Why are Europeans so racist?

File: 1497020698076.jpg (105KB, 714x688px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 714x688px

>>130795914
Surprisingly good score!

SWEDISH NATIONALIST RENAISSANCE NOW!

They have more experience with Islam, it's like with our blacks, the states that hate them the most are the ones with the most of them.

>>130796093
kick out germany,sweden,france,belgium,italy,greec,spain,asutria

and its good

If I got asked in a survey: "Do you think Islam is a problem."

I wouldn't even answer as I would be scared I'd be put on a list. I expect these numbers would be much higher.

>>130795914
only 47 ffs

Western Europeans:
>multiculturalism has failed, we must stop immigration

also Western Europeans:
>we must stop Le Pen/AfD/SD from getting into power

>>130795914
It's funny because in most countries, constitutions or the equivalents are the law of the land.

Quaran clearly states that islamic law(often called sharia although if we were discussing semantics it would be incorrect) is the sole, one and only law of the land.

And now some additional info:
1. Islamic law has 3 "pillars":
>Quaran - which interpretation causes troubles for westerners. It's not organised chronologically but must be interpreted as such since there's a rule of abrogation which can be summed as: "If prophet said that white is black and then, in a fragment that's older by 12 years he said it's white, then white was black for those 12 years until Allah told the prophet that it has changed". Whenever you hear the "people of the book quote" raised by anybody, ask them if they're familiar with rule of abrogation.
>Hadiths - which are divided into legally binding and non-binding with both sub-groups being divided into strong-weak(legally binding) and irrelevant-false, for example most "peaceful jihad" stuff is false, if you want to research this topic further - check the 4 "great" collections of hadiths
>Ijma, or scholarly consensus - the way it works means that once there's scholarly consensus on something it can never be changed, so you can add new "laws" but you can't revoke the old ones, making Islam impossible to reform
2. Muslims aren't personally responsible for interpreting islam wrong, they aren't allowed to interpret it by themselves. If a muslim gets tricked by his imam that he should have gay orgies with men, the sin is on iman. This means that even in situation in which Islamic law(based off mentioned pillars) would be against, let's say - stoning for adultery(it's not) - the people who would stone some adulteress wouldn't be considered sinners. Therefore even if Islam could've been reformed, as long as you have imans saying that infidel is a scum and should be beheaded - they don't sin when killing you.

>>130795914
Looks like its time to lock up 53% of the population

>>130796251
>hides behind flag