqa in order to escape through airport security and flee overseas is all that should be needed for making this case.

These two relatively simple measures would bring the radical Islamic fundamentalists crawling out of the woodwork. They need to be identified and monitored for continuing seditious and terrorist activity. People of their type represent the hard core of Islamic infiltrators in America. Immigrants who vocally oppose such necessary laws need to be identified so that they can be stripped of their visas and immediately deported. Any opposition to these measures should be interpreted as an unwillingness to integrate with modern American society, thereby abrogating the terms of their immigration agreement.

This must be only the beginning of how to make America a Muslim-unfriendly place. When one considers all the legal measures that Muslim majority nations have enacted that restrict the rights of non-Muslims, this can only be seen as reciprocity. The superb Scandinavian blogger, Fjordman, presents the case for instituting Muslim-unfriendly measures in his essay, “Recommendations for the West”. An excerpt:

We should take a break from massive immigration, also non-Muslim immigration, for at least a generation, in order to absorb and assimilate the persons we already have in our countries. The West is becoming so overwhelmed by immigration that this may trigger civil wars in several Western nations in the near future. We already have massive Third World ghettos in our major cities. Future immigration needs to be more strictly controlled and ONLY non-Muslim.

This immigration break should be used to demonstrate clearly that the West will no longer serve as the dumping ground for excess population growth in other countries. We have cultures and countries that we’d like to preserve, too, and cannot and should not be expected to accept unlimited number of migrants from other countries. But above all, the West, and indeed the non-Muslim world, should make our countries Islam-unfriendly and implement a policy of containment of Dar al-Islam. This is the most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims.

The best way to deal with the Islamic world is to have as little to do with it as possible. We should ban Muslim immigration. This could be done in creative and indirect ways, such as banning immigration from nations with citizens known to be engaged in terrorist activities. We should remove all Muslim non-citizens currently in the West. We should also change our laws to ensure that Muslim citizens who advocate sharia, preach Jihad, the inequality of “infidels” and of women should have their citizenship revoked and be deported back to their country of origin.

We need to create an environment where the practice of Islam is made difficult. Muslim citizens should be forced to either accept our secular ways or leave if they desire sharia. Much of this can be done in a non-discriminatory way, by simply refusing to allow special pleading to Muslims. Do not allow the Islamic public call to prayer as it is offensive to other faiths. All children, boys and girls should take part in all sporting and social activities of the school and the community. The veil should be banned in all public institutions, thus also contributing to breaking the traditional subjugation of women. Companies and public buildings should not be forced to build prayer rooms for Muslims. Enact laws to eliminate the abuse of family reunification laws. Do not permit major investments by Muslims in Western media or universities.

(Link: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/recommendations-for-west.html )

I urge all Jihad Watchers to read this man’s works. He is lucid, intellectually honest and forthright in his concern regarding Muslim colonization of the West. Another outstanding work of his is titled: “Why We Cannot Rely On Moderate Muslims”.

(Link: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/09/why-we-cannot-rely-on-moderate-muslims.html )

America is confronted with the greatest threat to its existence in all history. Islam has always been a danger to other non-Muslim nations surrounding it and continues in that tradition today. As Fjordman notes; “This is the most civilized thing we can do in order to save ourselves, but also to limit the loss of life among both Muslims and non-Muslims.” Without such measures in place the alternatives are far more unattractive and could range from civil war to nuclear armmageddon.

Posted by: Zenster at March 8, 2007 2:43 PM

The History channel has been running a Barbarian Week - really excellent series BTW. Last night or so was the Anglo Saxons - story of Alfred the Great pushing back the Vikings. They said he was the only king with the title "The Great".

You guys need another Alfred The Great, and so do we (and I do not mean church of global warming pontiff Alfred Gore!)

We have to push them off our respective islands, back to the desert, and the sooner the better. But it is going to take Alfreds who can squash PC and smash heads together - smash, in the ordering sense, at least initially - but potentially physically if need be. We need leaders that understand the Musselmen are here to either kill us or be subject to them.

Posted by: Jimmy Bones at March 8, 2007 2:51 PM

"I have yet to meet anybody who believes the Muslims in Britain have anything to offer."

I offer all of you this one simple question:

DOES ISLAM HAVE EVEN A SINGLE REDEEMING FEATURE ABOUT IT?

Face the question squarely.

This savage and barbaric ideology is one massive violation of human rights and breeds up the very worst sort of violence, abuse and intolerance. There is no compelling reason for us to allow its practice within the United States. I invite arguments to the contrary.

Posted by: Zenster at March 8, 2007 3:00 PM

DOES ISLAM HAVE EVEN A SINGLE REDEEMING FEATURE ABOUT IT?

It makes us realize that the Bible was true.
It makes us realize how amazing and revolutionary Jesus, The Christ was.

Other than that, I kind of agree with the Kabbala (Jewish mystical book), where it is stated that Yahweh had only one regret:

That he didn't slay Ishmael in the cradle.

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at March 8, 2007 3:06 PM

"We've already had one civil war." by MP

That one was a civilized civil war with uniformed armies commanded by trained generals. Unreconstructed Southerners still call it The War Between the States. If there is another one in our future it will involve people armed by foreign powers. The next civil war will be ugly and violent with no rules and no distinction between combatants and civilians.

Concerning family courts - There is nothing to prevent two individuals from taking their dispute to a mediator of some type. A rather common example is a married couple going to a minister or a professional marraige counselor. I see nothing wrong with two Mohammedans taking their disagreement to an Imam. Even disputes over car accidents are sometimes resolved before a law suit is filed. However, having different legalized court systems for Mohammedans, then Jews, then Methodists, then any other group is unacceptable.

Posted by: Pelayo at March 8, 2007 3:25 PM

I can see Muslim law going over well with the millions of Russian religious thugs who won't become Americans, the millions of Catholic border busters and the millions of heathens like Bill Clinton.

The question is: Why would Muslims want all these thugs and perverts? Don't they have enough of their own.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at March 8, 2007 3:44 PM

Sudden Jihad Syndrome all over the free world seems more likely than serious organized attacks.

Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at March 8, 2007 4:02 PM

"Sudden Jihad Syndrome all over the free world seems more likely than serious organized attacks."

...and that lame old Muslim line of Violent Jihad is carried out by a minority of Muslims who have hijacked Islam is about exausted.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at March 8, 2007 4:04 PM

Oh, but it's only family law! You know, like a friend of mine who used to live in Iraq: her husband beat her, they finally divorced, and under Iraqi arabic law (not even sharia per se), he got the children. There was nothing she could do.

Posted by: Lili at March 8, 2007 4:06 PM

Philosophical arguments of good and evil aside and prior to any of this slow Islamic progression becoming realistic, Muslims first need to prove the existence of Allah before laws of that god would be followed. If such extraordinary evidence is pushed so eagerly by Muslims, surely they have undeniable proof of Allah. So far I have seen none and thus I have as much respect for Islamic law as I would laws handed down by Zeus or Thor.

The concept of Allah is wholly laughable along with this vague world view that Islamic law and the tribal culture being superior to all others is....embarrassing and ignorant. "Allahs" morality and reverence for the pantheon of life is notoriously conditional, cheap and Allahs laws wither in the light of ever evolving modern morality, ethics and objectivity.

Dispelling the imagined power of a god who is not there can surely take the wind of the sails of both Islamic law as well as the will to commit suicide/murder for a god that only offers guarantees from a book of historical fiction.

All of this comes down to the impetus to defeat Islam and its fictional deity for the sake of a more beautiful future. Aside from one individual assuming their god is better over anothers makes for pitifully weak arguments.

The constant I keep chiming in is that any creator who allows the presence of base evil in this universe is unworthy of any form of worship. I know that this tends to raise hackles among the non-Muslim faithful but without self spiritual reflection, there will only be eternal god-warfare.

Only when we are willing to self reflect will we be able to defeat this mess of mythical proportions.

Posted by: Quantum Infidel at March 8, 2007 4:09 PM

What is really needed is something like anti-Sharia laws. In particular, we (and esp suicidal Europe) need tough laws to protect women in Islamic families who want to leave and abandon Islam. Safe houses are needed for women or dependents to go to when they are abused or threatened for religious or cultural reasons, and a way to hide them in society permanently from retribution from Neanderthal family “honor” vengeance. Also special (free speech) laws with very high prison sentences should be made against any violent threats against anyone because they vilified or criticized any religion or religious personage.

Posted by: FM at March 8, 2007 4:15 PM

Dudes and dudettes

The answer to this is you are spending to much time here. Leave the computer and aim to spend to get your wife (or your husband get you) pregnant. Have a few more children and boost the numerical numbers of non-Muslims

Go out and have great sex in defence of the West.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 8, 2007 4:21 PM

I have to differ on the question of "What does Islam have to offer?" I think it is extremely dangerous to go about thinking that Islam offers absolutely nothing. Ordinary people (to combat Islam) must understand what the attraction is of Islam. This is the only way to defeat Islam.

Think of what Islam offers to those in power -- it's a TOTAL power trip -- all property of Infidels is yours to enjoy and loot...there are NO "inalienable human rights" -- some people (that's those who practice Islam) are inherently
"better" than all others, there's inequality built into the system (privileging followers of islam, while simultaneously disadvantaging anyone who does not ascribe to said beliefs) -- and these inequities are then used to exploit the Dhimmi communities -- hey, offer some "freebies/privileges" to Dhimmi community X, and get all the other Dhimmi communities competing (since segregation and humiliation of non-Muslim communities was the primary forms of exploitation of the conquered areas - along with the encouraged collaboration of the Dhimmis with Islam).

I think more people need to read Bat Ye'or's works (such as "The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: from Jihad to Dhimmitude.")

Posted by: J.S. at March 8, 2007 4:34 PM

RIGHT ON, UK Infidel Lover!! Out breed them nasty critters.

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at March 8, 2007 4:41 PM

This guy's onto something, all right, when he says sharia won't be accomplished overnight in America!!!!!

It's not going to be established here at all!!!

AND---Deliver us all from Islam and its innumerable, infinite horrors!

Posted by: pythagoras at March 8, 2007 4:50 PM

Deesine:
>>
I'm starting to think that Robert's solution of drafting new nationalization and immigration applications is not enough.

I have not seen the proposals so I cannot comment. What I do think is we have to get political. We have to lobby. This web site is great in that it does influence people.
We need to inform the unthinking masses and liberals about the danger of Islam.
And in most western countries, we needd to reform Immigration law aand get tough.

I also saw a while back a falling out between Robert Spencer and Lawrence Auster. I dont really care about, "Who has the most integrity?".
The fact is the danger of Islam is such an important issue, that frankly I will work with anyone even if I dont see eye-to-eye on all issues. After all the USA and UK are allies in Iraq and I certainly dont agree with everything that US put forward. The word "ally" means we have broad agreement even if on smaller nuanced issues there is disagreement. But there are too many issues that are so important that I will work with whoever fits the "ally" mold even if on personal level I have no rapport.

I also think that the issue with Islam will become important in 2050 -> 2070 unless some unexpected things happen (wars over drinking water (yup: Egypt regards any change in the 1928 12-nation agreement over the Nile as an Act of War; Turkey, Syria & Iraq have had disagreements over a dam in Turkey and use of the Euphrates prior to the Iraq war) and oil, global warming, HIV/AIDS/Hepatitis make significant impact, significant number of Muslims abandon their religion through disenchantment).
By that time I am not sure if I will be here.
So the issues with Islam will be faced by our children and grandchildren.

BTW, how do you manage to do bold and italic in a post here?

So I see Daniel Pipes, Lawrence Auster, Melanie Philips as allies and I dont want to fall out with them. Again, the issues are too important.
This trancends whether you are "left", "right", "Republican", "Democrat", "Christian", "Secularist", whatever.

And I also wish to make sure that all Western countries are supported and not left intellectually isolated even if their people do not know what is going on. So that includes

USA
Canada
Europe (but not Turkey - it is less than 1% European in terms of land)
Australia
New Zealand
Isreal

Japan, Russia & China are useful allys here.

I think most of the West has immense problems with illegal migrants. And I think most of the West has significant problems passing laws and enforcing them due to the liberal bias in most Western countries. It is most pronounced in Europe and least in Israel. I am not liberal in the slightest.

I basically go along with Lawrence Austers view on the solution to Islam here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html

I think it vital to make sure the West weans itself off oil, develop alternative sources of energy (in the year 2400, if humanity is still around, oil will have run out and just about every nation (if there still are "nations") will track the Sun and use whatever means to generate clean energy: solar power, wind, the sea, tides, hydroelectric, trickling, heat differences.

Posted by: UK Infidel Lover at March 8, 2007 5:12 PM

Here is the link to the story about the student:

"The New Jersey ACLU said Wednesday that it was suing the school district because its decision to hold graduation in the church prevented West Side High School senior Bilal Shareef, a Muslim, from attending. Shareef's religious beliefs forbid him from entering a building with religious images, the civil liberties group said."

***

Well, I guess we don't have to worry about him appealing this case to the Supreme Court since that building is loaded with religious images.

Seriously, why are they having the graduation at the church? Our church is used for non-church-related purposes because of its size. Does this church seat more people than the high school auditorium?

It's obvious that Bilal would be more comfortable in a place outside the US since he has no intention of integrating into the larger American society. There are certain social obligations that people in a pluralistic society make to each other. I had Hindus and Jews at my Christian wedding. I wasn't out to convert them, just celebrate with them. Will this fellow eschew a wedding invitation from a coworker if takes place in a church? If his boss dies suddenly, will he forego the funeral if it takes place in a church?

Posted by: CJ at March 8, 2007 6:20 PM

"Sharia law needs to be banned by an irrevokable constitutional amendment that cannot be overturned at a later date."

Zenster,

I'm not sure there is any way to make a constitutional amendment irrevocable. It's my understanding that even the First Amendment isn't sacrosanct. If you can get it through either a constitutional convention or through Congress, and then the ratification process, anything can be done.

Posted by: PMK at March 8, 2007 7:26 PM

Today I attached the 'OUTLAW SHARIA' and 'STOP JIHAD' stickers to my SUV. Friends advised me against doing so since it would most likely invite hostility. First I asked that if it indeed happened, wouldn't it prove my point?? I then asked by whom?? The religion of peace?? Islamists?? Surely not, not in the USA, where freedom of expression is still recognized and honored. I hope. However, IF something untoward should happen to me here in SoCal while driving my car or my car gets vandalized, I'm sure that it will all be coincidental, and nothing to do with my proudly displaying those two 'bumper' stickers.

Posted by: Coeurmaeghan at March 8, 2007 7:41 PM

Native American Courts

Muslims are always trying to identify with American Indians. I don't get it. If islam had been in the Americas in the days of the explorers, they would have wiped the Indians out. American Indians were never islamic. The sympathy of muslims for the Indians is quite curious. You know, there is a theory that the American Indians are the "lost tribes of Israel" (I don't believe that, but that should make the jihadis a little nervous, that they are sympathetic to Jews) Heh heh heh

Posted by: Carolyn2 at March 8, 2007 10:10 PM

UK Infidel Lover,

I have to agree 100 percent with what you've outlined...the petty bickering on really silly points -- gotta get over it.

The way to do "bold" or "italics" is through putting into your text file what are called html "tags." So, say you want to put something into bold -- say, you want the word "bold" to appear "bold." Just use the left caret symbol (it appears above the "comma" character, on standard keyboards, then the letter "b" without quotations marks, followed by a closing caret symbol --that's the character which appears above the period). Then you write the word you want to appear in bold. Then you need to end the bolding, so you type the left caret symbol, then one backslash, followed by the letter "b" then the closing caret symbol). So you get " bold " ok? You can see these html "tags" by going to View -- then "source" (if you're using Microsoft's Internet Explorer). Then, if you want to do an italic -- use the small letter "i" instead of the letter "b"....

Posted by: J.S. at March 8, 2007 10:39 PM

Jimmy Bones wrote:

"The History channel has been running a Barbarian Week - really excellent series BTW. Last night or so was the Anglo Saxons - story of Alfred the Great pushing back the Vikings. They said he was the only king with the title "The Great".

"...The greatest Englishman that ever lived was King Alfred." (Winston Spencer Churchill)

If you like Coleridge, you'll like The saga of Alfred & Gudrum

Posted by: Malinois at March 8, 2007 11:06 PM

Coeurmaeghan wrote:

"Today I attached the 'OUTLAW SHARIA' and 'STOP JIHAD' stickers to my SUV. Friends advised me against doing so since it would most likely invite hostility."

I invite you to see a post I made on another thread at JW earlier this evening:

Muslim Websites Target Georgia Motorist for Death
March 07, 2007

"Two Islamic militant websites have called on Muslims to kill the driver of a Georgia registered vehicle displaying an offensive bumper sticker. . . .

Posted by: Malinois at March 8, 2007 11:14 PM

What's GW doing about all this?

Never mind.

Posted by: savitch at March 8, 2007 11:40 PM

The Amish and Orthodox Jews, who maintain their own religious laws, do not seek to actively implement THEIR laws onto all of the citizens in the United States. Nor do they murder others in the name of their God and call it "defense."

Never Submit; Never Give-in!

If Sharia law is wanted then let them leave this country and it's constitution and live in a country that that has Sharia law.

In the States we have a Constitution. If one doesn't like it....then don't be a U.S. citizen period.

Posted by: Monkeywho at March 9, 2007 12:42 AM

” It makes us realize that the Bible was true.”

Since that isn’t of much help to non-Christians, it doesn’t count.

” Oh, but it's only family law!”

First they came to change the school lunch menus
and I did not speak out
because I am no longer in school
Then they came to change the government washrooms
and I did not speak out
because I do not work for the government
Then they came to change the family law
and I did not speak out
because I am unmarried
Then they came to force me to worship Allah
and there was no one left
to speak out for me

In memory of Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

” What is really needed is something like anti-Sharia laws.”

FM, did you read my initial post? If you did, you would already know that I have described a perfectly reasonable way to begin the outlawing of sharia and Islam in America. Sharia is such a profound and blatant affront to all human rights that its persistent violation of them should be more than adequate to justify its permanent disqualification as a valid system in terms of American jurisprudence.

I’m happy to inform this web site that I have already planted one of the seeds for this. A dear friend of mine once served as executive director for a major regional animal control authority. I mentioned to her the inhumane aspects involved with halal slaughter and she instantly agreed to inform her extensive network of animal humane society colleagues about this horror.

” Go out and have great sex in defence of the West.”

Quite a persuasive rationale. Once again, I invite all arguments to the contrary.

” I have to differ on the question of "What does Islam have to offer?" I think it is extremely dangerous to go about thinking that Islam offers absolutely nothing. Ordinary people (to combat Islam) must understand what the attraction is of Islam. This is the only way to defeat Islam.

Think of what Islam offers to those in power -- it's a TOTAL power trip -- all property of Infidels is yours to enjoy and loot...there are NO "inalienable human rights" -- some people (that's those who practice Islam) are inherently "better" than all others, there's inequality built into the system (privileging followers of islam, while simultaneously disadvantaging anyone who does not ascribe to said beliefs) -- and these inequities are then used to exploit the Dhimmi communities -- hey, offer some "freebies/privileges" to Dhimmi community X, and get all the other Dhimmi communities competing (since segregation and humiliation of non-Muslim communities was the primary forms of exploitation of the conquered areas - along with the encouraged collaboration of the Dhimmis with Islam).

You make an extremely good case, J.S.. Granted that Islam has lots to offer the average male who is hopelessly inadequate when it comes to women. Granted that Islam confers innumerable unfair advantages upon those lacking sufficient ethics and moral fiber to reject such flagrantly preferential treatment.

However, I am obliged to note how Islam’s “power trip” largely consists of installing oneself as a Neanderthal extortionist or bully thereby foregoing all real scientific or industrial progress. In turn, this intrinsically delimits any ability to originate advanced weaponry which leaves oneself at a distinct disadvantage. As Dr. John Lewis notes:

"Islamic warriors can shoot an AK-47, but they cannot build one; all of the arms possessed by Islamic countries come from outside those countries. They are pathetically weak; the American army ended the regime of Saddam Hussein in three weeks, after Iran could not beat him in eight years."

The price tag Islam carries with it is simply too dear and eventually cripples any prospects for the growth of its adherents. The intensely retrograde force that Muslim culture represents stands as enduring proof of this fact.

"I'm not sure there is any way to make a constitutional amendment irrevocable. It's my understanding that even the First Amendment isn't sacrosanct. If you can get it through either a constitutional convention or through Congress, and then the ratification process, anything can be done."

I understand, PMK, and your point is well made. This is why I mention tieing a permanent prohibition of sharia to its intrinsic violation of human rights. We somehow need to make our "inalienable rights" ... well, inalienable. The Bill of Rights must not be able to be overturned, not even by a majority vote.

This is why it is so critical to criminalize sharia law right away. Ban the burqa and niqab. Ban halal slaughter. Ban Muslim immigration. Hell, ban Islam. Do whatever it takes to make America less vulnerable to Muslim colonization.

Posted by: Zenster at March 9, 2007 5:52 PM