British Muslims will double to 5.5m in 20 years in Britain

reply to post by Malcram


Your logic is somewhat fuzzy. The English are the group of people that joined together and formed the nation of England, which remained relatively unchanged until the middle of the 20th century when massive immigration began again. The English are as much an ethnic and cultural group as the Scots or Irish.

If you are denying the English are a cultural and ethnic group, then you mjust also accept that the Scottish, Welsh and Irish are merely names of places too, not a cultural and ethnic group of people.

However, that doesn't preclude a person of a different ethnicity (such as West Indian or Arabic) wishing to assimilate and become part of that culture. Merely being born in England, if you maintain a culture different to that which is identifiable as English, should not confer the right to call one self English. Much like I wouldn't move to Islamabad, yet maintain my own English culture but call myself a Pakistani.

Conversely, white people who have gone to live with pashtuns in Afghanist and have adopted their culture are now regarded as Pashtun by the locals.

More Interesting links to show why everyone is concerned of the Muslim Population's growth...

www.flickr.com...

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
electionink.com...
jbpaz101.blogspot.com...
www.guardian.co.uk...
www.jpost.com...
criticalppp.com...
communities.canada.com...
www.spiegel.de...


Sorry. I will not post more links until asked for as I thought I posted one too many

Awake and Aware where do you live in the uk that has turned you into a paranoid sheep who believes that he has to police everyone ?
The way you ignore the fact that white people "overbreed " as you put it but chastise immigrants for the same thing makes you a hypocrite in my book !

reply to post by stumason


You are citing the opinions of historians who totally disagree with your conclusion. Those who argue that the modern English are not racially 'English', (Anglo-Saxon) also argue that the English are not a separate ethnic or racial group as they understand that you can't hold both views at the same time because they are contradictory. They generally argue that the English are an exotic ethic melange and that there was no ethnically English nation that became fixed and remained 'unchanged' as you claim. You also seem to foforget many waves of immigration to England throughout it's history.

Either the English are racially, ethnically 'English', decended from those who first bore that name, otherwise known as the Anglo-Saxons, or they aren't, and the word just English is just a word that has lost all original significance. You can't have it both ways.

Anyway, I suspect were taking this thread off-topic so this will likey be where I'll leave this discussion.

Originally posted by Malcram
You are citing the opinions of historians who totally disagree with your conclusion. Those who argue that the modern English are not racially 'English', (Anglo-Saxon) also argue that the English are not a separate ethnic or racial group as they understand that you can't hold both views at the same time because they are contradictory.

First off, I am not citing anybody. The English exist as a group of people with a defined culture, making it a seperate ethnic group which is comprised of the original Roman-British celtic people and the very small amount of Anglo-Saxon and Viking people who assimilated centuries ago when the Kingdom of England was born.

Much the same as the Scots, Welsh and Irish. One cannot argue (as if often the case) these are defined ethnic and cultural groups and deny the English are not. The Scots are made up of significant Anglo-Saxon peoples who first settled Edinburgh and the lowlands, the Welsh are of the same mix and the Irish comprise of a mix of Scots and Viking/Norman blood. But, as those smaller groups were assimilated in, it becomes irrelevant as they all form a part of the larger group.

You seem hungup on the old "Anglo-Saxon" nonsense when they actually made very little genetic contribution because they were such a small group. Just because they ran the show, that does not mean the people in the towns and villages changed much. It has been noted in recent studies that some 70% of the population of England can trace their genetic heritage back to before even the Roman invasion. The same poeple inhabit these lands that did thousands of years past, with some infusion from other ethnic groups along the way, same as ANY other group of people the world over.

Originally posted by Malcram
They generally argue that the English are an exotic ethic melange and that there was no ethnically English nation that became fixed and remained 'unchanged' as you claim. You also seem to foforget many waves of immigration to England throughout it's history.

After the Norman conquest, very little "waves" of people actually came here. even the Normans eventually intermarried and dissapeared, becoming a part of the fabric of people known as the English. Over the following centuries, smaller groups of people such as the Hugenot came here, but these were also so small as to eventually get absorbed and dissapear. Exactly the same process happened not only inS cotland and Ireland, but in any culture you find all over the world. If being English wasn't an ethnic and cultural group, why then on the 2011 census is there no a box to select, seperate fromk the previous "white-British" that was on the 2001?

Originally posted by Malcram
Either the English are racially, ethnically 'English', decended from those who first bore that name, otherwise known as the Anglo-Saxons, or they aren't, and the word just English is just a word that has lost all original significance. You can't have it both ways.

The Anglo-Saxons never referred to themselves as English until the unification of the various smaller kingdoms into the kingdom of England. After that point, people would describe themselves as English and a definate cultural and ethnic group of people emerged. Prior to the 1950's, you would find very little people of other groupings in England, making the English as much an ethnic group of people as the Scots or Irish.

One cannot merely say that being English is just a name and I find it highly insulting. It is like saying being Scottish is merely a name and there is no Scots culture. I bet you wouldn't say that though.But then, it is the norm these days to deny there is an English culture and there are even attempts by high level EU bods to completely wipe any reference from England from the map.

In the Iron Age, England, like all of Britain south of the Firth of Forth, was inhabited by the Celtic people known as the Britons, but also by some Belgae tribes (e.g. the Atrebates, the Catuvellauni and the Trinovantes).

In AD 43 the Roman conquest of Britain began; the Romans maintained control of their province of Britannia through to the 5th century.

The Roman departure opened the door for the Anglo-Saxon invasion, which is often regarded as the origin of England and the English people. The Anglo-Saxons, a collection of various Germanic peoples, established several kingdoms that became the primary powers in what is now England and parts of southern Scotland.They introduced the Old English language, which displaced the previous British language.

In 1066, the Normans invaded and conquered England.

Link to Wikipedia article..

The true indigenous folk of England, the Britons, were conquered and and diluted beyond recognition a long, long time ago.
To suggest that the Anglo-Saxon and Norman conquests had no effect on the genetics of the population is incorrect.

reply to post by subby


Ah, a Wiki article.That settles the discussion then, doesn't it?

The Romans, like the Anglo_Saxons and the Normans who followed merely replaced the Elite ruling class. The common man remained the same, with some interbreeding happening which eventually absorbed these other groups into the population.

Do you know how many actual Anglo-Saxons came over? Or even Normans? It was numbered in the low tens of thousands for the former and less than 5,000 for the latter, with much of the Norman army and nobility actually made up of Bretons who are of the same ethnic group as the Cornish, Welsh and for the most part the common men of England.

EDIT: I also never suggested what you claim I suggested, in that they had "no effect". May I actually suggest you read what I wrote and jump to conclusions. One can also say the "true, indiginous folk" of almost anywhere on earth (bar the most isolated communities) have been "diluted" beyond the people who lived there thousands of years prior. Nothing remains the same.

despicable and deeply disturbing news, my friend. good thing we have 20 years to get over our current state of pathetic behavior and learn to see through belief and all that goes with it.

Originally posted by TruthxIsxInxThexMist

Originally posted by awake_and_aware
reply to post by TheGhostViking

 

We're not brainwashed to attack others. We are not xenophobes and we are not racist. We just hate fascist regimes, whether disguised as a religion or not.

Well said..... id be saying the same thing had this been about Christianity, Hinduism or Sikhism....

no, i think what you're saying is you're not racist against other races but you are racist against religion. even though racist against religion doesn't sound right (but uh, maybe that's a new way to isolate out races, by the religion they are most likely to be? like israelis are most likely to be jewish. americans, who are typically white, are also typically christian, etc, i noticed you didn't include judaism in your list. any reason for that?

reply to post by undo


Your logic is astounding. By hating nazism at a time, were you racist against germans, or aryan race?

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by undo

 

Your logic is astounding. By hating nazism at a time, were you racist against germans, or aryan race?

well i think we need a new word that defines people who hate you for your religion, even if you don't practice your religion in a way that interfers with their life at all or at least, not anymore than the practice of their position interfers with the lives of people who are religious. it's when these two things come to a head, that the problems start, from what i can tell. and there's no reason for either to interfer with the other to that degree.

nazism was a political entity, wasn't it? not a religion, as far as i know. and don't try the: it was christian thing, cause anybody who reads what jesus taught knows that was not a christian organism. it was a political one, that worked by appealing to people's desire to blame everything on some other group. (not to mention, i have seen a lot of pics that show the thing in full pageantry and it was not even remotely christian.)

reply to post by undo


I dont thing anyone hates moderate or liberal muslims for their religion (if they do, they are indeed bigots - thats the word). People hate muslim extremists (which, according to polls, make more than 70% of the population in some middle eastern countries.)

Nazism is a dangerous ideology, just like islamic fundamentalism is a dangerous ideology.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by undo

 

I dont thing anyone hates moderate or liberal muslims for their religion (if they do, they are indeed bigots - thats the word). People hate muslim extremists (which, according to polls, make more than 70% of the population in some middle eastern countries.)

Nazism is a dangerous ideology, just like islamic fundamentalism is a dangerous ideology.

what about maoism or stalinism? are they dangerous?
i don't get why religion is the big deal when most people have a religion of some kind and most of the time, you wouldn't even know it because they are just living their lives, not getting all hung up on whether you're the same religion as them or not. like i don't go around in public telling people that religion sucks. i understand you're worried, and i don't blame you for being worried about having a high concentration of any belief system in one area but it just seems this thread is designed to scare people, much like the thread against jews was.

perhaps i've just been reading ATS too much lately, as i'm starting to feel really yucky, from all the negativity

reply to post by undo

what about maoism or stalinism? are they dangerous?

Of course.

I am not talking about moderate religion. I am talking ONLY about religious fundamentalism.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by undo

 

what about maoism or stalinism? are they dangerous?

Of course.

I am not talking about moderate religion. I am talking ONLY about religious fundamentalism.

well, i want you to consider what i'm about to say, very carefully:

a fundamental religion may restrict or present dangers in some ways and in other ways, the fact they ARE fundamentalists, will provide moral compunctions not otherwise present, that you may be glad are there in a pinch.

for example, had the majority of christians in germany actually read jesus' words and followed them like good little fundies, they would not have agreed with hitler nor supported his rise to power. they might not agree to you getting an abortion either. that's one of the side effects of having a set of moral standards based on a religious text. not everything is going to agree with you but when push comes to shove, if they're fundies, they're more likely to take a stand on what really counts and i'd say, when it comes to life and death situations, i'd much rather have somebody who values my life than someone who thinks life is expendable because it's just a bunch of meaningless proteins

reply to post by undo


Well, that strongly depends on concrete ideology or religion in question that is taken fundamentally, and also the level of fundamentalism. Buddhist fundamentalism may be less dangerous (or even beneficial as far as protection of living things goes), but I dont thing thats the case with abrahamic religions, especially islam.

if they're fundies, they're more likely to take a stand on what really counts and i'd say, when it comes to life and death situations, i'd much rather have somebody who values my life than someone who thinks life is expendable because it's just a bunch of meaningless proteins

Equally possible or even more is that if they are fundies with the wrong ideology, they are more likely to take a hard stand for what really doesnt count and even is detrimental - like punishing women for adultery or killing for insulting the prophet.

When it comes to life and death situations, i'd much rather have somebody who values my life for the mere fact that I am alive (without imagining "fairies at the bottom of the garden") than someone who puts god before other humans, thinks life is expendable because either way we have immortal souls or we are sinners against god that can be punished by death if we overstep his commands.

reply to post by Maslo


i understand but did you notice that you're assuming that fundamentalism is whatever the news says it is? you run the chance of being a follower of news religion ( i mean, it might as well be considering everyone takes it as if it were sacred truth, provided it's against something they don't believe in the first place. how convenient it is to work up a case against some ideology without having to go to the actual source).

reply to post by Malcram

The Anglo-Saxon invaders had little impact on the native British population, as many studies have shown. Here is a quote from a National Geographic (2005) article.

Many historians now believe subsequent invaders from mainland Europe had little genetic impact on the British.

The notion that large-scale migrations caused drastic change in early Britain has been widely discredited, according to Simon James, an archaeologist at Leicester University, England.

"The gene pool of the island has changed, but more slowly and far less completely than implied by the old invasion model," James writes in an article for the website BBC History.

For the English, their defining period was the arrival of Germanic tribes known collectively as the Anglo-Saxons. Some researchers suggest this invasion consisted of as few as 10,000 to 25,000 people—not enough to displace existing inhabitants.

Link to full article.

The British people have been the natives of that land for thousands of years, therefore this is a racial issue. One which the indigenous people have every right and obligation to make a stand against if they wish to have a future.

reply to post by TruthxIsxInxThexMist


5.5 meters is over 18 feet tall....Those would be enormous Muslims....
But if they're doubling...That would mean they are already over 9 feet tall...Wow England...you have a huge muslim issue...literally!

MUSLIMS VS. CHRISTIANS
This is a centuries old conflict which has been reignited by TPTB in order to create world turmoil so that the fearful sheep will more readily accept NWO total control. The Christians, be they in UK or US, automatically assume that the rest of the non-Muslims in their area are on their side or are just as afraid of the nasty Muslim scourge as they are. ALL religions teach hatred of those opposed to them, no matter what you think or believe. There is an undercurrent of 'us vs them', 'convert or die and burn in hell' in each of the world's major religions. The bible teaches us to stone to death nonbelievers. Why would you worry about the total Muslim population so much? You Brits are really so weak-willed that you would allow your country to be transformed into a Theocratic Dictatorship? You can't stand up for your own laws and customs? And which British Muslim leaders are calling for UK law to be turned into Sharia Law? How many Muslims are in the streets protesting the UK gov't? Your post is a kneejerk, fear fueled reaction to a totally meaningless statistic. How would a billion Muslims be any more or less dangerous than a billion Christians? Jews? Hindus? This post also the exact reaction the ELITE RULING CLASS wants you to have! they want us at each other's throats! Love thy neighbor and the whole world will take care of itself.