Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

Comment #248973 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 9:45 am

Nairb, I can't read French, so this is going to involve some painful Babelfish. Thanks, though. However, there is still the worrying possibility of the SA -> SS progression I've mentioned in the past.

Now, what about that more sophisticated mathematical model you mentioned?

Believe me, I'm very interested. I'd like to be able to check out the math myself.

502. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248970 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 9:32 am

Nairb, could we get a source for that statistic? And how does it fit in with all those burning cars (alongside cries of Allahu Ackbar, I might add...)

And what was that more sophisticated model you promised?

503. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248962 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 9:10 am

, could I get that more sophisticated model?

504. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248947 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 8:29 am

I fully second al's views, while I will continue to ask my questions in a pedantic, plodding way until I get answers.

505. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248943 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 8:16 am

Thank you for answering the questions. Now was that really so hard? It was that which was irritating me.

Now could you outline that more sophisticated model, and how it takes these differences into account, or, conversely, point me toward an explanation of that?

Also, if there was this much more sophisticated version, why did you insist on five generations, twenty years to one generation?

It just makes him look like Pompous Plonker or malevolent lier

Only according to you. I don't refer to you as either of those, just because you said there were five generations in a population.

EDIT: Oh, and could you repost a link to that report? I'd like to check up on some things there.

506. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248936 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 7:50 am

Are you going to answer the questions?

I also had some questions about the assumptions in that report, which you also did not respond to. So, no I didn't "forget", but maybe you "forgot" my questions. When I, in this thread, explained why I'd like you to repost that link to the report, you failed to do that too.

I don't know where you were trained but saying something like "you are trying to save"... while ducking the question is not scientific procedure.

So - are you or are you not going to answer those questions? Here they go again:

1) What adjustment do you make for the differences in generation times?

2) What bearing does this have on the rightness or wrongness of his writing on Islam?

And I'll toss in a third one now, since you have succeeded in irritating me:

3) Would you like all of your points dismissed because you place the generation time at 20 years?

N.B.: The day I uncritically accept anything that comes out of the EU that is politically charged is the day you can put me to bed with a shovel.

507. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248929 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 7:22 am

Nairb, you still aren't answering the question and I am entirely willing to go Paxman here: What adjustment do you make in your calculations for the different lengths of generations?

What evidence do you have against his knowledge of Islam?

508. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #248921 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 6:53 am

How hard do you have to strike to 'deter' a suicidal jihadi?

Oh, it depends. It's hard to deter the individuals, but being actually dead is a very good way of stopping them. Then there's the societies in question. Alot of them like the slaughter of innocents if it's far-away infidels, but they change their tune when it's their hides on the line.

509. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248914 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 6:37 am

Nairb, are you, or are you not, going to answer those points? I'd also like to ask what adjustment you make for shorter generation time in your calculations?

510. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248913 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 6:37 am

Maybe the guy just fucked up. It happens.

al, indeed it does. That is the sum total of my point. You can't just dismiss everything he writes out of hand based on this one case.

511. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248910 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 6:35 am

And just to tidy up: where has Fitzgerald claimed to do an expose of a conspiracy there in that article?

Could you answer these points?

512. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248908 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 6:30 am

Again, Nairb, for the last time, I what I am saying is that there seems to be reasonable causes for his being wrong, to the extent that he is. Reread these carefully, and you will notice that I was not, in fact arguing with your math, merely pointing out that it was unreasonable to decide to dismiss everything en masse. Especially since what he does understand is Islam, and he is first rate in that field.

Now - what is so problematic about that? Or, to phrase it another way, how would you like it if people summarily dismissed all of your writings based on the statement 'oh, Nairb thinks that there are five generations in every human population, and that each lasts only twenty years!'. How would you like that comment?

Again, what I am saying - and please don't put words in my mouth or thoughts in my head - is that if he's wrong, he is not wrong in such a flagrant fashion that makes it legitimate to dismiss all of his writings all at once.

I also would like to hear your explanation of length of a generation. (as you would say, "there's quite a difference between the twenty and thirty years")

513. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248845 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 4:08 am

Nairb, kindly stop pulling rank on me and imputing low motives. I have previously been extremely grateful for the information you have provided.

What I am disputing here is twofold. The first is that the mistakes, such as they are, are intentional. The second is the implication that his mistakes here, to the extent that they are mistakes, invalidate the entire corpus of his writings, which is also not so.

Regarding generations you are mashing up two different concepts and waffling. If you took the time to understand population models that would be clear to you.

This is pulling rank and in a particularly offensive way. Now the dictionary definition of a generation that seems applicable here is:

the term of years accepted as the average period between the birth of parents and the birth of their offspring.

That seems, not to put to fine a point on it, the obvious definition. The average time between a child's birth and the moment when that child sires or bears his or her own children. I can't see how using that definition is 'mashing' anything up or 'waffling'.

Is there a technical definition that is different to this? If so, please post it, alongside it's justification. However, I must say that I find it a tad wearying that you choose to regard my disagreement, or even my simple incomprehension, as the product of malice.

"How interesting", as you might say it.

514. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248820 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 2:56 am

Nairb, to repeat: a minimum of checking on the internet gives a few scenarios that do, in fact, support his p.o.v.

If Jihadwatch do not do a minimum of checking of the content of these articles then for me they are not credible either

By that logic, your own writings aren't credible, as you have described a population as having five generations, twenty years apiece when, according to wiki, in France it's more like three generations, thirty years apiece.

You still haven't addressed his work on Islam, btw.

515. The President's Guide to Science

Comment #248819 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 2:52 am

Hmmm... Just focusing on the first part of the program, who here is still blase about Iranian nukes? Who still can seriously think that that nightmare scenario doesn't need to be stopped no matter what?

516. E.O. Wilson & James Watson on Charles Darwin

Comment #248805 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 2:06 am

What the heck happened to Laurie's comment?

The howling lynch-mob behavior of the chattering classes is simply evidence of their utter uselessness.

517. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248788 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 17, 2008 at 12:47 am

Nairb, again, none of that answers my points. There are alot of assertions there, grounded to little. I pointed out why he could have good reasons for his demoraphic projections, and I also stressed that his writings on Islam are first rate, regardless of whether or not his math is bang on the money.

I repeat, we don't dismiss you, just because you assign twenty years to a generation.

You have picked one of his articles in which, I imagine, he was fed up with the culture of Islamodenial (as am I). So bleeding what?

He's still right about Islam's fundamental doctrines. Sorry, but that's the way things are.

518. E.O. Wilson & James Watson on Charles Darwin

Comment #248780 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 11:32 pm

Layla, that incident you refer to makes me more angry than I have capacity to express. The Derb get's close:

An outrageous month: a month of outrages, I mean. To pick a handful at random:

Outrage of the Month (1). The crucifixion of James Watson. Nobody knows - nor will know, not for a century or so, anyway - what the human race owes to this brilliant scientist, one of the co-discoverers of the structure of DNA. He got the Nobel Prize for his work (sharing the prize with Francis Crick and Maurice Wilkins). Now the mangled corpse of his reputation is being dragged round the walls of the city behind a chariot, to the howling glee of people who aren't worthy to squeeze the paste onto Watson's toothbrush for him.

Cold Spring Harbor lab, which owes all its present prominence, not to mention most of its endowment, to Watson's efforts, has led the hyena pack, forcing Watson to resign from his position as Director. The Federation of American Invertebrates Scientists has pronounced anathema on him. He's had to cancel all his speaking engagements for fear the gibbering Morlocks of Political Correctness would show up and throw things at him. It is a horrible, shameful story, one of the ugliest to come out of the world of science for many years.

It get's even worse than that. Cold Spring Harbour was founded for which purposes? Why to advance Eugenics of course! They were involved in alot of the gassing and sterilization stuff that was going on.

Now, finally, they have the courage to face that record and expel one of the greatest scientists who has ever lived. And that's a scandal.

519. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248776 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 11:07 pm

felandath,

Would they be easier to integrate than the ones from say Pakistan who are mainly tribal? I know I am bordering on the edge of racism here.

Not racist at all. Germany has comparatively less problems, because the Turks still have the legacy of Kemalism. This isn't racist, it's merely culturalist.

Nairb, sorry, that doesn't answer any of my questions. 'Prancing' or whatnot, if we take a couple of things into account, his math doesn't look so bad.

And even if his math is wrong in this case, it doesn't follow that the rest of his extremely good work is wrong. After all, you're wrong about this 'twenty years to a generation' business, and we don't all dismiss you out of hand for that.

FitzGerald is a first-rate scholar of Islam, and has pointed me to many of the classic texts on the subject: Schacht, Hurgronje, Servier etc.

520. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248510 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 10:57 am

Nairb, calm down and take a moment to actually read what I write. I said that, granting these premises, the one-in-three conclusion was straightforward. I specifically left open whether or not these premises were correct. So this isn't about holes, but about discussion. Now, could we discuss?

Now to the actual numbers of the thing. You take 1.8 as the French fertility rate (forgive me, I can't read that website of yours). However, as I understand it, that is of all French born people. Including Muslims.

Your statistics discuss 'immigrants'; however, not all immigrants are Muslim. There's one study that suggests that there are 14 million of foreign descent in France, while the highest estimate of Muslim numbers isn't much over six millions. So that leaves us with a problem vis a viz actual facts.

The trouble is that the 'French' birthrates are succeptible to artificial inflation thanks to Muslim fecundity. Noone denies that's high.

Now simple math shows us if the Muslim's are having 3.6 children, then a 10% population would be enough to inflate the french numbers to 1.8, while those of native born French are really 1.6. So that scenario wouldn't be too far off from FitzGerald's predictions. Once again, I'm not saying that the premises check out, merely that you can't simply say 'bad math'.

There's another thing that is very worrying. The average age of having your first child in France (source: wiki) is a hair under 30 years. Now, Muslim families have children earlier and younger. If the average age for a Muslimah were 20 years (not an unreasonable assumption) then what is one generation for native french is one-and-a-half for Muslims meaning... er, the math has gotten out from under me, but it seems to imply that you can mark up Muslim fertility rates 50% if you're going to compare them with the french if you want a straightforward comparison.

Again, we can argue about the details of this, and I hope we will, but the point I'm gunning at is that you can't say 'bad math' and dismiss it like that. Also, it appears that your 'five generations to a population' assumption is seriously flawed if there are thirty years in each generation in France.

521. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #248450 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 9:00 am

*nods* What al said.

These aren't some amorphous entities 'capable of being bad', or ones that just 'happen to disagree with me'. These are the jihadis. The mujahideed. They have demonstrated, time and again, for fourteen long centuries, their willingness to murder, rape and despoil all non-Muslims unfortunate enough to get into their clutches. If they're not doing it at any given point it's because of darura, necessity - they just don't have the means.

So, sorry, I have no qualms about saying that the correct attitude to this lot is "pile their bodies as high as the city walls and as long as the city streets".

522. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #248436 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 8:27 am

But do you really seriously mean that you think it is ok to kill someone for saying that it would be ok? Not for doing it, but just for saying it?

You think I want to wait until they are capable of doing it?

523. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #248414 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 7:22 am

And if you were attempting to impress me with the fact that you could have done that

Actually, I wasn't, for the main reason that I can't, else I would have already done so.

And please stop this 'people who think differently' bumf. I hate to sound so judgemental, but I disagree vehemently with the jihadi belief that it's okay to kill me after destroying everything I love and hold dear.

524. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #248399 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 6:57 am

GoatBoy, that was beautiful. Thanks. I'll being going to look those books up now.

525. Have We Ever Faced An Enemy More Stupid Than Muslim Terrorists?

Comment #248378 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 6:10 am

Fanusi - I have to say, I don't understand why you think the answer to the violence of terrorism is to answer it with more violence.

Well, that is the way to put a stop to it. You may have noticed that the total destruction and leveling of my Fatherland had the effect of... ending Nazism!

Contra to all the guff that get's spouted, force is historically the single most effective method of settling things. Now, you can argue about whether or not it should be used, but that it can be used is unquestionable.

Once you start killing people for the beliefs that they hold, then you are descending to their level and are no better than them

Oh come off it. My buddies and I could have piled jihadi bodies as high as Everest and you'd still feel much, much safer in our presence than, say, in Riyadh or Ramallah or Kabul.

This is so facile it's unbelievable.

Mere assertion. Not all jihadis are motivated by the same thing.

Unfortunately for your mere assertion javb, there are fourteen centuries of Jihad that kinda argue against it.

This. Isn't. About. You. Just learn that phrase, and the whole mess will become alot more intelligible.

526. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248374 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 6:05 am

*just woke up - again*

al, not wishing to be pedantic here, but:

The issue isn't, "will Muslims be a majority", the question is "Will there be enough of them to create a problem"

It's certainly true that that's the issue in general, but here specifically the issue was that Nairb had dismissed all of JihadWatch based on Hugh FitzGerald being supposedly bad at math. So - when my braincells returned to fully functioning mode - I did some digging, and it turned out that it wasn't so. Er, that FitzGerald's math seemed straightforward after all, even if his premises are incorrect (I dunno whether or not they are...).

*stretches* Sorry for the pedantry, but jesus I feel wiped after last night...

he question is "Will there be enough of them to create a problem". And the answer is a simple yes.

You know you're pushing at an open door with me, al. The question 'will muslims cause trouble' is really a 'Is the Pope a Catholic' kind of question...

527. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248356 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 5:12 am

Nairb, bad news for your comments about 'just plain bad at math'. Once consciousness in some form returned to me, I did some digging and found the assumptions that actually form the basis of this - Goldy, you may want to pay attention, as you asked about this.

According to some estimates, France is 10% Muslim. That means it's 90% non-Muslim. Now, the other important estimate is that Muslims in France have a birth-rate three times higher than that of the native french, so that 10% is accounting for three times higher population growth than its absolute numbers. Hence 'one in three babies', etc.

We can quibble about the assumptions that go into the math (it's hard to get exact numbers), but it can't be dismissed as 'just bad math'.

528. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248342 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 16, 2008 at 4:42 am

Nairb, I did ask, but I'm afraid I was too zonked last night to check - what was the source of that derivation that you attributed to Hugh FitzGerald? That is, can you provided a link?

PBUM 'too much Fanusi'. Cute, very cute. Now, do you actually know what life is like under the Shariah? Do you know that the command to expand its rule over non-Muslims is binding in all times and places? Do you know any of that?

There are, strangely enough, reasons to be frightened of Shariah law which have nothing to do with me.

Does anyone seriously believe it's going to stop here? That we can just get on the Shariah express and stop it wherever we want? Apart from anything, who, exactly, is going to stop it?

529. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248104 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Then plesae, Quetz and Nairb, spell it out for me. I'm tired, I have alot of work to do, and I don't care to spend the time working it out - maybe in a day or two, but not now.

Sorry, I know that's frustrating, but I am dog-tired and this assignment will take me all night.

530. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248095 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 2:55 pm

What is that source, Nairb, and what's your basis for saying that's Hugh FitzGerald's source?

Anyway, that isn't my question: if one third of babies are Muslim, doesn't that mean, in twenty years, a third of all young people will be Muslim?

531. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248092 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 2:49 pm

What major assignment is this?

Open Universit. Final assignment: non postponable, non-substitutable and an unbelievable PAIN IN THE ASS!

Yeah, probably be fiddling quite a bit too.

If there were significant Muslim immigration in the interim then surely that would skew the one-in-three ratio somewhat?

Yep, Quetz in-frickin-deed, and not in a way that favours us at all...

532. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248087 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Oh, okay. Sorry about that.

I've got a major assignment due tomorrow, meaning I'm likely going to be working all night...

:-P

533. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248083 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 2:35 pm

twp, I think that's uncalled for. I'm not trying to be a smartass, it just seems to follow logically from that premise. This looks like a situation where I can't win: if I try to ask a question as humbly as possible, I get called a smartass.

Now, if Nairb's disputing the premise - that a third of all babies born in france are muslim - well, I see the answer then immediately. It's just I don't think he's said that.

Quetz that would be true if there was a sharp disparity in terms of infant mortality, immigration or emigration - or, to be more accurate, a sharp disparity that reduces the number of muslims. Is there?

534. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248078 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Nairb, I asked you the following: If one in three children born in France is Muslim, doesn't it mean that in twenty years time, one in three young people in france will be Muslim?

That's my question and sorry if I'm being dense, but I haven't heard an answer.

535. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248065 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 1:46 pm

The issue is Millitant Islam as it exits today is mainly a product of the USA.

Given that the Muslims slaughtered seventy million Hindus when they ruled the subcontinent, that's a bit of a hard sell. Not to mention that it's been nothing but endless jihad war since the year one of the Islamic calendar (some of us have read your book, Mavrik).

536. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248055 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Nairb, what I am asking about at this point is the following: if France has a situation where one in three babies is Muslim, will one in three young people not be Muslim in a generation?

537. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248049 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Nairb, calm down.

First of all I quibble with your definition o the number of generations. I'd put it a three, maybe four in a population.

That's one secondary though. The main thing is that he was specifically talking about the young people in twenty years time. Now, if one in three births is Muslim today, then twenty years down the road, one in three young people will be Muslim, yes? That follows from your own definition of generations, btw.

538. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248044 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 1:13 pm

I'm intrested into what it is they have said that is false

twp, there is one thing that springs to mind, back in the Spencer vs. Derbyshire brawl - Spencer's view that Christian theology provided the metaphysical basis for scientific inquiry. But I have yet to hear him be wrong about Islam.

539. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248033 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 1:02 pm

Yes, and what, exactly, is incorrect there? If one in three children born in France is a Muslim, then twenty years down the road, one in three young people will be Muslim. That seems straightforward, really. What is wrong with that?

540. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248028 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 1:00 pm

Nairb, I read the report, but that was some time ago. That is why I was asking you to repost the report so I can refresh my memory. That's not unreasonable.

Nairb, if one in three children born in France is a Muslim, then that means twenty years down the road, one third of young people will be Muslims. And twenty years after that...

Too horrible to contemplate, really. Now, what, precisely, was wrong with Hugh FitzGerald's article?

541. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248025 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 12:54 pm

PBUM, it's pointless. If mavrik is a Mulsim of any kind of devoutness, tribal loyalty to the Ummah will trump everything else.

What do you expect, really? For him to realize that Islam has the bloodiest record of any religion in human history? For him to realize that the total and abject failure of the House of Submission is caused by Islam? For him to understand that, far from being uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, Muhamad was a warlord and monster?

No. Not going to happen.

542. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #248015 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 12:44 pm

*claws out*

Mavrik, Nairb, I should like to see you prove the writers of JihadWatch wrong on a point of Islamic scholarship. Come on, just try it.

And, Nairb, could you give me a reference for those three scenarios? As I recally, the one you originally gave me stated that 16% was the optimistic scenario.

N.B.: Given that France is 10% Islamic at the moment, I think you're 2-5% figures are a bit optimistic.

Mavrik, want to bitch about the situation in Pakistan? Should have thought about that before your barbaric co-religionists slaughtered two million Hindus and Sikhs in the partition. Want to bitch? You lot asked for Pakistan; you wanted your faith-pure state. You made that bed, now you can lie in it - and burn with it, if it comes to that.

EDIT: Nairb what, exactly, is wrong with that article? You don't get to just call something 'biased' and dismiss it.

543. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247890 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 8:40 am

Nairb, I did post that. Sorry, before we talk past each other for the next twenty posts, I'll try and be more specific.

From what I recall, the 16% was definitively on the low side of the estimates by that study you cited, and that it depended on the recovery of European birth rates to the replacement level in one generation, as well as the fall of Muslim birth rates to the replacement level in the same.

That's point one: is that, or is that not, the case?

Point 2 was the problem that these populations aren't going to be spread around evenly, but there will be concentrations and those spell trouble.

It's those two points that I am still concerned about. Sorry for having to be pedantic about them, I just don't want us to talk past each other for a long time. :-)

544. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247857 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 7:47 am

Nairb,

That the most that muslims will get to by 2050 is 16% if things continue as they ar

If Muslim birthrates plummet sufficiently in one generation and if European birth rates return in the same. Those are, shall we say, optimistic assumption.

It also doesn't answer the point that the percentage - 16, 20, 25, 30 - whatever it'll be, won't be spread evenly. So you will end up with cities and probably countries with Muslim majorities.

You are also ignoring how the Muslim conquests had Muslim minorities ruling over infidel majorities. If they can push Shariah courts through now, what will they be capable of twenty years down the road?

I hadn't forgotten any of what you posted, but I still have my reservations and I would like to know your answer to those points. If you have previously posted an answer to those points and I've forgotten them, please accept my apologies and please remind me of what the response was.

I think there should be a better way. However these arbitration courts have existed for some time for Jews. If you get rid of islamic ones you have to get rid of all of them.

I'm not sure it follows; orthodox jews aren't a problem, Muslims are a problem. Nonetheless if you want to abolish jewish courts, sure, whatever it takes to get rid of this madness.

------------

Phillip,

But, there has to be a solution that doesn't involve alienating them even more than they are doing to themselves

I have the gloomy advantage of a historical perspective here. If you go back and look at the writings on Islam throughout history, you see very similar sentiments about 'not alienating' them and bringing them into the Enlightenment and so on. It's never worked before, and I don't think it's about to start working.

Seriously, if you live near a Uni, go to the library and see if you can find Hurgronje's book, "the Achehnese". Read the introduction and the final chapter. It'll blow your mind, just how little has changed, not just with respect to Islam, but also with respect to how Infidels fool themselves about Islam.

545. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247725 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 15, 2008 at 1:13 am

I want Muslims to live happily in the world just as much as I would have people of all faiths having the time of their lives

Sorry, Phillip, that's not on the cards. Imagine a street: you can put a church, a synagogue, a buddhist, a Hindu, a Sikh temple side by side, and it'll be all hunky-dory, but add a Mosque and you have trouble.

Serious trouble.

Islam cannot - ever - coexist in harmony with the kaffirs. It never has and it never will.

546. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #247713 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 14, 2008 at 11:56 pm

What I find interesting is that it's taken for granted by Certain People that the chucking out of goons like Abu Hamza will absolutely and inevitable start us out on a slippery slope that can only ever end with us in a fully-fledged fascist dictatorship - but apparently see no such slippery slope in the piecemeal import of Shariah.

To say that Certain People's priorities are out of whack is putting it mildly.

547. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247709 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 14, 2008 at 11:48 pm

Laurie, when Omar's boys decide to carry on with those intentions - and sooner or later, they will - please explain that detail to the victims families.

548. Sharia courts operating in Britain

Comment #247706 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 14, 2008 at 11:29 pm

The daughters can still go to the British courts to get the equal amount.

Sure they can. As long as they don't mind total social ostracism and probable violence when they come back from those courts.

Not to sound like a right-wing xenophobe, but at a certain point I think it's totally fair to say, "You don't like it here? Leave."

And they expect US to change, while they recreate a 13th c. sultanate in their backyard? It boggles my mind.

How are people in the UK not more upset about this?

JHS, it's rather simple. In lieu of the craven 'better red than dead', they've adopted the even more craven 'better screwed than rude'.

There's this insane idea that you can get on the Shariah express but stop it wherever you want it. I have the sneaking suspicion that certain people will only begin to change their minds, roughly around the same time Sir Elton John is beheaded for sodomy in Trafalga Square.

Just to hamme the point home, a collection of chappies in East London are apparently listening to Omar Bakri via video link and gearing up for 'a second 9/11'. This is why some of us have said that there's a reason that treason should be punished by death. (synchronized hissy-fits in three-two-one..)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2826537/Radical-Muslims-warn-of-another-911.html

--------------

mmurray, the Muslim immigration increased drammatically thanks to the Euro-Arab dialogue.

549. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #247589 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm

Quick addendum, in order to respond to Laurie: I'm interested in defeating Islam. Islam will never tolerate any infidel power, so the question of American popularity is moot. I also file this infernal, reflex anti-Americanism under "part of the problem".

550. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #247585 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm

Duly noted, decius. Now, though, I need to turn in. Talk with you some other day.

Anyway, as regards radical, we've got our first Shariah courts working away in merry old England. That seems far more radical a change than anything I bring to the table.