Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
alidu78

Article about islamisation of europe

Recommended Posts

The only time Europe and every other part of the world will be conquered by islam ( submission to God ) will be after the return of jesus (as) and imam mahdi (ajf) , and it will be a peaceful submission , that is the future I want to live in inshallah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, yolanda313786 said:

The only time Europe and every other part of the world will be conquered by islam ( submission to God ) will be after the return of jesus (as) and imam mahdi (ajf) , and it will be a peaceful submission , that is the future I want to live in inshallah

Yes but that could also happen before for some western countries after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christianity was dying in Europe long before the arrival of refugees and recent immigrants. The Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment/Renaissance, and the French Revolution were the deathblow to Christendom. Modernity and urbanization then brought down their birth rates. European populations are aging, and so they must rely on a flow of immigrants who could work, pay taxes, and fund their ambitious welfare states. Otherwise, Latin and Greek have been removed from school curricula, atheism is on the rise, and much of Europe has gone back to its barbarian roots - running around naked, tattooed, worshiping their tribe, and raping/looting other nations. Mediterranean attempts to civilize them with Christianity, Greek philosophy, Roman ethics, Islamic and Jewish intellectualism have failed.

The "Islamization" hypothesis does not really hold up. Most immigration in Europe has been from eastern European countries to Western countries: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/these-4-maps-might-change-how-you-think-about-migration-in-europe/ Furthermore, Muslim birth rates go down after immigrants have settled in their second and third generations - it's just the initial flow that have 3-5 kids. Lastly, many Muslim in Europe come from already-secular cultures, like Turkey, Bosnia, Albania, Algeria; they're not likely to be Islamizing anything. Most of this hype is just flat-out racism - hatred for darker people, xenophobia of people with slightly different cultures, pride for a national identity that you were accidentally born into.

If Europeans want to "preserve their heritage" (i.e. prevent darker non-Christians from immigrating), then they should just cut benefits, cut spending, privatize their economy, and have more children, so that they do not need to rely on Muslims and other immigrants to uphold their system for them. But if they want to keep their style of government, then they should stop complaining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, alidu78 said:

Salam aleykoum, what do you think about that ?

Do you find that realistic ?

http://www.christianexaminer.com/article/cardinal-islams-goal-is-to-conquer-europe-by-faith-and-birth-rate/49759.htm

Salam Alidu78,

The "Islamisation of Europe" is one of the reasons why many people in the USA support Donald Trump, because they don't want the "Islamisation of the USA." Europe as well has leaders like Donald Trump who want to stop Muslim immigration and who see Muslims as being "harmful" to Europe's secular values.

As a Christian who believes it's important to obey Jesus Christ's commands, I believe it's important to treat Muslims how we would want to be treated. While it can be fair to say that various nations were "Christianized", much of that is not a good thing, because much of the "Christianizing" was in disobedience to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ for example never ever said to invade other lands, force them to convert to Christianity, and torture/kill those who refuse. This is in disobedience to Jesus Christ's commands and personal example.

Personally, I don't have a problem with Muslims immigrating to Europe or the USA and living in peace with their neighbors of different beliefs or no belief in God. :) Chicago for example is a beautiful place where you see Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Orthodox Jews, Atheist Jews, and other groups of Jews, Christians of different denominations, Agnostics, and Atheists living side by side as neighbors. Really cool!!! :)

I also don't mind when my Muslim friends invite me to Islam. I lost count of the times my Sunni Muslim friends have invited me to Islam, encouraged me to read different dawah articles and Muslim books. I know they do this because they care for me. I appreciate their dawah efforts and have told them, "Thanks but no thanks; I'm a Christian because I firmly believe Jesus is the only way to the Father, God." They respect my beliefs, and they invite other people to Islam.

If other people choose to "revert" as my Muslim friends say, that's their right and their decision, and I respect their rights. :) 

I don't worry about the idea of "Islamisation" because what's important to me is to obey what Jesus Christ says.

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

Christianity was dying in Europe long before the arrival of refugees and recent immigrants.

Salam Qa'im,

Christianity isn't dying. What is happening however is what Jesus Christ said would happen: (I boldened some.)

Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.

 “Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of me. At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other, and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people. 

Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold, but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved. And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come. - Matthew 24:7-14 (NIV)

The end is very near, as most of the world has already heard the Gospel. What we are seeing in Europe and around the world is kingdoms against kingdoms. 

Quote

The Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment/Renaissance, and the French Revolution were the deathblow to Christendom.

Jesus Christ did not command his followers to make "Christian nations" where "Christians" invade other nations and force people to believe a certain way and torture or persecute them if they don't. Both the Catholics and Protestants who persecuted and killed people and force converted people were disobeying Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ taught loving neighbors, each other, and enemies, as well as making disciples. Jesus Christ did not command his followers to force people to believe a certain way or suffer.

Quote

 atheism is on the rise,

Jesus prophesied this: "many will turn away from the faith" and this is happening in many parts of the world, not just Europe.

Quote

and much of Europe has gone back to its barbarian roots - running around naked, tattooed, worshiping their tribe, and raping/looting other nations.

We don't know very much about the Native people of Europe, because much of their history was wiped out by invaders.

Quote

Mediterranean attempts to civilize them with Christianity, Greek philosophy, Roman ethics, Islamic and Jewish intellectualism have failed.

Of course disobeying Jesus Christ's commands to love is not going to help anybody, and personally I don't believe Roman ethics were all that ethical.

Quote

If Europeans want to "preserve their heritage" (i.e. prevent darker non-Christians from immigrating), then they should just cut benefits, cut spending, privatize their economy, and have more children, so that they do not need to rely on Muslims and other immigrants to uphold their system for them. But if they want to keep their style of government, then they should stop complaining.

Christians who obey Jesus Christ believe in obeying the Golden Rule: to do to others as you would have them do to you. That's why many Christians in Europe support helping Muslim refugees, because it is clearly a Biblical principle: to invite the stranger and care for the needy.

As for preserving their heritage, many Europeans are becoming more and more attune to globalization because the world has become "closer" thanks to advanced technology. Thus, to some Europeans, it's not a big deal to preserve heritage or culture, but rather to celebrate diversity. That includes allowing Muslims the same freedoms that Christians and Atheists and other groups of people have. :)They don't personally believe Europe is being Islamized and many don't appreciate that Europe was "Christianized" by invaders forcing tribes to convert to their view of Christianity. Many young people in Europe are actually turned off to religion (both Islam and Christianity) because of religious invasions. 

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

 

The "Islamization" hypothesis does not really hold up. Most immigration in Europe has been from eastern European countries to Western countries: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/08/these-4-maps-might-change-how-you-think-about-migration-in-europe/ Furthermore, Muslim birth rates go down after immigrants have settled in their second and third generations - it's just the initial flow that have 3-5 kids. Lastly, many Muslim in Europe come from already-secular cultures, like Turkey, Bosnia, Albania, Algeria; they're not likely to be Islamizing anything.

Well i dont know if you live in europe but it looks like you dont. Algeria and even not Turkey are not "secular" like the europeans are secular, in Algeria the state religion is islam and proselytism is totally forbidden and if you go to algeria most of the girls wear hijab, even in Turkey its true that the country is "officially secular", however its not "secular" like in France for exemple because the state favor islam instead of other religions and many turks come back to islam. And about algeria and other maghrebi countries in general believe me that vast majority of them are muslims (practicing for many) and many do proselitysm.

And about Albania and Bosnia its true that these countries are seculars but i dont understand why you quote these countries when i could say to you that there are many more muslim immigrants who come from african countries like somalia, sudan who are not at all seculars or even some countries like mali, senegal, nigeria etc. And what about iraqi, syrian, pakistani, afghan migrants you forget ? They are totally secular also ? And believe me they are not very few in europe.

You said also that many dont do many childern when they arrive in europe. well they probably do less children than in their country of origin but they always do more children than the europeans, its visible in France where you could see the names of the newborns by french department. Its even visible in some british statistics etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, yolanda313786 said:

The only time Europe and every other part of the world will be conquered by islam ( submission to God ) will be after the return of jesus (as) and imam mahdi (ajf) , and it will be a peaceful submission , that is the future I want to live in inshallah

I don't see it , if that was true then how come islam spread across the whole world and dominated many countries even from europe region , like turkey bosnia serbia greece andulusia/spain all those countries were conquered by muslims and many muslims still live their and it did spread , so why wait for jesus or mahdii , I am sure islam will spread even with out mahdi or jesus or war , but if muslims didn't defend themselves and learn to protect themselves then they will die and not be able to spread anything ... one man can't do the job , he can lead but he can't do it alone . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Christianlady said:

 

As a Christian who believes it's important to obey Jesus Christ's commands, I believe it's important to treat Muslims how we would want to be treated. While it can be fair to say that various nations were "Christianized", much of that is not a good thing, because much of the "Christianizing" was in disobedience to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ for example never ever said to invade other lands, force them to convert to Christianity, and torture/kill those who refuse. This is in disobedience to Jesus Christ's commands and personal example.

 

Well maybe but unfortunately anything like 90% of christian countries are christians because of wars. However you said jésus (as) never said to do wars according to christians ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sakura1994 said:

I don't see it , if that was true then how come islam spread across the whole world and dominated many countries even from europe region , like turkey bosnia serbia greece andulusia/spain all those countries were conquered by muslims and many muslims still live their and it did spread , so why wait for jesus or mahdii , I am sure islam will spread even with out mahdi or jesus or war , but if muslims didn't defend themselves and learn to protect themselves then they will die and not be able to spread anything ... one man can't do the job , he can lead but he can't do it alone . 

You can't be talking out of your opinion or "feelings" against Imam Muḥammad al-Mahdī ibn Ḥasan al-Askarī, peace be upon them both. This is something we believe in as part of our faith and for you to come here and say "I don't see it" without any proof is very disrespectful. Insha‘Allah this is a promise of Allah (swt) Himself and He never fails His promises.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, alidu78 said:

Well maybe but unfortunately anything like 90% of christian countries are christians because of wars.

Salam Alidu78,

Sad but true. :( That shows that much of "Christendom" is actually in disobedience to Jesus Christ. :(

Quote

However you said jésus (as) never said to do wars according to christians ?

Jesus Christ very clearly commanded his followers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-37). Loving does not mean killing. Jesus specifies what loving enemies means here:

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,  bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. - Luke 6:27-28 (NIV)

Jesus Christ did not lead his followers into war, either with the Romans who were oppressing his people the Jews, or with the Jewish leaders who rejected him. Jesus actually rebuked Peter for using a sword when he was being arrested:

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” - John 18:10-11 (NIV)

Jesus even healed Malchus' ear! :)

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. - Luke 22:49-51 (NIV)

Jesus taught his followers not to kill others by saying "No more of this" to using swords, though sadly many people in Christian history have and do disobey this by using weapons to kill others. While many Christians think it's ok for self-defense reasons, Jesus did not defend himself.

Instead, Jesus gave his followers an example when he forgave those who crucified him:

Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. - Luke 23:34 (NIV)

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, didn't kill anybody. He was killed for telling Jewish leaders about Jesus, and he followed Jesus' example and forgave his killers:

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep. - Acts 7:59-60 (NIV)

So anyways, Jesus' commands and example to love enemies do not support Christians going to war.

Peace and God bless you

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ali al-Abdullah said:

You can't be talking out of your opinion or "feelings" against Imam Muḥammad al-Mahdī ibn Ḥasan al-Askarī, peace be upon them both. This is something we believe in as part of our faith and for you to come here and say "I don't see it" without any proof is very disrespectful. Insha‘Allah this is a promise of Allah (swt) Himself and He never fails His promises.

We are not agaisnt imam mahdi as we just say that before he come back some western countries will probably become muslim and honnestly me who live in europe i think its possible   however the whole world will be never totally muslim before imam mahdi arrive .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Christianlady said:

Salam Alidu78,

Sad but true. :( That shows that much of "Christendom" is actually in disobedience to Jesus Christ. :(

Jesus Christ very clearly commanded his followers to love their enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; Luke 6:27-37). Loving does not mean killing. Jesus specifies what loving enemies means here:

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,  bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. - Luke 6:27-28 (NIV)

Jesus Christ did not lead his followers into war, either with the Romans who were oppressing his people the Jews, or with the Jewish leaders who rejected him. Jesus actually rebuked Peter for using a sword when he was being arrested:

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.)

Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?” - John 18:10-11 (NIV)

Jesus even healed Malchus' ear! :)

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, “Lord, should we strike with our swords?” And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.

But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him. - Luke 22:49-51 (NIV)

Jesus taught his followers not to kill others by saying "No more of this" to using swords, though sadly many people in Christian history have and do disobey this by using weapons to kill others. While many Christians think it's ok for self-defense reasons, Jesus did not defend himself.

Instead, Jesus gave his followers an example when he forgave those who crucified him:

Jesus said, Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots. - Luke 23:34 (NIV)

Stephen, the first Christian martyr, didn't kill anybody. He was killed for telling Jewish leaders about Jesus, and he followed Jesus' example and forgave his killers:

While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” When he had said this, he fell asleep. - Acts 7:59-60 (NIV)

So anyways, Jesus' commands and example to love enemies do not support Christians going to war.

Peace and God bless you

 

 

Yes i know but sometimes according to the logic of christian theology jesus (as) ordained also mass killings and wars isnt it ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Christianlady said:

Jesus Christ did not command his followers to make "Christian nations" where "Christians" invade other nations and force people to believe a certain way and torture or persecute them if they don't. Both the Catholics and Protestants who persecuted and killed people and force converted people were disobeying Jesus Christ, because Jesus Christ taught loving neighbors, each other, and enemies, as well as making disciples. Jesus Christ did not command his followers to force people to believe a certain way or suffer.

My main issue with the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment/Renaissance, and the French Revolution is not their violence, but their transformation of the continent. The sociologist Max Weber famously said that the Reformation was the first step towards secularism, because it individualized Christianity and relegated it to the private domain. Laws are no longer based on ethics, but rather they are based on the general mood of the public - which is based largely on the media and the economy. The papacy is no longer in a position that can influence society, and instead interest-led banking and economics runs the world. The institution of marriage is being destroyed, and Church attendance is declining.

13 minutes ago, Christianlady said:

Jesus prophesied this: "many will turn away from the faith" and this is happening in many parts of the world, not just Europe.

This is mostly happening in Europe and North America - Christianity is actually on the rise in much of the Third World. I agree that the prophets have foretold the overall decline of religion. My argument is that its decline is a major reason for the cultural decline of Europe.

13 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

And about Albania and Bosnia its true that these countries are seculars but i dont understand why you quote these countries when i could say to you that there are many more muslim immigrants who come from african countries like somalia, sudan who are not at all seculars or even some countries like mali, senegal, nigeria etc. And what about iraqi, syrian, pakistani, afghan migrants you forget ? They are totally secular also ? And believe me they are not very few in europe.

Take a look at my link. Since you cited France, let's use that as an example. Only 12% of France consists of foreign-born people, which is far less than where I am currently living. That percentage has only increased by 0.5% in the last 5 years. 38% of French immigrants come from other European countries. Its largest immigrant community is Algeria, which was a French colony, and many Algerians speak French as their first language. Algeria also took down an Islamist government in 1991. Algerians also only constitute about 16% of the immigrant population.

So no, I don't believe "French identity" is under threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

Yes i know but sometimes according to the logic of christian theology jesus (as) ordained also mass killings and wars isnt it ?

Salam Alidu78,

The Christians who fought Sunni Muslim invasions into Europe and who attempted to take Jerusalem away from the Sunni Muslims did claim that God willed it. They completely ignored or did not know about Jesus' command to love enemies. (In those days, not everybody had access to the Bible; some were ignorant of what Jesus Christ said and instead just relied on their religious leaders who used religion for their own agendas. :(

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Christianlady said:

Salam Alidu78,

The Christians who fought Sunni Muslim invasions into Europe and who attempted to take Jerusalem away from the Sunni Muslims did claim that God willed it. They completely ignored or did not know about Jesus' command to love enemies. (In those days, not everybody had access to the Bible; some were ignorant of what Jesus Christ said and instead just relied on their religious leaders who used religion for their own agendas. :(

Peace and God bless you

You didnt understand my statement . According to the christian logic jesus (as) is god isnt it ? So technically he is also the god of the old testament isnt it ?

so technically if jesus as is god he is him who killed many égyptians during the period of mussa  (as) , killed the whole world during the time of nuh as or ordenned to joshua as to kill all the pagans in palestine .

But maybe im wrong and you could explain to me better christian théology about what I said .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ali al-Abdullah said:

You can't be talking out of your opinion or "feelings" against Imam Muḥammad al-Mahdī ibn Ḥasan al-Askarī, peace be upon them both. This is something we believe in as part of our faith and for you to come here and say "I don't see it" without any proof is very disrespectful. Insha‘Allah this is a promise of Allah (swt) Himself and He never fails His promises.

ok then explain how did islam expand in past with out any mahdi ? , also how do you say he is son of hashan al-askari when he isn't born yet ? >>> I respect shia views so that's obviously why I am here on this site I don't hate you but I also reject any blind faith that doesn't make sense to me . 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

My main issue with the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment/Renaissance, and the French Revolution is not their violence, but their transformation of the continent. The sociologist Max Weber famously said that the Reformation was the first step towards secularism, because it individualized Christianity and relegated it to the private domain. Laws are no longer based on ethics, but rather they are based on the general mood of the public - which is based largely on the media and the economy. The papacy is no longer in a position that can influence society, and instead interest-led banking and economics runs the world. The institution of marriage is being destroyed, and Church attendance is declining.

This is mostly happening in Europe and North America - Christianity is actually on the rise in much of the Third World. I agree that the prophets have foretold the overall decline of religion. My argument is that its decline is a major reason for the cultural decline of Europe.

Take a look at my link. Since you cited France, let's use that as an example. Only 12% of France consists of foreign-born people, which is far less than where I am currently living. 

Lol Honnestly im sorry but this number is à bad joke because that represent only people who are foreign born BUT not thosé who have parents or grand parent born outside france. If we do that its more like 25-30 %.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, sakura1994 said:

ok then explain how did islam expand in past with out any mahdi ? , also how do you say he is son of hashan al-askari when he isn't born yet ? >>> I respect shia views so that's obviously why I am here on this site I don't hate you but I also reject any blind faith that doesn't make sense to me . 

What? I'm sorry but you make no sense. Why would there be a Mahdi for the past? The whole reason for Imam Mahdi (ajtf) is for our era.

And he is born and is the son of Imam Hasan al-‘Askarī (as). No such thing as blind faith in Shia Islam my friend. Everything here makes sense. If there's anything you don't understand ask and insha‘Allah I will be able to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

My main issue with the Protestant Reformation, the Enlightenment/Renaissance, and the French Revolution is not their violence, but their transformation of the continent.

Salam Qa'im,

Violence however is a huge issue that greatly impacted Europe in a negative way.

As for transformation, the Protestant Reformation allowed Christian Europeans to read the Bible in their own language. The Reformation also allowed people not to be under an oppressive church who misled the people with lies such as being able to pay to get out of purgatory:

St. Peter's basilica was being rebuilt, but there was no money. Leo decided to solve the problem in time-honored fashion. On this day March 15, 1517 he declared that anyone who contributed to the cathedral would be granted an indulgence. Although in theory an indulgence was only a remission of penalties meted out in this world by the church, in practice it was hawked as if it covered the actual guilt of sins and could release souls from Purgatory. The gist of the indulgence was as follows:

"... absolve you ...from all thy sins, transgressions, and excesses, how enormous soever they be...and remit to you all punishment which you deserve in purgatory on their account and I restore you...to the innocence and purity which you possessed at baptism; so that when you die the gates of punishment shall be shut... and if you shall not die at present, this grace shall remain in full force when you are at the point of death."

Sent to preach the indulgence in Germany was a Dominican named Tetzel. Tetzel got above himself in his promises, implying that the indulgence even covered the future sins which the buyer was now harboring in his heart.

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1501-1600/infamous-indulgence-led-to-reformation-11629920.html

The Reformation is basically a reaction to the corruption, greed, and lies in the Catholic Church. Definitely and horribly, there are Protestant churches that are corrupt, greedy, and lie, but the Reformation addressed the wrongdoing of the Catholic Church.

 

Quote

The sociologist Max Weber famously said that the Reformation was the first step towards secularism, because it individualized Christianity and relegated it to the private domain.

Christianity before the Reformation was under tight control of men who disobeyed Jesus Christ in many ways, so it was good that Europe was freed from Roman Catholic control. As for secularism, Jesus Christ did not force people to follow him. They can leave him, if they want, though people who truly love Jesus Christ will follow and obey him, regardless of what other people do.

Quote

Laws are no longer based on ethics, but rather they are based on the general mood of the public - which is based largely on the media and the economy.

Much of the general mood of the public is based on ethics. For example, there's still laws against murder, and those laws are stronger after the Reformation and after both Catholics and Protestants understood that killing each other was not in obedience to Jesus Christ or good for the community.

Quote

The papacy is no longer in a position that can influence society, and instead interest-led banking and economics runs the world.

The papacy actually still influences society, even in Protestant countries, because many Protestants and Catholics are friends now, and many Catholics no longer call Protestants "heretics" and many Protestants no longer call the Pope the "AntiChrist" and nail issues to Catholic church doors.

Quote

The institution of marriage is being destroyed,

No it's not. While less people are getting married, many people still are getting married to people of opposite genders. Marriage is declining, not being destroyed.

Quote

and Church attendance is declining.

True.

Quote


This is mostly happening in Europe and North America -

 

True.

Quote

Christianity is actually on the rise in much of the Third World.

Some of the most caring and loving Christians I have ever personally met are in underdeveloped areas of México and Central America. They did not at the time have even hot water and plumbing, and they have dirt floors, but their love for Jesus and each other is impressive!!! I learned not to complain after going to México and spending a week not having access to hot showers!!!

Quote

I agree that the prophets have foretold the overall decline of religion. My argument is that its decline is a major reason for the cultural decline of Europe.

How is culture declining in Europe?

Peace and God bless you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, alidu78 said:

Lol Honnestly im sorry but this number is à bad joke because that represent only people who are foreign born BUT not thosé who have parents or grand parent born outside france. If we do that its more like 25-30 %.

Is this an argument about race/eugenics or culture? If you go back far enough, everyone's grandparents are "mixed" in some way, including the average Frenchman. 45% of French immigrants come from non-Muslim countries, and there's a very good chance that your average Turkish or Algerian immigrant is not very religious to begin with - according to Pew, only 10% of France even identifies as Muslim. They're not going to Islamize anything - do you expect them to impose shari`a law, erase the French language and holidays, even in 30 years? Many integrated immigrants become Westernized, and second and third generation immigrants don't have as many children. Again, if they have a problem with Muslims, then they should cut welfare, cut healthcare, cut pensions, work longer hours, raise the retirement age, and have more kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Qa'im said:

Is this an argument about race/eugenics or culture? If you go back far enough, everyone's grandparents are "mixed" in some way, including the average Frenchman. 45% of French immigrants come from non-Muslim countries, and there's a very good chance that your average Turkish or Algerian immigrant is not very religious to begin with - according to Pew, only 10% of France even identifies as Muslim. They're not going to Islamize anything - do you expect them to impose shari`a law, erase the French language and holidays, even in 30 years? Many integrated immigrants become Westernized, and second and third generation immigrants don't have as many children. Again, if they have a problem with Muslims, then they should cut welfare, cut healthcare, cut pensions, work longer hours, raise the retirement age, and have more kids.

Yes this is an argument because of that we dont see the reality of immigration in france or europe in général .

Honnestly I think sharia law will never be implément in france before the rise of Imam mahdi as However if never Muslims become à majority france will look more like turkey. 

And about your statement "45% of immigrants in france are from Europe" its definetly not true because immigration statistics dont take in considération illégal immigration from africa wich is huge .

already some french departments are becoming in majority muslim so why not most of the country near 2050 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A country / nation 1) does not have to have a 100% practicing Muslim population to become "Islamic" (for lack of a better term) 2) does not have to be 51% of Muslim backgrounds to reflect Islamic social-cultural values .  There is a tipping point, and I think Europe is fast approaching that ... whereby some 25-30% or more of the population will be Muslim. From thereon, the numbers of conversions will skyrocket ... because of the major impact that this population will have on the population at large. Muslims of Europe need to be smart about this - be completely and totally welcoming of all Europeans of all backgrounds, and not worry too much about the level of practice, that will come on its own as society is transformed. They need to speak up about the exploitation of women, and working class peoples in the euro countries (esp how eastern euros are hated by western euros - and how western euros are exploited by their own internal crony capitalists) - and demonstrate what Islam has to offer. All people have a spiritual yearning - and fact is that the secular-christian churches have abandoned moral/ethical/spiritualities - and become more of an appendage to liberalism. 

The South Asian/Arab background Muslims who came to the US have been horrible for Islam here - because of their racism, and single minded focus on appeasing the establishment crony powers. This led to a marked decline of African American conversions - as the focus of Muslim orgs became more about making a quick buck, and remaining silent about the social conditions of people in the US. This may change in the near future as more and more South Asians/Arabs begin to realize that they are not Whites - and as attacks on 'em gets just as severe as it is on African Americans and Latino populations. I would also expect that Whites of conscience will also join with Muslims - and many Whites will also convert. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Partially responding to the title question: 3:186 3:198
    • I posted but dc. So i forget what i explained. However, you should learn the manner/behavior of Imam Ahlul Bayt a.s. upon receiving bad word.
    • بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Despite the repeated use of the phrase “there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God,” I would imagine most atheists, and indeed most people, are unaware that there is in fact a technical difference between evidence and proof. Fittingly, the distinction between proof and evidence was initially taught to me in an introductory evolutionary biology course by an ardent atheist professor during my first year of university. My professor used this distinction to justify why she would not be receiving objections to evolution in her class. (Literally, she said that we were not allowed to question evolution or present counter evidence during the lecture, and that she would not entertain it during her office hours.) It was the most bizarre and dogmatic moment I had in my entire education, and I say this as someone who was blessed to study theology in a seminary environment for a year. Contrary to popular opinion, the seminaries are far less dogmatic when it comes to foundational beliefs, as they permit questioning the existence of God and raising objections to the proofs offered. She argued that evolution was based upon good evidence, but could never attain the status of complete certainty. It was a probabilistic argument, like virtually all of science, rather than a demonstration, as in the case of mathematical proofs (and, as we shall see, metaphysical arguments.) I still vividly remember the slide used to showcase an example of rational certainty – it was that of a triangle with some lines and an accompanying trigonometric proof. Because evolution (along with all empirical science) could never attain 100% rational certainty, she argued that it was always possible to be a skeptic, to raise objections about inductive inferences which are probabilistic at best, or to posit alternative explanations that could explain the data, no matter how improbable. Oh the irony. If scientific atheists only applied their standards consistently, they would either deny science or accept God. We will see why more clearly later on when we explore the evidence for the existence of God. But there is neither here nor there. For now, what I want to do is just go over some basic concepts in reason in order to set the table for the coming arguments...

      This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.
    • بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم As we stated earlier, before we can answer the question “how can I know that God exists?” we must first ask the question “how do I know anything at all.” There are multiple ways that the intellect comes to know, and these modalities (or ways) of knowing are arranged hierarchically. I will go from the lowest form of knowledge to the highest – though this may seem unintuitive to the modern mind, which has been conditioned to see certainty as ordered in precisely the opposite direction. I will sort out these modern confusions as we proceed upon each level, inshaAllah. The lowest form of knowing, and the least certain is that of sense perception. “Huh? But I thought you had to see it to believe it?” you may ask. Ah, but you see sense perception deceives us all the time. We readily admit that. Sometimes we see things that aren’t really there, and sometimes what we see does not reflect reality. For instance, we perceive the earth as being flat, the sun as setting upon the horizon, the stars as being small, and if I were to put my finger in a glass of water it would appear to break due to the refraction of light. Your eyes deceive you Take a look at this clip around 12:30 where Dawkins himself says that if he were to see a direct sign of God – the heavens opening up and seeing the angels – he would still disbelieve in God. Instead, he would find it more probable that he were hallucinating, that David Blaine or some magician were playing a trick on him, or that aliens with some advanced technology could manipulate reality to make him think he were seeing what he were seeing. You can hear his own words here....

      This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.
    • @Ali Hassan Hussain Mutah or marriage is not a solution to getting rid of masturbation addiction. Unfortunately many Muslims are uneducated in this sense and feel that it is a magical solution. As I said, masturbation is a behavioural addiction and it does not depend on you being married or not. Your brain is wired in a certain way (although you can fix it). There are numerous cases of Muslim/non-Muslim men who are addicted to masturbation even when they are married. Having a mindset that "marriage will solve my problem" is horrible. Guys who say this have no will power to get their addiction sorted. I feel sorry for girls who have to put up with those guys. Marriage is a way to keep you safe from masturbation to start with - so you don't develop an addiction. It can help you manage addiction but is not the ultimate solution. I'm just saying this to give you a very honest advice, one which very few people will give you.  Focus on building healthy habits. You need to have enough will power to say "no" when it comes to masturbation. Learn to hold yourself accountable. No matter how strong your desires are - it is possible to say no. Join an online community with other people who also have similar problems, to educate yourself on the potential consequences. In addition, you need to tell someone who you trust, be he a psychologist, stranger, friend or anyone. Keeping this addiction to yourself is part of the problem. Inshallah you can get rid of this addiction. Just man up and hold yourself accountable.   
×