http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2796/muslims-ban-dogs-europe I suppose I do not see the purpose in handling peoples faith with kid gloves. Someone views a dog as unclean, so what? Why should that even be a topic to be brought to the table for discussion? Why attempt to pass laws that ban people from possessing dogs in X area? The dislike of dogs on religious grounds should simply be dismissed as non-sense.
As long as the Muslim population remains around 1% of any given country they will be regarded as a peace-loving minority and not as a threat to anyone. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness: United States — Muslim 1.0% Australia — Muslim 1.5% Canada — Muslim 1.9% China — Muslim 1%-2% Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8% At 2% and 3% they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs: Denmark — Muslim 2% Germany — Muslim 3.7% United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7% Spain — Muslim 4% Thailand — Muslim 4.6% From 5% on they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. They will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature it on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. France — Muslim 8% Philippines — Muslim 5% Sweden — Muslim 5% Switzerland — Muslim 4.3% The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5% Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8% At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islam is not to convert the world but to establish Sharia law over the entire world. When Muslims reach 10% of the population, they will increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions (Paris — car burnings, etc.). Any non-Muslim action that offends Islam will result in uprisings and threats (Amsterdam — Mohammed cartoons). Guyana — Muslim 10% India — Muslim 13.4% Israel — Muslim 16% Kenya — Muslim 10% Russia — Muslim 10-15% After reaching 20% expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings and church and synagogue burning: Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8% At 40% you will find widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks and ongoing militia warfare: Bosnia — Muslim 40% Chad — Muslim 53.1% Lebanon — Muslim 59.7% From 60% you may expect unfettered persecution of non-believers and other religions, sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels: Albania — Muslim 70% Malaysia — Muslim 60.4% Qatar — Muslim 77.5% Sudan — Muslim 70% After 80% expect State run ethnic cleansing and genocide: Bangladesh — Muslim 83% Egypt — Muslim 90% Gaza — Muslim 98.7% Indonesia — Muslim 86.1% Iran — Muslim 98% Iraq — Muslim 97% Jordan — Muslim 92% Morocco — Muslim 98.7% Pakistan — Muslim 97% Palestine — Muslim 99% Syria — Muslim 90% Tajikistan — Muslim 90% Turkey — Muslim 99.8% United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96% 100% will usher in the peace of "Dar-es-Salaam" — the Islamic House of Peace — there’s supposed to be peace because everybody is a Muslim: Afghanistan — Muslim 100% Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100% Somalia — Muslim 100% Yemen — Muslim 99.9% Of course, that’s not the case. To satisfy their blood lust, Muslims then start killing each other for a variety of reasons.
I actually wonder about this, being that the video I first saw it in was a white supremacist piece.... .... That aside, it makes sense.
They have the right to pursue whatever political changes they would like. Just because someone makes a proposal does not mean it will be passed. Why would you deny them the right of political participation?
I wouldn't bar them. I simply dismiss them as silly and overly sensitive. Their proposal removes basic civil rights of other people (note the seeing eye dogs) in the name of faith. That is simply disgusting.
I must say I find it harder than you to set white supremacism aside, just as I found it hard to overlook the political orientation of the site you got the news for your OP from. Do you seriously think you can trust a site that names right-wing bigots like Geert Wilders as its columnists? To get things into perspective: http://www.allah.eu/about-islam/hague-muslim-party-denies-dog-ban-proposal.html
Well, I can't vouch for the source. I found the article, and thought it was interesting enough to post. If they were in fact taken out of context, then I will dismiss my own OP.
