Islamic cultural invasion/Europe

From Issuepedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


It appears that sometime prior to 1995, Islamic communities began forming in many European countries, taking advantage of the liberal immigration laws and social support systems in those countries. Unlike other groups of refugees, however, many of these communities became very insular (apparently deliberately so), refusing to adapt to Western customs or even learn any of the dominant languages of their adopted countries.

Taking advantage of their own rapidly-growing population combined with a willingness to use the threat of violence as a political tactic, they have apparently successfully demanded special schools and other concessions which make it unnecessary (or even life-threatening) for them or their offspring to integrate into society.

As they have gained more political clout, they have begun attempting to impose (and in many cases succeeding in imposing) the idea that any speech or action which "offends" Islam should not be tolerated, regardless of whether such speech might be legally protected by freedom of speech laws. It is arguable that their ultimate goal may be the imposition of Sharia (Islamic) law, often described as Islamofascism, on all of Europe, and eventually the world.

Critics of these actions often claim that, for example, British courts are now recognizing the rule of Sharia courts as legitimate. It is not clear whether these claims are valid; in the US, such claims inevitably turn out to be courts recognizing religious law as the relevant law in agreements that were explicitly based on them (and therefore an entirely appropriate usage), but the UK context may be a little different.


Tentatively, it appears that European politicians are calculatedly "caving in" on various Muslim "demands" in order to make Islam seem more of a threat, from which other politicians can then build a campaign to "save" the voters and setting the stage for political theatre. While there is as yet no clear documentation of this sort of "good cop/bad cop" posturing among politicians of (supposedly) opposing parties, it does fit a pattern seen in many countries (e.g. Democrats in the US backing "Blue Dog" candidates so there will always be someone to prevent popular but politically inconvenient legislation from passing).


  • Muslims are actually quite under-represented, politically: in the UK, for example, the Muslim population is about 4 million out of 60 million total (~6.7%), but there are only about 4 Muslim MPs out of 650 MPs total (~0.6%).
  • Muslim courts are only being recognized as binding between parties who mutually agree to be bound by them. This would be done in any case where the disputants agree to be bound by rule of a third party (cf paid mediation services). (Relevant links: [1] [[2])
    • The fear, as I understand it, is that disempowered Muslims (especially women) will feel compelled to use Muslim courts, and possibly at mortal risk if they do not; thus many Muslims are still de facto ruled by Muslim law, whether or not they wish it and whether or not the secular courts acknowledge Muslim courts as superior.
      • Even if true (which it may well be), that's a far cry from secular courts allowing Muslim courts to override secular law -- which is how this is being presented. A solution would be something more along the lines of creating programs to protect Muslims who seek legal redress outside Muslim society, to document complaints about Muslim social oppression, and so forth. (Some of this may have already been done.)