Is Islam right for Ireland?

Mutant z

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Do you feel the same way about male genital mutilation, which is of course legal under our supposedly enlightened Irish laws?

All forms of bodily mutilations needs to be outlawed its a disgusting practice which has no place in a modern 21st society.

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Klaz, with all due respect, if you come on to an anonymous message board espousing generalising views of an entire strata of the human population (i.e. 1.5 billion Muslims) and advocate policies as extreme as making immigrants sign a cultural restrictive covenant -- then you cannot seriously expect those views not to be challenged with vigour. I have little time to pander to your sensitivities -- but feel free to seek redress via the moderators if I am hurting your feelings.

Pander to my sensitivities? hardly. But a degree of courtesy would be nice. Do you see me making snide remarks in posts?

Your first paragraph is little more than an admission that your 5% quote is ill-thought. I find it distinctly ironic that someone who apparently bemoans the inadequacy of our immigration system is concurrently advocating an "Ah sure it'll be grand we will have it all sorted by then" stance on immigration policy.

Ahh... you're expecting an investigation with clear numbers/percentages for the allocated amounts? Err... 5% was plucked out of the air. it could be 10% depending on the circumstances. I'm not going to waste time investigating and calculating the amounts when it's just going to get shot down by someone shouting "It's unreasonable".

The point is that Europe, and Ireland needs breathing space to deal with the current migrant population. To create a system that encourages integration and the removal or reduction of the friction that is currently happening (and growing). So, the % doesn't matter. The meat of the matter is a limit on the numbers of migrants until we have a working system in place... and a system that is capable of dealing with increased numbers.

I'm not advocating the dismantling of our immigration policies. I'm saying that we should put a hold on it or further limit entry until we have better infrastructure/resources to deal with those that are already here. We already have migrants here and they're sitting in holding areas, with few services, and very few chances of gaining employment.

As for your second paragraph, I'm not sure where exactly I said that all of Europe has the same views on tolerance. We are talking about Ireland. Even then, I'm not sure what your point is. Tolerance of religious beliefs (or atheism), sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, nationality, political beliefs are at the heart of our democracy. If I am wrong on that -- I would be interested to hear your view on why we should embrace intolerance.

Personally, I feel that western democracy needs to evolve, and placing limitations or restrictions on a foreign culture is not a measure of intolerance, but simply being practical. This push to be welcoming to all cultures regardless of how they interact with our own has proven to be short-sighted. Multiculturalism has consistently failed. Other posters here have argued this point already.

Being tolerant of another culture does not have to mean we accept and allow the practices of that culture within our own borders. We can, and should be placing limitations/restrictions on traditional Islamic practices.

Your third paragraph . . . I note that you have a little strop rather than answer the question. It would be nice to hear your answer on whether (if your declaration was implemented), people like Shayk Dr Umar al-Qadri should be deported because he advocates repealing the 8th Amendment?

When it comes to introducing Islamic culture into our society or laws, then I don't think they should have a voice. In any other capacity, then they should be free to have say in things if they are citizens.

There is nothing wrong with saying 'people of your persuasion'. What else am I supposed to say? You have a persuasion on the place of Muslims in Ireland, and there are people who share your persuasion.

Perhaps, don't lump me in with anyone...

Gravelly

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Who is supporting mass Islamic immigration? Who is deflecting any of the putrid and repressive dogma of Islam?

Hilarious response when you just defended halal slaughter yourself in the previous post (not to mention your constant shilling for Islamic immigration).

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

Hilarious response when you just defended halal slaughter yourself in the previous post (not to mention your constant shilling for Islamic immigration).

Where did I defend halal slaughter?

Gravelly

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Gravelly wrote: »

Hilarious response when you just defended halal slaughter yourself in the previous post (not to mention your constant shilling for Islamic immigration).

Where did I defend halal slaughter?

Seriously?

Anyone care to explain the benefits of Islamic migration? Anyone?

JohnMc1

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone care to explain the benefits of Islamic migration? Anyone?

Cultural Enrichment. Atleast according to the Left.

K.Flyer

Mutant z wrote: »

The point is to not allow it here in the first place so you wont have to campaign against it a zero tolerance approach should be taken towards this vile practice and the imprisonment or deportation of those who practice it.

FGM is illegal in Ireland under the Criminal Justice (Female Genital Mutilation) Act 2012.
Fines up to 10,000 euro / 14 years prison.

Earlier this year an East African couple were sent forward for trial accused of carrying out the act on their daughter.

Ali Selim, the primary spokesperson for Clonskeagh Mosque , advocated FGM if approved by a doctor, and said it should be allowed by law.

This was quickly followed by the condemnation of FGM by the Muslim Imam, Shaykh Dr Umar Al-Qadri, who described the FGM practice as 'forbidden' 'harmful' and 'sinful

K.Flyer

Mutant z wrote: »

All forms of bodily mutilations needs to be outlawed its a disgusting practice which has no place in a modern 21st society.

Presumably you are only referring to child Male / Female circumcision, or are you including what people decide to do to themselves as adults.

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes. Humour me.

Where did I defend it?

Mutant z

K.Flyer wrote: »

Presumably you are only referring to child Male / Female circumcision, or are you including what people decide to do to themselves as adults.

Adults can make up their own minds if they want to do that stupidity then they can go right on ahead but leave children alone they need all the protection they can get.

Hector Savage

Gravelly wrote: »

It’s hilarious the things that supporters of mass Islamic immigration will defend in order to push their agenda - ritual slaughter of animals, subjugation of women, religious laws, anti gay sentiment, any and all will be defended, obfuscated, deflected, even outright denied in order to support their agenda. If a group of white westerners proposed any of these things, the same people would be out marching in their pussy hats and screaming at the sky in outrage!

Spot on, it really does sum up this toxic new left.

Gravelly

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Gravelly wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes. Humour me.

Where did I defend it?

Post #1595:

“The ban on halal meat is somewhat odd. Why would you ban it?”

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Pander to my sensitivities? hardly. But a degree of courtesy would be nice. Do you see me making snide remarks in posts?

Ahh... you're expecting an investigation with clear numbers/percentages for the allocated amounts? Err... 5% was plucked out of the air. it could be 10% depending on the circumstances. I'm not going to waste time investigating and calculating the amounts when it's just going to get shot down by someone shouting "It's unreasonable".

This is a wonderfully articulate admission of having no idea what you're talking about.

Deleted User wrote: »

The point is that Europe, and Ireland needs breathing space to deal with the current migrant population. To create a system that encourages integration and the removal or reduction of the friction that is currently happening (and growing). So, the % doesn't matter. The meat of the matter is a limit on the numbers of migrants until we have a working system in place... and a system that is capable of dealing with increased numbers.

I'm not advocating the dismantling of our immigration policies. I'm saying that we should put a hold on it or further limit entry until we have better infrastructure/resources to deal with those that are already here. We already have migrants here and they're sitting in holding areas, with few services, and very few chances of gaining employment.

Are you sure you are not conflating immigrants with refugees/asylum seekers here? In any case, nobody is arguing against having an immigration system in place which complements and has due regard for the economic health of the State. What is being argued against is this sensationalist labelling of all Muslims under a common banner of 'undesirable'. You talk about integration -- tell me -- if a young Muslim guy currently at high school was reading this thread (which there may well be), which of us do you feel might be more reassuring to him as to his ability to integrate into Irish society? The guy stoking up fear about Muslims being some kind of threat, or the guy who is saying that every Muslim person is an individual with their own thoughts rather than some stereotypical caricature who invariably hates women and gays? I will never back down from telling a Muslim, or a Catholic for that matter, that their religious customs are suppressive and daft -- but even practising Catholics and Muslims are capable of rational doubt. But just casting someone as a lost cause because of their religious beliefs is never going to encourage them to open their mind.

Deleted User wrote: »

Personally, I feel that western democracy needs to evolve, and placing limitations or restrictions on a foreign culture is not a measure of intolerance, but simply being practical. This push to be welcoming to all cultures regardless of how they interact with our own has proven to be short-sighted. Multiculturalism has consistently failed. Other posters here have argued this point already.

Being tolerant of another culture does not have to mean we accept and allow the practices of that culture within our own borders. We can, and should be placing limitations/restrictions on traditional Islamic practices.

We are always being told how multiculturalism has failed. It's an interesting one. What are the examples? France, Sweden, USA, UK etc etc etc? I always find it somewhat illustrative that these examples are also of course some of the most developed, free and rule-of-law abiding countries on earth. But I suppose you're going to give me some apocalyptic treatise on the banlieues or Malmo as evidence that multiculturalism has always failed . . . or is it simply a case that it hasn't always been successful?

As for limitations / restrictions on traditional Islamic practices. We have laws in this country which prohibit certain things. If we accept people into the State to settle here then they are subject to the same laws. If an Islamic practice is contrary to any Irish law, then it is a matter for the courts and the legislature to determine to an appropriate penalty. We could of course, for example, introduce a ban on the hijab/burkha but I would have my doubts as to whether this would damage integration at this point in time rather than help it.

Deleted User wrote: »

When it comes to introducing Islamic culture into our society or laws, then I don't think they should have a voice. In any other capacity, then they should be free to have say in things if they are citizens.

Perhaps, don't lump me in with anyone...

I don't really know what you think this will achieve. Censoring people tends to fuel their passions further. The British tried censorship in the North and rather than damage Sinn Fein it boosted them. I presume though your ban will also extend to penalising anyone who advocates a return of any form of suppressive law based on their religious or morality beliefs. I presume you would advocate for example penalising anyone who expresses a view that contraception should be banned again. One finds that totalitarian states tend to lose the run of themselves eh!

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

Post #1595:

“The ban on halal meat is somewhat odd. Why would you ban it?”

I'm struggling to understand this pal. I made a point that it seems odd to abhor halal meat on the grounds of animal cruelty but yet be totally fine with killing the animal at all. It could be construed as a little bit hypocritical.

But, with the same black-and-white goggles through which you view all Muslims, you obviously only half-read my post and just thought "oh look at that he's defending halal slaughter".

It doesn't say much for your point of view.

K.Flyer

Having worked in many different Irish slaughter houses over the years I have seen, and very up close, both methods of killing animals, and to be honest, imo, neither one is better or more humane than the other.
Halal meat has been produced and processed in Ireland for decades, and back in the day, was a huge part of the Irish beef export industry.
If you want to ban one, you may as well ban them all.

Greyling

K.Flyer wrote: »

Having worked in many different Irish slaughter houses over the years I have seen, and very up close, both methods of killing animals, and to be honest, imo, neither one is better or more humane than the other.
Halal meat has been produced and processed in Ireland for decades, and back in the day, was a huge part of the Irish beef export industry.
If you want to ban one, you may as well ban them all.

What happens when the animals are killed halal in Ireland? Is there someone there to do the blessing?

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

This is a wonderfully articulate admission of having no idea what you're talking about.

Hilarious. What are you then? An expert on Islam, Irish immigration policies, etc? FFS.

There's absolutely no point discussing anything with you. You can continue perching on your pedestal of moral superiority, dismissing anything a poster suggests because they're not an authority on the subject. Of course, it doesn't matter that you're in the same boat as the rest of us, because, well... just because. :rolleyes:

Bugger this. Responding to you is a waste of typing, and in spite of being asked, you persist in being an ass. Ignored.

ArthurDayne

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand this pal. I made a point that it seems odd to abhor halal meat on the grounds of animal cruelty but yet be totally fine with killing the animal at all. It could be construed as a little bit hypocritical.

But, with the same black-and-white goggles through which you view all Muslims, you obviously only half-read my post and just thought "oh look at that he's defending halal slaughter".

It doesn't say much for your point of view.

In Vietnam, I had to switch cafe at lunch because a restaurant / meat seller close to it slaughtered a pig every day with a machete to its throat.

I have no problem with meat etc., but it felt excessive. The whole neighbourhood had to listen to it and it really was quite a gruesome sight. I don't feel like a hypocrite for disliking it.

Greyling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

In Vietnam, I had to switch cafe at lunch because a restaurant / meat seller close to it slaughtered a pig every day with a machete to its throat.

I have no problem with meat etc., but it felt excessive. The whole neighbourhood had to listen to it and it really was quite a gruesome sight. I don't feel like a hypocrite for disliking it.

The animals you're eating don't die by natural causes. It's very hypocritical. But I don't see how a pig being slaughtered in Vietnam has anything to do with halal or Islam in Ireland.

Gravelly

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I'm struggling to understand this pal. I made a point that it seems odd to abhor halal meat on the grounds of animal cruelty but yet be totally fine with killing the animal at all. It could be construed as a little bit hypocritical.

But, with the same black-and-white goggles through which you view all Muslims, you obviously only half-read my post and just thought "oh look at that he's defending halal slaughter".

It doesn't say much for your point of view.

I'm not your pal. It is clear as day you defended halal slaughter, don't be a coward and back away from it now. Of course you only defended it because you are blinded by your need to lie, obfuscate, and deflect in order to defend islam at any cost. We all see through you.

Greyling

Greyling wrote: »

The animals you're eating don't die by natural causes. It's very hypocritical.

If I'm a hypocrite in your book for thinking a stun gun is better than a five minute drawn out process of a pig roaring on the pavement as it died, then I'm not surprised.

I could say glass is made from sand and you'd tell me I'm wrong.



As to your edit, it doesn't have anything to do with halal, directly. My point is that it's a vicious way to kill an animal that most people find quite abhorrent.

Gravelly

Deleted User wrote: »

Hilarious. What are you then? An expert on Islam, Irish immigration policies, etc? FFS.

There's absolutely no point discussing anything with you. You can continue perching on your pedestal of moral superiority, dismissing anything a poster suggests because they're not an authority on the subject. Of course, it doesn't matter that you're in the same boat as the rest of us, because, well... just because. :rolleyes:

Bugger this. Responding to you is a waste of typing, and in spite of being asked, you persist in being an ass. Ignored.

Given his constant, blind defence of anything related to islam, perhaps he is an expert.....

Greyling

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not your pal. It is clear as day you defended halal slaughter, don't be a coward and back away from it now. Of course you only defended it because you are blinded by your need to lie, obfuscate, and deflect in order to defend islam at any cost. We all see through you.

And the only reason most of the extremists in here have a problem with halal is to attack Islam at all costs. We see right through you.

Greyling

Greyling wrote: »

And the only reason most of the extremists in here have a problem with halal is to attack Islam at all costs. We see right through you.

I'm glad you singled out extremists as that may be in fact right. The rest of us however dislike the brutality of it.

Greyling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If I'm a hypocrite in your book for thinking a stun gun is better than a five minute drawn out process of a pig roaring on the pavement as it died, then I'm not surprised.

I could say glass is made from sand and you'd tell me I'm wrong.



As to your edit, it doesn't have anything to do with halal, directly. My point is that it's a vicious way to kill an animal that most people find quite abhorrent.

Its a bit precious in my opinion.

K.Flyer

Greyling wrote: »

What happens when the animals are killed halal in Ireland? Is there someone there to do the blessing?

Yes. The person killing does the blessing and then has to cut the throat.
The cattle are herded into a killing box which is orientated towards Mecca. Where I worked their head went through an opening at the front were a device pushed the head up exposing the neck.
In two of the factories the box then rotated so that the neck faced upwards and the person killing then used one single cut, hitting both arteries and wind pipe, while praying at the same time.
In both Halal and non-Halal killings the animal bleeds to death, so I don't see one being any better than the other.

Gravelly

Greyling wrote: »

And the only reason most of the extremists in here have a problem with halal is to attack Islam at all costs. We see right through you.

"extremists" - right, because those concerned about mass islamic immigration are the ones blowing themselves up at concerts!

I consider halal just one of many reasons to attack islam as a doctrine - the others include subjugation of women, tendency to encourage violent attacks on the innocent, denial of rights to minorities including the lgbt community, etc. etc. etc.

But I suppose us extremists shouldn't mention those things in case someone's feelings are hurt eh?

ArthurDayne

Gravelly wrote: »

I'm not your pal. It is clear as day you defended halal slaughter, don't be a coward and back away from it now. Of course you only defended it because you are blinded by your need to lie, obfuscate, and deflect in order to defend islam at any cost. We all see through you.

I had a good smile at this. Like your buddy Klaz, when faced with anything other than a little 'da Muzlims be bad hi' echo chamber you wilt away with some little whinge.

Gravelly

ArthurDayne wrote: »

I had a good smile at this. Like your buddy Klaz, when faced with anything other than a little 'da Muzlims be bad hi' echo chamber you wilt away with some little whinge.

Good man, no answer so resort to childish ad hominem.

Greyling

Greyling wrote: »

Its a bit precious in my opinion.

I don't think that's fair.

ArthurDayne

Deleted User wrote: »

Hilarious. What are you then? An expert on Islam, Irish immigration policies, etc? FFS.

There's absolutely no point discussing anything with you. You can continue perching on your pedestal of moral superiority, dismissing anything a poster suggests because they're not an authority on the subject. Of course, it doesn't matter that you're in the same boat as the rest of us, because, well... just because. :rolleyes:

Bugger this. Responding to you is a waste of typing, and in spite of being asked, you persist in being an ass. Ignored.

I can assure you Klaz ... I take nothing but pleasure in eliciting a whinge and cowardly retreat from people who would have us degrade our country into a place of generalising hatred -- whether it be a fundamentalist Muslim making his daughter wear a burkha or guys like you who would have us treat our good Muslim neighbours with suspicion and hatred.

Greyling

Gravelly wrote: »

"extremists" - right, because those concerned about mass islamic immigration are the ones blowing themselves up at concerts!

I consider halal just one of many reasons to attack islam as a doctrine - the others include subjugation of women, tendency to encourage violent attacks on the innocent, denial of rights to minorities including the lgbt community, etc. etc. etc.

But I suppose us extremists shouldn't mention those things in case someone's feelings are hurt eh?

No, you can mention any issues and they should be discussed. The extremism comes in to play when you can't recognise they are not a blanket problem with 1.8 billion people. That's what makes you an extremist.

There is no reason to believe these things will be a problem in Ireland. Particularly with Syrians who tend to be some of the most tolerant Muslims in the middle East.

donegaLroad

as a non muslim male, what are my chances of meeting a nice muslim girl, having a relationship and maybe getting married?

Answer: zero (unless Im in Tunisia)


At the same time, it is ok for a muslim male to date a non muslim girl, but if she wants to get married, she has to take his religion and become muslim.


good luck and thanks

Gravelly

Greyling wrote: »

No, you can mention any issues and they should be discussed. The extremism comes in to play when you can't recognise they are not a blanket problem with 1.8 billion people. There is no reason to believe these things will be a problem in Ireland. Particularly with Syrian who tend to be some of the most tolerant Muslims in the middle East.

If that were the case, I'd be all for it, but could you explain to me why Ireland is going to be the first European country (in fact the first country anywhere in the world) that isn't going to have these problems?

Greyling

Gravelly wrote: »

If that were the case, I'd be all for it, but could you explain to me why Ireland is going to be the first European country (in fact the first country anywhere in the world) that isn't going to have these problems?

Most of the problems are being caused by North Africans and South Asians in Britain and Europe. We have no real history of numbers of these people coming to Ireland. People are worried about Syrian refugees and they shouldn't be.

donegaLroad

donegaLroad wrote: »

as a non muslim male, what are my chances of meeting a nice muslim girl, having a relationship and maybe getting married?

Answer: zero (unless Im in Tunisia)


At the same time, it is ok for a muslim male to date a non muslim girl, but if she wants to get married, she has to take his religion and become muslim.


good luck and thanks

I know plenty of Muslim women here would be happy to meet you!
Oh, & I know many Muslim women here married to non Muslim men.

Oh, but of course I don't live in a REAL Muslim country, even though over 96% of the country are Muslim.....................

Gravelly

Greyling wrote: »

Most of the problems are being caused by North Africans and South Asians in Britain and Europe. We have no real history of numbers of these people coming to Ireland. People are worried about Syrian refugees and they shouldn't be.

I appreciate you engaging in a constructive way unlike others on the thread, but that's not answering my question though - why will Ireland be the first European country to somehow avoid the problems associated with islamic immigration? What are we doing that all the other countries haven't? I'm sure France, Germany, Sweden etc. would love to know.

Hector Savage

bubblypop wrote: »

I know plenty of Muslim women here would be happy to meet you!
Oh, & I know many Muslim women here married to non Muslim men.

Oh, but of course I don't live in a REAL Muslim country, even though over 96% of the country are Muslim.....................

Out of curiosity where do you live ?

Hector Savage

Hector Savage wrote: »

Out of curiosity where do you live ?

I'm guessing Bali or Jakarta.

Gravelly

Hector Savage wrote: »

Out of curiosity where do you live ?

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm guessing Bali or Jakarta.

I'm guessing Utopia.

donegaLroad

bubblypop wrote: »

I know plenty of Muslim women here would be happy to meet you!
Oh, & I know many Muslim women here married to non Muslim men.

Oh, but of course I don't live in a REAL Muslim country, even though over 96% of the country are Muslim.....................

ok, I am wrong so. All I hear from parts of the UK is how strict the rules are about muslim women meeting non muslim males. I have no experience, so I am only going on what I watch on documentaries.


I do not understand the part in bold.

Greyling

Gravelly wrote: »

I appreciate you engaging in a constructive way unlike others on the thread, but that's not answering my question though - why will Ireland be the first European country to somehow avoid the problems associated with islamic immigration? What are we doing that all the other countries haven't? I'm sure France, Germany, Sweden etc. would love to know.

We won't get huge populations of Muslims coming because we don't have colonial hangovers like France and Britain. We also don't neighbour Muslim countries like Germany. Sweden took loads of Bosnians etc in after the war there.

We're talking about taking in tiny amounts of Syrians. These people come from a moderate culture destroyed by western influence. There is no reason to believe they will be problematic.

donegaLroad

Greyling wrote: »

We won't get huge populations of Muslims coming because we don't have colonial hangovers like France and Britain. We also don't neighbour Muslim countries like Germany. Sweden took loads of Bosnians etc in after the war there.

We're talking about taking in tiny amounts of Syrians. These people come from a moderate culture destroyed by western influence. There is no reason to believe they will be problematic.

There are Syrians already in Ireland. There is a Syrian surgeon working in a local hospital who is highly regarded. His family fled Syria because of the war.

Gravelly

Greyling wrote: »

We won't get huge populations of Muslims coming because we don't have colonial hangovers like France and Britain. We also don't neighbour Muslim countries like Germany. Sweden took loads of Bosnians etc in after the war there.

We're talking about taking in tiny amounts of Syrians. These people come from a moderate culture destroyed by western influence. There is no reason to believe they will be problematic.

I wasn't aware that we were only taking in tiny amounts of Syrians - my local town has a large population of North African muslim immigrants (none of whom, to the best of my knowledge, are Syrian). Who is attending the mosques in Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick if we only have tiny numbers of Syrians, and who has planning permission in for large new mosques in Kilkenny and Tralee?

Greyling

Gravelly wrote: »

I wasn't aware that we were only taking in tiny amounts of Syrians - my local town has a large population of North African muslim immigrants (none of whom, to the best of my knowledge, are Syrian). Who is attending the mosques in Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick if we only have tiny numbers of Syrians, and who has planning permission in for large new mosques in Kilkenny and Tralee?

These people have been here for ages. I'm talking about the refugees coming.

What town are you in that has a population of North Africans?

Gravelly

Greyling wrote: »

These people have been here for ages. I'm talking about the refugees coming.

What town are you in that has a population of North Africans?

I'm talking about islamic immigration, refugees or otherwise.

I'd rather not say. Though I doubt there is any mid-sized town in Ireland that is any different.

donegaLroad

donegaLroad wrote: »

ok, I am wrong so. All I hear from parts of the UK is how strict the rules are about muslim women meeting non muslim males. I have no experience, so I am only going on what I watch on documentaries.


I do not understand the part in bold.

the part in bold is because that is what i was told earlier in this thread. numerous countries were mentioned as being muslim countries, without any of the problems everyone here seems to think is normal.
but, of course, those of us living in perfectly westernised countries that are majority muslim were told that they are not 'real muslim countries'
because it just doesnt' suit peoples agenda.

donegaLroad

bubblypop wrote: »

the part in bold is because that is what i was told earlier in this thread. numerous countries were mentioned as being muslim countries, without any of the problems everyone here seems to think is normal.
but, of course, those of us living in perfectly westernised countries that are majority muslim were told that they are not 'real muslim countries'
because it just doesnt' suit peoples agenda.

your profile says you are in Dublin. It confused me because you said you are in a country which is 96% Muslim. What country are you in?

donegaLroad

donegaLroad wrote: »

your profile says you are in Dublin. It confused because you said you are in a country which is 96% Muslim. What country are you in?

Im in the Balkans