Support NeoGAF

[ElFly]

But what are you disapproving of? A woman deciding to wear something out of her own volition? Here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyTGY7wmIjo is an interview with a woman who decided on her own to wear a niqab. How can you disaprove of her entirely indivdual decision without belittling her intelligence. Why is a woman removing the niqab or burqa forced on her beautiful to you but the woman freely deciding to wear one distressing? Do you enjoy judging women's choices?

this simplifies too much; an adult women should wear whatever she wants, but that still excludes forcing or promoting young women to wear face coverings, and/or socially chastising women in muslim families who want to not wear face (or head) coverings

all your beautiful words about freedom are empty and meaningless if there are women in western societies who cannot go outside without covering their heads and faces for fear of their families' reactions

 

[His Majesty]

Because for some reason, Whites in the West interpet folks of different backgrounds, races, and/or cultures as a threat to their own. And they are the only group of people that actively have this problem with the "others" of their countries.

this is too much

 

[jWILL253]

Bullshit.

I'd go further and say White Westerners are way more tolerant and open minded than others.

Brexit is happening. Trump is winning White voters in the States.

Might need to re-evaluate your sentiments there.

 

[TheBlackMarvel]

Bullshit.

I'd go further and say White Westerners are way more tolerant and open minded than others.

 

[Dalibor68]

Bullshit.

I'd go further and say White Westerners are way more tolerant and open minded than others.

Do not feed the troll and his shoulder-tapping companion. Someone who opens his post with "So, you are all fucking racists" is not worth engaging in conversation with. Their only intent is to poison and thus prevent any discussion. Nothing positive comes out of this.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

I wish the closet racists and helicopter racists in this thread would stop using the word "integration", since they don't really want them to integrate.

Basically, you have two different types of people in this thread: People who I like to call "helicopter racists", who honestly believe that a Muslim woman can't possibly be wearing a burka, niqab, or even a simple hijab, because they want to. Simply due to the fact that the most unstable region in the entire world forces women to wear these garments by law, Muslims all over the world must be forced to wear it by proxy. The irony lost in these folks is that they want to support feminism and freedom... by banning garments they think are unsuitable for women to wear.

The other kind of folks in this thread are the good ol' closet racists who are always concern trolling and using coded euphemisms. They say they want Muslims to be forced to "integrate" with society. I have a newsflash for these particular folks: once you move into a place, and you know... live your life and interact with others, you've already integrated. Hell, in France's case, you have Muslims that are native to the country that are being told to "integrate" when they've already integrated... they were fucking born there.

No, what these folks really want is assimilation, and not just basic assimilation by the strictest definition of the term. They want Muslim women, and Muslims in general, to do what my ancestors did during the slave trade: To ignore, remove, and/or systematically destroy all aspects of their original culture to the point of either embracing values not native to their own heritage, or having to create new ones from scratch. And this isn't so Muslims can have an easier time interacting with others of different backgrounds... until White people get over themselves, this will always be a problem in Western society. No, they want Muslims to assimilate to ease their own discomfort with people different than them. Because for some reason, Whites in the West interpet folks of different backgrounds, races, and/or cultures as a threat to their own. And they are the only group of people that actively have this problem with the "others" of their countries.

Preach, preach, preach!

 

[Pancake Mix]

Because for some reason, Whites in the West interpet folks of different backgrounds, races, and/or cultures as a threat to their own. And they are the only group of people that actively have this problem with the "others" of their countries.

No, just no, that's bullshit. You're living in a bubble.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Arab_Emirates

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Saudi_Arabia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe#Fast-track_land_reform_and_violence

 

[Gaz_RB]

I'm on the fence personally. I find all of the veil types that hide the face and neck to be unacceptable. What's a human right if not the right to see someone's face when you speak to them? Or the right to express yourself properly, not only through voice but also through body language as well. The Hijab, I have absolutely no problem with. I don't care what color your hair is, I just want to see your face when I interact with you.

lol that is not a human right.

 

[Boudica]

Seriously guys. Just because people make choices that you don't agree with or understand doesn't mean they weren't made of their own free will.

I don't like the things myself. But what I like or don't is completely irrelevant

Let them wear their niqabs and burkhas, but they need to stop pretending that this is an Islamic requirement. There's nothing in the Qu'ran, hadiths, or early Islamic history that indicates these article of clothings are Islamic.

Kinda ironic that these so called ultra pious people who seem to throw a hissy fit over things like prayer beads (calling them innovations and unislamic), would then try to pass these non Islamic clothing as religiously proscribed. I doubt they'd win any court cases if they weren't also acting as if they wear it due to their religion.

 

[anaron]

I wish the closet racists and helicopter racists in this thread would stop using the word "integration", since they don't really want them to integrate.

Basically, you have two different types of people in this thread: People who I like to call "helicopter racists", who honestly believe that a Muslim woman can't possibly be wearing a burka, niqab, or even a simple hijab, because they want to. Simply due to the fact that the most unstable region in the entire world forces women to wear these garments by law, Muslims all over the world must be forced to wear it by proxy. The irony lost in these folks is that they want to support feminism and freedom... by banning garments they think are unsuitable for women to wear.

The other kind of folks in this thread are the good ol' closet racists who are always concern trolling and using coded euphemisms. They say they want Muslims to be forced to "integrate" with society. I have a newsflash for these particular folks: once you move into a place, and you know... live your life and interact with others, you've already integrated. Hell, in France's case, you have Muslims that are native to the country that are being told to "integrate" when they've already integrated... they were fucking born there.

No, what these folks really want is assimilation, and not just basic assimilation by the strictest definition of the term. They want Muslim women, and Muslims in general, to do what my ancestors did during the slave trade: To ignore, remove, and/or systematically destroy all aspects of their original culture to the point of either embracing values not native to their own heritage, or having to create new ones from scratch. And this isn't so Muslims can have an easier time interacting with others of different backgrounds... until White people get over themselves, this will always be a problem in Western society. No, they want Muslims to assimilate to ease their own discomfort with people different than them. Because for some reason, Whites in the West interpet folks of different backgrounds, races, and/or cultures as a threat to their own. And they are the only group of people that actively have this problem with the "others" of their countries.

lmao

Japan for just one example, is one of the most xenophobic countries in the world.

 

[Skinpop]

No, what these folks really want is assimilation, and not just basic assimilation by the strictest definition of the term. They want Muslim women, and Muslims in general, to do what my ancestors did during the slave trade: To ignore, remove, and/or systematically destroy all aspects of their original culture to the point of either embracing values not native to their own heritage, or having to create new ones from scratch. And this isn't so Muslims can have an easier time interacting with others of different backgrounds... until White people get over themselves, this will always be a problem in Western society. No, they want Muslims to assimilate to ease their own discomfort with people different than them. Because for some reason, Whites in the West interpet folks of different backgrounds, races, and/or cultures as a threat to their own. And they are the only group of people that actively have this problem with the "others" of their countries.

assimilation is the only kind of integration that works. this is obviously a two way street but it should be apparent to anyone that throughout history cultural discrepancies and diverging values by far is the largest source of friction between humans. if you believe that the success of society is built on a common understanding of what society should be like, then it follows that multiculturalism isn't a compatible concept with that.

the latter part is just false. no matter where you go, if you don't adhere to local customs and values you will be isolated and seen as the black sheep.

 

[MisterFalcon]

lmao

Japan for just one example, is one of the most xenophobic countries in the world.

From the Chinese state airline Air China in-flight magazine. China has also banned things like Ramadan fasting.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Bullshit.

I'd go further and say White Westerners are way more tolerant and open minded than others.

You have clearly not been to West Africa.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I wish the closet racists and helicopter racists in this thread would stop using the word "integration", since they don't really want them to integrate.

Basically, you have two different types of people in this thread: People who I like to call "helicopter racists", who honestly believe that a Muslim woman can't possibly be wearing a burka, niqab, or even a simple hijab, because they want to. Simply due to the fact that the most unstable region in the entire world forces women to wear these garments by law, Muslims all over the world must be forced to wear it by proxy. The irony lost in these folks is that they want to support feminism and freedom... by banning garments they think are unsuitable for women to wear.

The other kind of folks in this thread are the good ol' closet racists who are always concern trolling and using coded euphemisms. They say they want Muslims to be forced to "integrate" with society. I have a newsflash for these particular folks: once you move into a place, and you know... live your life and interact with others, you've already integrated. Hell, in France's case, you have Muslims that are native to the country that are being told to "integrate" when they've already integrated... they were fucking born there.

No, what these folks really want is assimilation, and not just basic assimilation by the strictest definition of the term. They want Muslim women, and Muslims in general, to do what my ancestors did during the slave trade: To ignore, remove, and/or systematically destroy all aspects of their original culture to the point of either embracing values not native to their own heritage, or having to create new ones from scratch. And this isn't so Muslims can have an easier time interacting with others of different backgrounds... until White people get over themselves, this will always be a problem in Western society. No, they want Muslims to assimilate to ease their own discomfort with people different than them. Because for some reason, Whites in the West interpet folks of different backgrounds, races, and/or cultures as a threat to their own. And they are the only group of people that actively have this problem with the "others" of their countries.

Haters gonna hate, though. You have some serious far-right submarines right here.

 

[Psychoward]

I wish the closet racists and helicopter racists in this thread would stop using the word "integration", since they don't really want them to integrate.

Basically, you have two different types of people in this thread: People who I like to call "helicopter racists", who honestly believe that a Muslim woman can't possibly be wearing a burka, niqab, or even a simple hijab, because they want to. Simply due to the fact that the most unstable region in the entire world forces women to wear these garments by law, Muslims all over the world must be forced to wear it by proxy. The irony lost in these folks is that they want to support feminism and freedom... by banning garments they think are unsuitable for women to wear.

The other kind of folks in this thread are the good ol' closet racists who are always concern trolling and using coded euphemisms. They say they want Muslims to be forced to "integrate" with society. I have a newsflash for these particular folks: once you move into a place, and you know... live your life and interact with others, you've already integrated. Hell, in France's case, you have Muslims that are native to the country that are being told to "integrate" when they've already integrated... they were fucking born there.

No, what these folks really want is assimilation, and not just basic assimilation by the strictest definition of the term. They want Muslim women, and Muslims in general, to do what my ancestors did during the slave trade: To ignore, remove, and/or systematically destroy all aspects of their original culture to the point of either embracing values not native to their own heritage, or having to create new ones from scratch. And this isn't so Muslims can have an easier time interacting with others of different backgrounds... until White people get over themselves, this will always be a problem in Western society. No, they want Muslims to assimilate to ease their own discomfort with people different than them. Because for some reason, Whites in the West interpet folks of different backgrounds, races, and/or cultures as a threat to their own. And they are the only group of people that actively have this problem with the "others" of their countries.

like this insinuation that white westerners are the only ones who see "others" as a threat is so hilariously off-base and factually incorrect it's hardly even worth arguing with

 

[His Majesty]

You have clearly not been to West Africa.

I haven't. I wouldn't like to visit countries like Mauritania or Nigeria where Sharia law is in effect.

 

[EmSeta]

I think that they're ultimately a symbol of patriarchal oppression but I don't think it's my place to force them to cast it off.

Exactly, it's bad. But people should be legally allowed to make bad decisions.

I do however think there's sometimes security issues with the full face veils, where we shouldn't make religious exceptions.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I haven't. I wouldn't like to visit countries like Mauritania or Nigeria where Sharia law is in effect.

You certainly missing something, but i guess it's safer for your worldview preservation.
I was personally astonished by what i saw in West Africa about plurality and coexistence.

About Shari'a law in Nigeria, though.

It's really the best system: dual judiciary system, if you want to be judge by shari'a law, you can, if not, you're judged by federal secular laws.

 

[MisterFalcon]

You certainly missing something, but i guess it's safer for your worldview.

About Shari'a law in Nigeria, though.

It's really the best system: dual judiciary system, if you want to be judge by shari'a law, you can, if not, you're judged by federal secular laws.

I'd say the best system is one where no religious laws are enforced in any way.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I'd say the best system is one where no religious laws are enforced in any way.

Maybe if everybody is secular-minded, but when most of people want to be judged by a religious law, you're up for some trouble. It's basically the situation of the post-ottoman muslim world and since then, most nation-state face legitimacy issue.

 

[shauntu]

You can view it that way. There certainly is no perfect way to handle this, so there will always be discussion around it. I feel some limitation on that freedom here, to protect someone against a worse oppression is not that bad.

Note I am not talking about hijabs, just the burqa and niqab.

Totally different things I am not even getting into.

Don't forget the 'dupatta'. Indian and Pakistani women generally prefer the dupatta. It also crosses religious boundaries, as Hindus and Muslims both wear the dupatta.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dupatta

 

[Psychoward]

You certainly missing something, but i guess it's safer for your worldview preservation.
I was personally astonished by what i saw in West Africa about plurality and coexistence.

About Shari'a law in Nigeria, though.

It's really the best system: dual judiciary system, if you want to be judge by shari'a law, you can, if not, you're judged by federal secular laws.

I ain't about to watch an hour long video at 3am, what happens if the prosecutor wants one law system and the defendant wants a different one? Flip a coin?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

like this insinuation that white westerners are the only ones who see "others" as a threat is so hilariously off-base and factually incorrect it's hardly even worth arguing with

I agree to that, but western societies have, historically, a crime-inducing tendency toward hegemony that it's rarely matched worldwide.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I ain't about to watch an hour long video at 3am, what happens if the prosecutor wants one law system and the defendant wants a different one? Flip a coin?

Both parties should agree to be judged by a shari'a court.
And shari'a court decision can be appealed, and the case is therefore judged by federal secular court.

 

[Dryk]

Exactly, it's bad. But people should be legally allowed to make bad decisions.

I do however think there's sometimes security issues with the full face veils, where we shouldn't make religious exceptions.

I don't believe that there should be religious exceptions for security laws and protocol. I'm not very comfortable with anti-masking laws in general though so I'm probably not the best person to speak on that.

But yeah like Milksheikhs has pointed out supporting Muslim women and trying to give them as much access to the tools they need to fight oppression is a much more productive approach than a ban. I don't want a world where the burka is banned, but I do want a world where I feel like everyone that is wearing them is wearing them for their own reasons.

Trying to figure out what is an isn't a person's choice when it comes to adopting behaviours their oppressors approve of is admittedly pretty big and messy argument in feminist circles. I won't pretend to have all the answers but I think that while choice feminism's current claims are maybe a bit far-fetched they're striving towards a noble ideal.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Both parties should agree to be judged by a shari'a court.
And shari'a court decision can be appealed, and the case is therefore judged by federal secular court.

If a woman wants to divorce her husband not going to a sharia court is not an option as this will make her an adulterer. A crime punishable by death. In such a sharia court (or council as they are called in Europe) she is at a severe disadvantage as a man only has to say he divorces three times but a woman needs agreement from the man.

 

[His Majesty]

Maybe if everybody is secular-minded, but when most of people want to be judged by a religious law, you're up for some trouble. It's basically the situation of the post-ottoman muslim world and since then, most nation-state face legitimacy issue.

In 2014 a Nigerian man, Mubarak Bala was forcibly committed to a psychiatric institution in Kano for eighteen days, where he was forcibly drugged after stating that he was an atheist. The International Humanist and Ethical Union took up the case, stating that Bala's human rights were violated.

You can't possibly think that a judicial system that allows for this kind of treatment is more tolerant than Western ones...?

Both male and female same-sex sexual activity is illegal in Nigeria. The maximum punishment in the twelve northern states that have adopted Shari'a law is death by stoning. That law applies to all Muslims and to those who have voluntarily consented to application of the Shari'a courts. In southern Nigeria and under the secular criminal laws of northern Nigeria, the maximum punishment for same-sex sexual activity is 14 years' imprisonment.

So you can choose: death by stoning or 14 years imprisonment, what a great and extremely tolerant system.

 

[Dalibor68]

Both parties should agree to be judged by a shari'a court.
And shari'a court decision can be appealed, and the case is therefore judged by federal secular court.

Now you are showing your true colors at last. Sharia courts, seriously? You gotta be kidding me.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

If a woman wants to divorce her husband not going to a sharia court is not an option as this will make her an adulterer. A crime punishable by death. In such a sharia court (or council as they are called in Europe) she is at a severe disadvantage as a man only has to say he divorces three times but a woman needs agreement from the man.

Of course she have the option, did you didn't understood the system?
There is a federal secular system who overlap the shari'a system of the north.

And it's not true that women need the agreement to divorce, she need the validation of the judge, who give it systematically for reason such as "i don't love him anymore". It's called divorce by the women (khula).
It's different from the man divorce, "repudiation" (talaq), since when the man initiate the divorce, he must face heavy financial penalty. If the woman divorce, the man will pay less to nothing and the woman must give back half of her dowry.

 

[MisterFalcon]

Of course she have the option, did you didn't understood the system?
There is a federal secular system who overlap the shari'a system of the north.

And it's not true that women need the agreement to divorce, she need the validation of the judge, who give it systematically for reason such as "i don't love him anymore". It's called divorce by the women (khula).
It's different from the man divorce, "repudiation" (talaq), since when the man initiate the divorce, he must face heavy financial penalty. If the woman divorce, the man will pay less to nothing and the woman must give back half of her dowry.

That's the theory, In practice women have great difficulties.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-marital-captivity-study-says-a6761141.html

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

You can't possibly think that a judicial system that allows for this kind of treatment is more tolerant than Western ones...?


So you can choose: death by stoning or 14 years imprisonment, what a great and extremely tolerant system.

You seems to confound a judicial system and the laws themselves.
The judicial system is the pluralistic legal system that i consider to be a great solution for many countries who have legitimacy issues about state and law, especially muslim majority countries.

The laws are determined by the legislative and would necessarily varies as well as their application. I was speaking about the legal dual system, not the laws themselves.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

That's the theory, In practice women have great difficulties.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...to-marital-captivity-study-says-a6761141.html

It's not because the laws are badly applied that the laws themselves are bad.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Now you are showing your true colors at last. Sharia courts, seriously? You gotta be kidding me.

Yes i think that muslim people in muslims countries should have the option to be judged by their own laws.
Shocking.

Wanting the opposite is as stupid to desire imposing shari'a law in Europe.

 

[MisterFalcon]

It's not because the laws are badly applied that the laws themselves are bad.

Where is sharia law currently being applied properly ?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Where is sharia law currently being applied properly ?

It depend on the judge, really.

You can find some horrible case of bad justice in the US, it's doesn't mean the whole system is flawed. Local northern nigerian population are heavily choosing the shari'a system over the secular one, so it's should be satisfying. If you watch the documentary i posted, you'll see the pros and the cons of the system.

Since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, there is no independent judiciary power where qualifieds scholars applies sharia law without intervention of the State. It's not to say that before their was a kind of islamic utopia going on, i don't believe in utopia or perfect system. Every system will always be the reflection of the people enforcing it.

Now we have the choice between some incompetent judges in the West in private shari'a council who thanks to God are not legally binding, or a justice system co-opted by the state religious institutions who follow a political agenda. But it's ok.

 

[MisterFalcon]

That's quite different from 'the best system'.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

That's quite different from 'the best system'.

I was referring about the pluralistic law system, not the way it's actually enforced.
It's like democracy. I think it's currently the best political system, but where is it actually applied properly?
At the end of the day, i have a realist conception of the State.

 

[PKrockin]

I wonder why nobody seems concerned about the Amish integrating? Did we all just forget about them? There are hundreds of thousands of them in the US. They demand women to be subservient babymakers and wear certain clothing, they often still don't speak English, and they hardly interact with anyone outside their communities besides the purchase or sale of certain goods and services. If people absolutely must integrate why are Muslims and Mexicans being targeted in particular while a religious group that has outright rejected and removed itself from nearly all of modern American society for over a century is ignored?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I wonder why nobody seems concerned about the Amish integrating? Did we all just forget about them? There are hundreds of thousands of them in the US. They demand women to be subservient babymakers and wear certain clothing, they often still don't speak English, and they hardly interact with anyone outside their communities besides the purchase or sale of certain goods and services. If integration is such a huge concern why are Muslims and Mexicans being targeted in particular while a religious group that has outright rejected and removed itself from nearly all of modern American society for centuries is ignored?

Integration concerns only applies to non-whites. What are you, a communist ?

 

[His Majesty]

So you think it would be better for e.g. Poland if they introduced some sort of Christian law system?

 

[Derwind]

I wonder why nobody seems concerned about the Amish integrating? Did we all just forget about them? There are hundreds of thousands of them in the US. They demand women to be subservient babymakers and wear certain clothing, they often still don't speak English, and they hardly interact with anyone outside their communities besides the purchase or sale of certain goods and services. If people absolutely must integrate why are Muslims and Mexicans being targeted in particular while a religious group that has outright rejected and removed itself from nearly all of modern American society for over a century is ignored?

First rule of Amish....

 

[Dalibor68]

I wonder why nobody seems concerned about the Amish integrating? Did we all just forget about them? There are hundreds of thousands of them in the US. They demand women to be subservient babymakers and wear certain clothing, they often still don't speak English, and they hardly interact with anyone outside their communities besides the purchase or sale of certain goods and services. If people absolutely must integrate why are Muslims and Mexicans being targeted in particular while a religious group that has outright rejected and removed itself from nearly all of modern American society for over a century is ignored?

1) Nice Whataboutism.
2) The Amish Population in the US is estimated to be 250.000. The US population is 318 Million. I'll let you do the math. The muslim population in France meanwhile is estimated to be up to 10%. (And in the context of burqa/niqab ban the context is mainly Europe)
3) How many terror attacks with hundreds of victims were committed by amish people in the last years?

That said I'm not an amish defender or something but that is the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard in this context.

Integration concerns only applies to non-whites. What are you, a communist ?

The self-victimization is as strong as ever I see.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

So you think it would be better for e.g. Poland if they introduced some sort of Christian law system?

I don't think Poland have this kind of legitimacy issue about nation-state not ruled by God law. . . so no. They even voted against christians political parties after the USSR fall.

Not all religions have the same conception about the relation of law and state.
Christianity, Taoism and Buddhism seem to accept secularism easier than Islam, Hinduism and Judaism.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

1) Nice Whataboutism.
2) The Amish Population in the US is estimated to be 250.000. The US population is 318 Million. I'll let you do the math. The muslim population in France meanwhile is estimated to be up to 10%. (And in the context of burqa/niqab ban the context is mainly Europe)
3) How many terror attacks with hundreds of victims were committed by amish people in the last years?

That said I'm not an amish defender or something but that is the most ridiculous comparison I've ever heard in this context.
.

It was not about terrorism, and if you think "issues of integrations" of non-whites populations began with 9/11, you're seriously deluded. .

 

[archnemesis]

I wonder why nobody seems concerned about the Amish integrating? Did we all just forget about them? There are hundreds of thousands of them in the US. They demand women to be subservient babymakers and wear certain clothing, they often still don't speak English, and they hardly interact with anyone outside their communities besides the purchase or sale of certain goods and services. If people absolutely must integrate why are Muslims and Mexicans being targeted in particular while a religious group that has outright rejected and removed itself from nearly all of modern American society for over a century is ignored?

One difference with the Amish is that they don't collect social welfare or unemployment benefits. The general population might be more tolerant towards communities that aren't perceived as costing them money. The Amish also have a low (reported) crime rate.

It is of course very disturbing when children are forced into their parents religion. That is why it is important to have a secular state and public schools where children are protected from religious environments.

 

[Greddleok]

I wonder why nobody seems concerned about the Amish integrating?

I'll come back with an answer next time I'm mugged/bombed/threatened by an Amish person.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

One difference with the Amish is that they don't collect social welfare or unemployment benefits. The general population might be more tolerant towards communities that aren't perceived as costing them money. The Amish also have a low (reported) crime rate.

It is of course very disturbing when children are forced into their parents religion. That is why it is important to have a secular state and public schools where children are protected from religious environments.

Until 2009...

Are you saying that mexicans and muslims are actually costing money to the State ?
It's a pretty wild thing to say.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

I'll come back with an answer next time I'm mugged/bombed/threatened by an Amish person.

So arabs should have legitimate concern about christians?

 

[archnemesis]

Until 2009...

Thanks for the link. It seems like they have updated their beliefs.

Are you saying that mexicans and muslims are actually costing money to the State ?
It's a pretty wild thing to say.

High unemployment of Muslims is certainly a major gripe in Europe. I haven't read any statistics about Mexicans immigrating to the US.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

High unemployment of Muslims is certainly a major gripe in Europe. I haven't read any statistics about Mexicans in America.

Muslims are middle/high-class in the US and they have far more "integrations problems" if you listen to the current political discourse. So it's not about that. If muslims were well-off in Europe, the "Eurabia" theory would be stronger, that it.