I heard on the radio that Slovenia - or maybe Slovakia as I didn't quite catch the first bit - has stated that they are prepared to accept immigrants providing they are Christian or Atheist, but are refusing to allow any Muslims in. Apparently there are no mosques in the country so "they wouldn't like it". Honest - that's what they said.
This got me thinking about the aims of Islamic State i.e. to establish a state on the basis of religion rather than the traditional claims to land ownership.
To establish such a state they would need to take land currently occupied or "owned" by others and would require the backing of a considerable force, probably with the consent of the USA which won't happen in a month of Fridays.
A ridiculous concept you might think, but it's happened before.
Basically the British and later the Americans took a load of land off Jordan and Syria to create a religion-based state for the Jews they didn't want in Europe. Israel.
So what's the difference between that and the creation of an Islamic State?
And if an Islamic State was created in the Middle East, would that reduce the pressure of immigration into Europe?
This got me thinking about the aims of Islamic State i.e. to establish a state on the basis of religion rather than the traditional claims to land ownership.
To establish such a state they would need to take land currently occupied or "owned" by others and would require the backing of a considerable force, probably with the consent of the USA which won't happen in a month of Fridays.
A ridiculous concept you might think, but it's happened before.
Basically the British and later the Americans took a load of land off Jordan and Syria to create a religion-based state for the Jews they didn't want in Europe. Israel.
So what's the difference between that and the creation of an Islamic State?
And if an Islamic State was created in the Middle East, would that reduce the pressure of immigration into Europe?