They want to see Buckingham Palace become a mosque

[Schroeder]

Take your time, this is not a competition.:)

[Tribesman]

Schroeder, that story.
The child bride still lives with her family.
The judges ruled the marriage contract where the father sought a dowry was valid . They also ruled that the father or the proposed husband were the only ones who can currently break the contract. The girl herself can apply to get out of the deal once she reaches puberty.
But while we are at it, you talk of these "values" being alien to the west, look at the history of child brides throughout western history, look at current marriage legislation in "christian" countries colonised by europe. Look at the recent thing down in Texas with the mormons and their child brides...mormonism is totally western in its origins isn't it.
BTW Sharia sets the age at 9 doesn't it. Christinity would have its scriptural law based on talmudic law wouldn't it ? that sets the age at 3:hmmm:

Nice try, but couple of flaws with that argument. For one thing, the main focus of Nazi anti-semitism, was based in racism.
Is it?
What is a Jew?
Second, anti-semitism is the hatred of semitic people, which are not all Jewish.
Cuts both ways, not all Jewish people are semitic.

I have a friend who lived together with a Muslim man for some time and her reports of how she was treated by that guy raised my blood pressure more than just a little (locked away, beaten....)
Spousal abuse is unfortunately quite common throughout the world and apperently always has been.

[Schroeder]

Schroeder, that story.
The child bride still lives with her family.
The judges ruled the marriage contract where the father sought a dowry was valid . They also ruled that the father or the proposed husband were the only ones who can currently break the contract. The girl herself can apply to get out of the deal once she reaches puberty.

Any links to that? Not that I don't believe you but I want to read it first before I reply on it.


But while we are at it, you talk of these "values" being alien to the west, look at the history of child brides throughout western history, look at current marriage legislation in "christian" countries colonised by europe. Look at the recent thing down in Texas with the mormons and their child brides...mormonism is totally western in its origins isn't it.
BTW Sharia sets the age at 9 doesn't it. Christinity would have its scriptural law based on talmudic law wouldn't it ? that sets the age at 3:hmmm:
I never said I want to see those guys rise in power as well now, did I. Besides I never heard them demanding those rights in Germany (at least not during the time I'm alive). I'm not familiar with the Mormon's child brides, but it sounds just as perverted as the Muslim stuff. Any form of child molesting and sexual abuse is a crime in my book. If non Islamic organisations should try to introduce these forms of "culture" here I will be as much against it as I am against Islam.

[NeonSamurai]

I hope you have the time to do so now, then.:DL


Unfortunately I don't have time right now to construct a thorough reply to your recent post, and only had time to skim it quickly so far. I am going to have to back bench responding for a couple of weeks weeks at least, till towards the end of December, once final exams are over.

I will admit though that my last post to you was lacking a bit and that I only was able to devote 3 hours to it (was late to class too). I'll fix that though when I have the time to devote to replying in detail again :DL

I also apologize for referencing Wikipedia. I don't much care using it, as it is very lacking, but in that case it saved me having to type out the same basic stuff. I plan on my future reply to look more in to the on topic stuff (and Palestine/Israel), and leave off on the "what if ww2" speculation as we could debate and argue about the possibilities till the end of the universe.

As a quick comment though, Hitler would defiantly score highly on the psychopathy checklist (PCL-R). Check it out yourself (and ya some wiki again :oops:). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist
http://www.arkancide.com/psychopathy.htm
http://www.mental-health-matters.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=94
Most people though do not understand what a psychopath/sociopath (they mean the same thing) is. Psychopaths usually do not have comorbidity in that they do not often have other mental illnesses, and are not psychotic (they usually have a firm grasp of reality) in nature. Hitler was probably one of the more rare cases showing comorbidity, where in addition to being psychopathic, he was also psychotic.

If you like though try filling out the checklist from the second link based on what you know about Hitler (do it for Stalin (and anyone else) too if you like, he probably also qualifies). A score of 30 or higher indicates you are dealing with a full blown psychopath, normal is below 10 (4 or 6 I think is the average score for most people), in between you are dealing with someone with psychopathic tendancies (many or some).

[NeonSamurai]

Sorry, run that by me again? You don't have a problem with Muslim people, you just have a problem with Islam? So, if someone waved a magic wand and got rid of "Islam" but left all the Muslims... what exactly is it that the wand would have removed from the world?

I have a problem with what people do under the name of Islam, and what the religion itself commands. But I do not hate them because they follow a specific religion. For example I don't have many issues with more modernized versions of Islam, that doesn't try to subjugate the female sex, or mutilate them, or all the other things I bring up.

My issues are of an intellectual nature due to much of the Islamic world violating the most basic beliefs I hold, that one should be free to believe what ever they wish, provided it doesn't impact anyone else negatively. I don't hate someone because they believe in Islam. I get angry when they try to take a hypocritical or self superior route over others.

I have to say that sort of disgusting rubbish is the reason so many in the UK hate Muslims and Islam.
It's people like you that are dragging the name Islam into the dirt and slowing down the spread of Islam.
You are no better than the likes of that idiot Bush and his mates except comments like yours do more harm to Islam than that bunch could ever do.
You should be ashamed of yourself

The underlined bit is the attitude that worries me.

[NeonSamurai]

Is it?
What is a Jew?

According to the nazis Jews are a race (and a religion). Which is why they went after people that had semetic or jewish blood, and not just the practitioners of Judaism. They went after the roma (gypsies) for similar reasons of racial inferiority.

Cuts both ways, not all Jewish people are semitic.

Almost all Jewish people are of semitic ancestry (mixed with many other ancestries), mainly as there have been very few converts to Judaism through out history (it is very difficult to convert for one thing, plus who wants to join an often abused and subjugated minority?). Partly as it is traced by blood, not just belief. Though converts are often ascribed to being members of one of the 10 lost tribes. The nazi's however did not distinguish, and also went after anyone who was Jewish but not of Semitic origins.

[Tribesman]

According to the nazis Jews are a race (and a religion).
So they can be both according to the Nazis.
What would a rabbi say? After all a rabbi would be more credible than a twisted racist regime wouldn't he.

Almost all Jewish people are of semitic ancestry
"Almost" isn't all is it.
Though I think what you mean is most Ashkenazis in the male lineage appear to have middle eastern decent apart from those of central asian decent while the maternal line has much more localised variation(which is important if you consider the really orthodox view that only the maternal line counts). I won't bother going into the african Jews lineage as that would digress further and it can easily be dealt with in....
mainly as there have been very few converts to Judaism through out history (it is very difficult to convert for one thing
Actually it isn't that difficult to convert , unless of course you are talking the real orthodox approach, but as they don't recognise other Jews as really Jewish anyway that gets a bit sticky.

plus who wants to join an often abused and subjugated minority.
Are you familiar with the multi oscar winning film about anti-semitism called gentlemans agreement ?
Sam Jaffe does a nice monologue about that particular question as well as the "what is a Jew" question.

[NeonSamurai]

So they can be both according to the Nazis.
What would a rabbi say? After all a rabbi would be more credible than a twisted racist regime wouldn't he.

We were discussing the holocaust and racism. My assertion is that the Nazi's acted primarily out of racist reasons (concepts of racial purity, and racial inferiority) more then over religious reasons. Me I don't believe race really exists. For Jews though you are considered jewish according to halakha if your mother was born a Jew, or if you fully converted to the Jewish faith. You even technically remain Jewish even if you later convert to another religion, or stop practicing entirely.

"Almost" isn't all is it. Though I think what you mean is most Ashkenazis in the male lineage appear to have middle eastern decent apart from those of central asian decent while the maternal line has much more localised variation(which is important if you consider the really orthodox view that only the maternal line counts). I won't bother going into the african Jews lineage as that would digress further and it can easily be dealt with in....

What I mean is most of the current ethnic groups of Jewish people have a common Semitic ancestry steaming from before the first diaspora. The obvious exception is of course the rare converted groups such as the Beta Israel you refer to. They however are a very small minority.

Actually it isn't that difficult to convert , unless of course you are talking the real orthodox approach, but as they don't recognise other Jews as really Jewish anyway that gets a bit sticky.

It is if you wish to be recognized fully as being a practicing Jew yourself (we are talking full conversion here) by the denomination of your choice, and a member of the Jewish community, its not easy. Particularly if you are trying to join anything other then a reform temple. First big hurdle is you need to learn how to read and speak Hebrew (even in reform you should have at least some understanding of Hebrew). Then there is all the stuff you need to learn, as even reform expects converts to study Jewish history, theology, rituals, culture, customs, etc. That is only the beginning if you are going for conservative or modern orthodox conversion. So it's not a very easy path to take to fully convert.

I don't believe your second statement is really true, at least I have not encountered it, and I have known more then a few orthodox Jews. They may consider the other branches as being misguided, but they are still considered Jews according to halakha. Heck one of my step father's closest friends was a Hasidic Jew (aka ultra orthodox), and my step father was for most of his life a reform Jew (though he was moving back towards conservatism before he died), and often had him and my mother over for holidays such as passover.

Are you familiar with the multi oscar winning film about anti-semitism called gentlemans agreement ?
Sam Jaffe does a nice monologue about that particular question as well as the "what is a Jew" question.

I can't say that I am.

[onelifecrisis]

No one ever claimed that all of them are extremists.;)
I sometimes do not even believe that most of them know what they are used for but let's face it, if the imam says to go on the streets because of some caricatures then a lot of them go. Where are the public mass protests against that idiot that killed his fellow comrades? A few lines on a forum is all that got up. Nothing in comparison with what we see when the west "offended" Islam again....
And of course there are good guys among Muslims like in any group of people and I never wanted to make the impression that I hate each and every Muslim. It's their ambitious leadership and the silent condoning of violent acts that I don't like.

If that all isn't enough then let me point to the way they treat women again. That alone is already enough for me to not want their culture being spread throughout Europe and the rest of the world.
One example:
Recently a young girl, only 10 years old, tried to escape from her "husband" who is already 80 (!!!) years old in Saudi Arabia. The girls was brought back to that guy by her father. The "husband's" statement was that this form of "marriage" does not violate any Islamic law...(I'm afraid I can only find this link right now...http://atheism.about.com/b/2009/10/01/10-year-old-bride-forced-to-return-to-80-year-old-husband.htm)
Excuse me, but a culture that openly condones and supports child molesting is nothing I want to see grow here.

I have a friend who lived together with a Muslim man for some time and her reports of how she was treated by that guy raised my blood pressure more than just a little (locked away, beaten....)
Again, do you want their influence and their symbols of power grow in Europe?

I have a problem with what people do under the name of Islam, and what the religion itself commands. But I do not hate them because they follow a specific religion. For example I don't have many issues with more modernized versions of Islam, that doesn't try to subjugate the female sex, or mutilate them, or all the other things I bring up.

My issues are of an intellectual nature due to much of the Islamic world violating the most basic beliefs I hold, that one should be free to believe what ever they wish, provided it doesn't impact anyone else negatively. I don't hate someone because they believe in Islam.

Flowery ways of saying "some of them are okay, but..."

If you hate wife beaters, say you hate wife beaters. If you hate child molesters, say you hate child molesters. It is common knowledge that these things are not exclusive to one religion or another. It is also common knowledge that silent acceptance of these things is not exclusive to one religion or another. Linking them with a particular faith, even when you know and admit that many members of that faith do not abuse their wives and children (and the inverse is also true), only serves to create boundaries between people. It serves no other purpose.

I get angry when they try to take a hypocritical or self superior route over others.

Hypocrisy can be found in any set of values. And I don't mean this personally, but your point of view is nothing if not self-superior.

Modern western values are a fad, a fashion, a new religion if you will, and one which tries to spread itself as much as any other. But it has yet to stand the test of time. Indeed, if our birth rates continue to fall then it will not stand the test of time, regardless of what the "Muslim world" does. On the subject of women's rights specifically it would be almost funny if the theories linking them with our low birth rates turn out to have any truth, but I digress.

You have your values, other people (including Muslims) have theirs, and while many people might subscribe to a particular set of values there will always be individuals who disagree on different things. From where I'm standing I see extremists on both sides who would have the whole world convert to THEIR religion, while the rest of us, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, are mostly just trying to get along.

Certainly we should protect our laws and our rights, at least those we individually agree with. And we (all of us, including Muslims) should campaign to change the laws and rights we disagree with. Isn't that democracy?

The underlined bit is the attitude that worries me.

It's the same attitude as yours. You don't want Islam to spread? Then what are the alternatives? Ruling out perfect equilibrium, which is only possible on paper, the only alternative would be the decline of Islam. To be replaced by what?

Take your time, this is not a competition.:)

No it isn't. It's much more serious than that. I trust you did not mean to imply that I see this thread as some sort of pissing contest. :)

[Schroeder]

Flowery ways of saying "some of them are okay, but..."

If you hate wife beaters, say you hate wife beaters. If you hate child molesters, say you hate child molesters. It is common knowledge that these things are not exclusive to one religion or another. It is also common knowledge that silent acceptance of these things is not exclusive to one religion or another.

We are not talking about silent acceptance here but about a lifestyle and culture that even supports that. Is there anything wrong with saying that women have next to zero rights in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria....etc? Is that a coincidence? No, it's part of the culture. If the culture spreads so does this behaviour, or am I wrong here?


Certainly we should protect our laws and our rights, at least those we individually agree with. And we (all of us, including Muslims) should campaign to change the laws and rights we disagree with. Isn't that democracy?
That's what I'm trying to do here, isn't it?;)
The problem is that we as the people don't get asked like the Swiss people did. Our politicians decide what to do and they usually fear to "offend" Muslims and try to avoid any conflict at all costs.


It's the same attitude as yours. You don't want Islam to spread? Then what are the alternatives? Ruling out perfect equilibrium, which is only possible on paper, the only alternative would be the decline of Islam. To be replaced by what?
How about atheism?;) It doesn't demand you to conquer the world ans subjugate everyone who doesn't agree with you (this is not exclusively directed at Islam but they are the most aggressive right now).



No it isn't. It's much more serious than that. I trust you did not mean to imply that I see this thread as some sort of pissing contest. :)Uh, I never thought it could be interpreted like that.:o:oops:

[CaptainHaplo]

Oh my bad, I though they tried to pin it on ETA intitally, wasnt aware they actually lied about it.
Jesus, and we are supposed to be able to trust our governments.... :(

We should never trust our government, but instead hold them accountable.

Contrary to what was posted, the reality is that your memory is correct. The government DID lie - but the timeframe of the bombing and the election meant that at the time of the election - the lies and blame being made by the government in power were just being called into question. Yet the people moved to remove the hawks from government. Seems rather cut and dry.

[Skybird]

Turkey's wannabe-conqueror of europe, Erdogan, once again has shown his real face. He accused Switzerland of being a truly fascist country, he said the Swiss have committed a crime against humanity, and he called all Muhammeddan countries to move financial traffic from Switzerland to Turkey.

Facism. Crime against humanity. This damn country would be a real contribution to the cultural diversity and wealth of the European Union, wouldn't it. This propagandistic, hate-filled venom from somebody in whose countries just a few years ago Christian priests were stabbed to death on open street for being christian priests, and - like in other Muhammeddan countries as well - where the building of churches ansd synagogues is forbidden and the christian communities saw a rise in discrimination, seeing more of their followers fleeing Turkey in the past two years than in the years before. This from somebody who officially visited Germany and has called Turks in Gemany to actively resist integration and to stick to their turkish nationalism.

This opportunistic, self-rightous split-tongued lying in the name of Islam, may be highly effective in making the West a bad conscience and make it fall back another small step and turning our starry-eyed idealists into useful idiots assisting in the spread of Islam, nevertheless it gives me a physical feeling of a need to vomit.

What the Turks are calling for is rightout blackmailing of a Western nation. "If you do not allow us to spread in your country, then..." translates into "If you do oppose Islam, then..." And others Muslim nations did and do like that as well. If you would demand them to behave in their own countries according to the standards they demand from us, they would turn it around again and accuse us of hate crimes and crimes against humanity for our arrogance to demand them to allow others the same freedoms they demand for themselves.

The swiss foreign minister sets new western standards in obedient dhimmitude in these days, on several occasions her statements that she made could not be submissive and weak enough. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting. Not even a dog strolls around my feet that slimy.

Like over the Danish cartoons, and several other occasions, the Western nations try to demonstratively overtrump each other in condemning of the Swiss vote (which in no way is banning islam, or practcing of it, and does not limit freedom of religion in general). that'S how weaklings behave that are in vital dependance of their masters. Not to imagine that Muslim nations do not deliver oil anymore, and would reallocate thei financial investements away from Europe. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabaia claims the West must pay it compensations when it runs out of oil, and dubai claims it must not pay for the losses and potential bancrupt of it'S state-held investement fonds that are close to collapsing (they claim it is private, but it is controlled by several high ranling state-authorities) - with many Western banks having been greedy and stupid eniugh to invest money in there.

These funds once have been amongst the five strongest in the world. Tighten your seatbelts, the next financial collapse already is ahead. It is like with warning mini-earthquakes happenign ahead of the major event: the interval between them becomes smaller and smaller. Seing that the Western banks have learned nothing and already are acting as irresponsible and greedy again as before this years crisis, there is little hope to avoid the coming ones.

[Tribesman]

Contrary to what was posted, the reality is that your memory is correct. The government DID lie - but the timeframe of the bombing and the election meant that at the time of the election - the lies and blame being made by the government in power were just being called into question. Yet the people moved to remove the hawks from government. Seems rather cut and dry.
Don't talk rubbish.
The story Anzar was spinning had begun to fall apart nearly instantly and was reported then and was far more heavily reported worldwide the next day. The demonstrations began to change that evening and became heavily focused on the government the following day.
The election took place the day after the wider focus switched to the government lies.
If in doubt about the timeframe check the media coverage, especially the coverage from the day before the election and the day before that.

[Tribesman]

Blimey more rubbish from Skybird.
where the building of churches ansd synagogues is forbidden and the christian communities saw a rise in discrimination, seeing more of their followers fleeing Turkey in the past two years than in the years before.
OK skybird if what you have written is true can you explain the planning permission granted for the rezoning to allow two Jehovah witness kingdom halls this year and the pending hearings for two other applications for kingdom halls.
Can you explain the protetant church in Izmar this year and the pending application by the protestant alliance of Turkey?
Could you also explain why the Yeni dogus church is not closed even though it was found to be operating without planninng permission.

You might have a point about someone who claimed to be of Baha'i faith as Turkey doesn't recognise that but it does recognise 161 other faiths.

When you have dealt with that then perhaps you can explain how if the religious minority populations are going down then some of them are increasing?

You should have stuck to just calling Erdogan a dumb nationalist ***** instead of making stuff up.

[onelifecrisis]

We are not talking about silent acceptance here but about a lifestyle and culture that even supports that. Is there anything wrong with saying that women have next to zero rights in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria....etc? Is that a coincidence? No, it's part of the culture. If the culture spreads so does this behaviour, or am I wrong here?

As I said before, that depends on the rate of Muslim immigration, where the immigrants come from (I would say a Muslim from India is less likely to be a problem than one from Iran) and the rate of secularisation (or perhaps "westernisation" would be a better word).

That's what I'm trying to do here, isn't it?;)

No, it isn't. I see no evidence of you attempting to reduce the abuse of women and children, which was a problem here in Europe since, oh, forever. I do not see someone saying "sign this petition against the Blasphemy Law" or "join this human rights group". I see someone inciting hatred of a specific religion.

The problem is that we as the people don't get asked like the Swiss people did. Our politicians decide what to do and they usually fear to "offend" Muslims and try to avoid any conflict at all costs.

And the solution to that problem is to hate Islam?

How about atheism?;) It doesn't demand you to conquer the world ans subjugate everyone who doesn't agree with you (this is not exclusively directed at Islam but they are the most aggressive right now).

Neither does Islam, according to the Islamic websites I've already linked to. Of course there are other interpretations, but I think they say much more about the people doing the interpreting than they do about the religion itself.

[Schroeder]

As I said before, that depends on the rate of Muslim immigration, where the immigrants come from (I would say a Muslim from India is less likely to be a problem than one from Iran) and the rate of secularisation (or perhaps "westernisation" would be a better word).
True, but westernisation is rejected by a lot and actively discouraged by high Muslim and political authorities.


No, it isn't. I see no evidence of you attempting to reduce the abuse of women and children, which was a problem here in Europe since, oh, forever.What would be evidence to you? I'm already in contact with a group of people that sponsors children in poor countries (here is their international Page: http://plan-international.org/). So far I'm not sponsoring any children yet because I'm still a student with no regular income but I'm planning to do so when I have a job. I know, no evidence but that is all I can show right now. If that isn't enough I'm sorry.

Besides do you think the abuse of women and children is still accepted in Europe? Over here the acceptance is very low and such behaviour gets punished if it is discovered. You make it sound as if we were treating our women and children just the same way as it is done in some of Islamic countries.


I do not see someone saying "sign this petition against the Blasphemy Law" or "join this human rights group".
True. Maybe it's time for me to get more active.


I see someone inciting hatred of a specific religion.
And that is completely random of course. I picked them because I felt like doing so, because I was bored.... Again why didn't I choose Buddhists, Jews, Hindus etc?

And the solution to that problem is to hate Islam?
Care to elaborate where I said that the lack of democracy can be countered with hating Islam?


Neither does Islam, according to the Islamic websites I've already linked to. Of course there are other interpretations, but I think they say much more about the people doing the interpreting than they do about the religion itself.Well even if Islam itself does not (as I said I didn't read the Quran), it is often used to justify just that now, isn't it?

I think the discussion won't lead anywhere. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

[JU_88]

I think the discussion won't lead anywhere. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Oh yes please!!

[Skybird]

From 250.000 Syrian-orthodox Christians at the time of Ataturk, just around 2.000 are left in their old homes in the south-East, 12.000 moved to Istanbul. All others left turkey for scandinavia, and europe.

From urgent calls for permission to renovate dangerously damages christian church buildings in Turkey, none has been allowed.

Christian religion in case of most sects/churches is not accepted by turkish law as a legal party, thus it is prevented from handing over, buying or selling church properties, or accepting property given as a gift (in legal understanding), and cannot go to the courts no matter over what cause. It is legal discrimination and preventing access to legal standards and laws.

the exodus of Christians of all confessions from turkey has conrinued, having accelerated after the assassination of several priests oin turkish streets over "hate for Chrstinas being in turkey", as it was cinfessed by the perpetrators.

three old christzian monasteries in turkey are beign questioned in their legality this year, surrounding Islamic village communities claim their boundary lines were set illegal and they claim of up to one half of the properties being taken away fro the churches (one orthodox, two Catholic).

Catholic and Protestant churches complains about massive intimidation campaigns and systemtic discrimination by the state's offices continuing in 2009.

Formally, the Turkish constitution (heavily under attack by the fundamentalists around Erdogan'S AKP) alows free relgion for the indiovodual,l but when individuals rally in groups and want to found a relgious community that is not Muslim, since 80 years this does not work that easily anymore. Also, treaties of the turkish state with christian minorities over protection of monasteries and churches, were signed only with Greek and Armenian orthodox christians, not with the protestants or catholic or Syrian orthodox. they do not benefit from legal protecton whatever, and enjoy no legal permission to open schools or churches.

International media just some months ago took note of a representative reaserach being done in Turkey by a Turkish university, finding an ammount of suspicion and discriminatory basic attitude aganst Christians and Jews that it mocks any claim for the turkish wide public being in general open to the world, being tolerant, and multi-cultural. Prominent majority said they do not even want to live door to door with Jews or Chrisziansd, not to mention their rejecting of letting them marry into their dfamilies. similiar findings have been found in a comparable project in 2005. I happen to have stumbled over a link just bdays ago. It took them several months to refer to the study in their own media. BBC had it two or three (or more?) months ago. :
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=8216religion-loves-tolerance-but-is-not-tolerant8217-2009-11-17

Hurriyet is the biggest print media in Turkey.

Eighty-three percent of Turks identify themselves as religious, with 16 percent saying they are extremely religious, 39 percent saying they are highly religious and 32 percent saying they are somewhat religious

Another striking discovery made by the survey was that 60 percent of Turks said there is only one true religion, while 34 percent said most religions hold basic truths.
The findings on tolerance toward religions are remarkable as well. Ninety percent of the Turkish population reported having a positive view toward Muslims, but this ratio dropped to 13 percent for Christians and around 10 percent for Jews. Those who said they have highly positive views about non-believers of any religion totaled 7 percent.
When it comes to accepting political candidates from different religions, 37 percent of Turks said they would absolutely not accept this and 12 percent said they would most likely not accept it. However, 23 percent said they would absolutely accept it and 24 percent say they would probably accept it. Eleven percent of Turks said people from different religions should absolutely be allowed to organize public meetings to express their ideas, while 24 percent said they should be allowed to do so.
Thirty-six percent said people from different religions absolutely should not be allowed to organize such meetings, while 23 percent said they should not be allowed to do so

I was in Turkey several months long. There is a huge difference between the big metropoles and Istanbul, were more Wetsern influence is to be felt, and the rural places. In the latter, the law of hospitality stil was obeyed, it has a much stricter meaning still in many oriental countries than in modern central europe, but nevertheless I faced very intense almost unhidden hostility and nationalism and extreme relgious orthodoxy. the metropoles hold around 15-20% of the turkish population. The rural places around 80%. Go figure.

And beyond Turkey:

Germany-based OpenDoors is one of the few major international organisations monitoring christian persecution worldwide. the most persecuated minority wordwide are neither Jews, nor Muslims, but - christians. In their 2009 index of countries prosecuting christians systemtically, 6 of the top 10 and 37 of the top 50 are islamic.

Literature since longer time describes a "rennaissance of antisemitism" in islam. As if it ever had gone away! Islam is antisemitic by nature, since Muhammad hated the Jews and persecuted them vigorously. exceptions of when Jews were welcomed refer to Islamic countries or rulers benefitting from something they had to offer, whether it be high developed medical knowledge, or knoweldge on the superuor military technology of Europe during the Osmanic empire. The osmans, whose armies back then already were superior in fighting morale and fighting spirit due to their tradition of embracing martyrdom, welcomed the Jews fleeing from French persecution, because they brought with them this knowledge about superior military tactics and technology in europe. The historic consequences are known.

I could set up many more examples and bits of info from 2009 about Chrisian and jewish persecution in Turkey as well as throughout the Islamic world, but I will not spend all day long with that, even more so since Tribesman will ignore or distort everything he does not like anyhow.

You could use Google yourself, if you want. I only had a brief look at the first page and see that an according search produces a flood of results that already deliver in their headline the message.

[Skybird]

Just in, regarding christians in turkey:

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,664761,00.html

[Tribesman]

You could use Google yourself, if you want
Google:rotfl2:
Why waste time trawling through piles of crap when you can go straight to a reliable source that is comprehensive, updates regularly and keeps its archives open...it also has the advantage of doing the study on all countries apart from itself(including disputed or unrecognised ones) plus as well as doing the religious freedom/persecution study does seperate studies on human rights, the judicairy, political accountabilty....

Tribesman will ignore or distort everything he does not like anyhow.

The problem Skybird is that you are distorting things, the proof of that is that instead of dealing with the specific instances I cite that absolutely contradict your claims, you just repeat your claims.

[onelifecrisis]

Well, Schroeder, I hope the conversation provided at least a temporary respite from your "boredom". I'm sure that any acts of violence committed by impressionable minds after reading your words were well worth whatever entertainment value you took away from the discussion. Good day.

[Schroeder]

I think you misunderstood the irony in my words regarding the boredom but I will leave it at that.

[Schroeder]

Just one more thing, because I can't let it just stand there like that:
I'm sure that any acts of violence committed by impressionable minds after reading your words were well worth whatever entertainment value you took away from the discussion.
O.K. I already clarified that it was not entertainment for me and that the boredom part was meant ironic. It was a "what do you think made me write all this? Boredom?".

But now will you please point me to just one line that I wrote where I told people to use violence against Muslims? I don't think there is one! I strongly reject violence!
Please don't interpret things into my posts that aren't there. Otherwise you could just as well tell newspapers to stop writing about politicians and their failures. It could inspire people to use violence after all.

[Respenus]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

An interesting article and probably the first I've read that doesn't dive nose down into islamophobic and xenophobic accusations yet presents what is the real concern of the Swiss and the Europeans about Islam.

[Tribesman]

Good article Respenus, the Guardian and Jerusalem Post both had similar ones.

[Schroeder]

Good article.

[Skybird]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6938161.ece

An interesting article and probably the first I've read that doesn't dive nose down into islamophobic and xenophobic accusations yet presents what is the real concern of the Swiss and the Europeans about Islam.

what a bigot piece of text that is. I know it's not by you, respenus, but I wonder why you fall for it. Despite the reason you seem to see in it, the author claims the main cause for the ban is just obviously irrational "xenophobia" and islamophobia, and he implies the more unpleasant aspects and demands of Muslim ideology are not as bad as they by their nature obviously be. He also implies that people'S crticism to Islam cannot have a valid basis in argument, and necessarily must be irrational - that is the nice overkill effect in the claim a critic of islam is just an islamophobe. I do not think Wahabism is the representative form of Quranic teaching, but the moedest form the author seem to imply also is a deception. And even in mainstream islam, and in all four major legal traditions that dominate the jurisdiction in Islam today, major speakers and representatives until today refuse to separate themselves from the acts of terrorists becasue they explicitly claim and insist that these terrorists are standing reliably and strongly on the fundament of basic islam.

there are many Muslim organisations in the West, and in Germany practically ALL of them represent orthodox rightwing and Turkish ultranationalistic organsiations. just today the bureau of the biggest one in Germany, Mili Görüs, has been raided by police throughout the country. These are the ones who represent the islamic communities in Germany, although jnumberically they don't, by volume of their propaganda they do - and the socalled moderates let them have their go and explicitly reject to stand up against them. By their passivity, the socalled moderates nevertheless are assisting the more radical ones. Thes eorganisations, in Germany as well as Britain, send spokesman into the arena that talk a lot of moderation and tolerance and how multicultural islam is - all the sweet things useful idiots love to hear - and the latter is the reason why they do it.

Let me put it this way, Respenus. If you want an objective , reasomnable assessemnt of the role, the worth, the history of Catholicism - do you think the pope is the right guy to ask about it...? when Benedict beca,me pope, short time later a book by him was published, on Jesus. I have read the first half of it. benedcit is a smart mind and a sharp thinker. Unfoptunately he says on the first pages, that he puts all his thinking under one preamisse, that is that he takes what the bible says on Jesus not metaphorically, but literally, and always. what kind of objectiove assessmeent can I expect from such a man, then, when he already has mutilated the independence of his - otherwise sharp - intellect?

what kind os assessment on islam do you expect from an Imam, when apostacy is under death penalty in Islam and muhammad ordered the assassination of critics that he grew too tired of? do you think Imams became Imams by being independent and critical of islam? If you read the article again, you should note, that the man just makes claism, and tries to raise an image of that minimises Muslim profile and possible surface to attack. Some things he said I thinbk are in direct opposition to rulings of the major schools of legal scholars.

when you want objective assessemnts of things, you do not ask lobbyists about them, and not affected parties having interest in let the thing in question shine bright and friendly. you try to find advise from experts who DO NOT belong to it. Islamic theology has not the tradition of critical self-reflection we have developed in the West, last but not least against the desire of the church in earlier centuries to prevent right that. In Islam it is not asked how things are and whether oit could be like it is claimed, but it is asked: "why is it that the quran is right?". The correctness of the Quran as a revelation of the devine is beyond doubt and beyond the need of being questioned. In prinicple, all maor religions tend the more to this pervertion of thinking the more fundamental they are. but today, this kind of attitude is much, much more dominant in Islam, than in the secularised churchian/Christian socieities of the West.

When the pope defends catholicism beyond it's justified credits, it is no surprise, because it is part of the job description to do so. when you hear creationists defending creationism, that is no surprise, too, is it. Ask a Mormon about the book mormon, and he will tell you that it is right, and good. what a surprise. Ask a Buddhist whetehr he thinks buddha had good things to teach or not, and don't be surprised if he says he thinks buddha indeed taught very good things.

Ask a chairman of a muslim council and an imam on islam, and do not be surprised if he glosses over things a bit. Self-criticial reflection really is no strength in religions in special, and Islam in special. It equals heresy, and bring people into troubles - even today.

[Skybird]

On the man:

http://www.ummahpulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=39&Itemid=45

Further research on him shows he won a dispute against a Muslim newspaper accusing him to be a heretic. Maybe his views and opinions are indeed liberal, democraric, humanistic, or whatever.

BUT WHY IS HE THEN DECEIVING PEOPLE OVER THE NATURE OF THE QURAN AND iSLAM THAT IS ANYTHING BUT THAT?

why doesn't he speak out against islam then, instead of trying to give it a nice facade that allows to spread islam- true islam - in the cover of that deceptive facade?

If people want to help muslims arriving in the 21st century, then they must confront islam as what it really is, not offering it loopholes and opportunities to hide it's grim face. To borrow from Kalil Gibhran, if you see an enslaved man saying he feels free, don't leave him to that self-deception, but show him what real freedom is by rejecting his claim and chasing the slave-owner away. If you give the slave holder a good reputation, you help to strengten slavery, and become a complice by making it acceptable.

If you Google his name, you will find many entries that show you that he receives much fire from other muslim groups, and hardly can be seen as speaking for any kind of majority or "true islam". Again, this must not necessarily be criticism of him, I never have heared of him before now. It just means that the meaning of his position and the answer to the question of how representative for "true islam" he is, must be seen with caution. He may have good intentions, but I suspect he tries to solve conflicts not by adressing them, but by trying to gloss over them.

One example:
http://www.iengage.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=665&Itemid=

---


On the minaretts themselves, the important point here is the symbolism of towers representing claims for power, as i already explained earlier in this thread. It is not so much a religious dispute, but a political tool to demand them being build. In history, rulers and empires often built towers in places where they could be seen easily, to remind the people all the time that the owner of them (person or claim for power or ideology) is here and is on ciontrol and claims the power and that people are subjugated to it/him.

[Tribesman]

what a bigot piece of text that is.
my oh my , that water heater on the fire appears rather tarnished with sooty residue.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird - I think you may have missed the point of the article.

While I agree that it did go too far in calling the vote "xenophobic", the point as I read it was not slamming the voters, but extoling European muslims to do the 2 things that they MUST do to be fully accepted.

That is - speak out and reject - not just in words but actions, the "old school" islam, and instead embrace as he called it - a liberal, moderate european version. In essence - calling on them to make their religion evolve so that it can have a place at the table.

The second - is to recognize and make that evolution conform to the societies they are in. Thus rejecting the very parts of the islamic religion that make it viewed as threatening and repressive - aka headgear, sharia law, etc.

Only by doing so will Islam ever find itself not seen as a threat. I don't see how you can say a writer calling on a people of faith to dump what amounts to about half of their religion is "glossing over" the problems.

[Skybird]

Skybird - I think you may have missed the point of the article.

While I agree that it did go too far in calling the vote "xenophobic", the point as I read it was not slamming the voters, but extoling European muslims to do the 2 things that they MUST do to be fully accepted.

That is - speak out and reject - not just in words but actions, the "old school" islam, and instead embrace as he called it - a liberal, moderate european version. In essence - calling on them to make their religion evolve so that it can have a place at the table.

The second - is to recognize and make that evolution conform to the societies they are in. Thus rejecting the very parts of the islamic religion that make it viewed as threatening and repressive - aka headgear, sharia law, etc.

Only by doing so will Islam ever find itself not seen as a threat. I don't see how you can say a writer calling on a people of faith to dump what amounts to about half of their religion is "glossing over" the problems.
I have absolutely understand that, Haplo, but the point is that if this should be done, the result would not be islam anymore.

Would you think that if you substract basics like the ten commandements, or the sermon on the mountain, and all passages carrying comparing content in the Bible, maybe even deleting all passages claiming the exitence of a god and a difference between right and wrong, from "Chrstianity", what is left would be the Christian message then anymore? Hardly.

for Islam, the importance of Shariah is even more basic and substantial. I have read people writing in books that in a way, Islam IS Shariah.

People time and again underestimate the paramount importance of Shariah law in Islam. You just cannot reject parts of it or Shariah completely, or poiuck a bit of it,l chnage some others, and skip the rest. Shariah belongs to Islam as does the Quran or muhammad.

Shariah is a divine code of rules that controls man life both individually and collectively. In that, it is a complete model explaining life and all the world of appearances, and by that explain how to solve any problems, challenges, future problems that are, or might be, or even could be imagined for the future. The Shariah is the evidence for the unerring wisdom and truthfulness of Allah and the correctness of the Quran. It covers all and every aspect and detail of human life that a man can ever meet in his life (at least that is the claim). This divine law is absolute, and total, it is a fulfillment in itself, it is the Alpha and the Omega, the evident manifestation and proff for the existence of Allah and Allah being beyond question.

Shariah IS, and that it is in absolute, total, full completeness.

Every aspect of human thinking and action is subordinate to Shariah. Wanting to alter shariah, or negotiating it, means to put man'S will over Allah's infinite wisdom and insight, and minimising allah that way, compared to erring, mortal man.

I am not the only one seeing shariah as one of the most obvious, imo even as the most dominant argument why Islam is a totalitarian ideology. shariah'S claim for control of deed, thiought, feeling, of past and future appearance, of everything that could be imagined, is nothing else but this: total, an absolute in itself. Since shariah is understood to be that omnipresent, so unescapable, here you have anothe reason why if taking therse claims as truth it is easy to say that there shall not be any comoulsion ihn belief. you cannot escape thzat belief anyway, and are subject of it, no matter what - so being forced to believe would be like being forced to breath or being forced to live. It makes no sense.

You can easily imagine that Islam's intolerance for other faiths and cultures also is anchored in this utmost important, ultimate understanding of shariah.

YOU CANNOT CHNAGE IT OR ALTER IT OR TAKE IT AWAY, HAPLO. A form of Islam where the term should have any meaning left, but without shariah, cannot be imagined. An Islam without Shariah makes no sense. you have something then: but with Islam it has nothing to do, then. You cannot have a theistic relgion and then delete the evidence for the deity and think the relgion still represents the basic principle of its content: theism.

[CaptainHaplo]

Well Skybird, I do understand you point. However, I feel fairly confident that this has been a topic of discussion for scholars of history as well as today. After all - what your talking about is a total transformation from what Islam IS today (and make no mistake, I recognize it for all its totalitarianism) vs what it could "evolve" into. You asked about what would happen if portions of Xtianity were "taken out" or deleted wholesale.

Yet historically speaking, this HAS occurred to Xtianity. Over thirty books that were at one time considered part of "Holy Scripture" have been removed from the foundational text that is known today. While there is great arguement over the validity of specific texts, the reality is that many true biblical scholars cannot even agree who wrote what. Many scholar debate whether or not the "Romans road" texts were even authored by the same person. The same holds true for Old Testament texts.

Yet the religion itself continues to exist, and overall has done pretty well. Could Islam not do the same is the question. I look back at the history of the decisions to cull various texts out, or as I am often pointing out - the "reinterpretation" of the texts to fit the need of the person. For an example - just look at the King James version of the Bible. While many fundamental Baptists of the South see that as "THE" Bible, the reality is that the King James version is exactly that.... .King James' VERSION! He was its patron because he needed the changes to be able to claim a religious authorization or right to a divorce!

At one time, the religion now known as "Christianity" was very singular in its theology. Look at what it was 500 years ago. Then compare that to 250 years ago, and then again to what it is in today's world. Even 500 years ago, there was no Reformation. In fact, "Christian" meant what is known today as a form of Catholicism, because the Protestant movement really didn't begin until Ninety Five Thesis was first nailed on the door, in 1517. Catholicism has split into a few flavors, and Protestant theology has split into almost innumerable permutations. Some even seperate themselves over details as petty as whether your dunked or sprinkled during a Baptism.

Reform in religion only occurs when someone points out what doesn't work, what is wrong with the theology, and challenges followers of that religion to cast aside what should be left behind. Martin Luther did it by inspiring people to challenge the religious heirarchy of the day, with a learned and scholarly arguement. While this article is no modern day Ninety Five Thesis' - the fact is its a first step toward a direction when a comparable writing may happen. For that, its good to see.

The real problem doesn't come from the writer. The problem comes from those of the islamic faith that will refuse the challenge, and instead hold fast to tradition, archaic "law" and be pawns to evil out of sheer blindness.

Does the writer have any real hope of success? No. But sympathetic scholars of Martin Luther's day told him the same. They surely told reformists that to change the religion was to transform it into something "not Christian". Yet some people did change it. Historically, the New Testament and its mere existence could be considered another such time in the growth of the Xtian faith. How many followers of the Law do you think struggled with the idea that they could take on the Gift of Grace as offered in the NT?

Change isn't easy, and is also in this case highly unlikely. But one must start the conversation that may make it happen, else it assuredly never will. For that, I applaud the writer.

[Respenus]

Trust me Skybird, I was in no way fooled by the "sweet" words used by the author and the accusation of islamophobia irked me as well as it did you. Yet the fact of the matter is, this guy was the first to actually publicly write and claim that Islam must change and adapt to the environment it is in.

As the same time, I agree with you that Islam as such cannot change. Roman catholic church was a power organisation, for me, one of the most brilliant ones in existence, considering how long it has stood to the test of time and what control it has over the minds of man, the influence that we have to fight in any circumstance. Protestantism wanted in some way or another to liberate man from the Papal interpretation of the Bible and almost destroyed itself with its many factions in the process. It was also against the organisation and what it represented and took for itself (its amazing riches). Islam on the other hand cannot do that. Haplo, as Skybird has previously mentioned, there is no variation of Islam and there is no denouncing your religion. Once you are Muslim, you die one, or you are killed if you stop being one. Skybird is right in saying that it would no longer be Islam, yet something completely different. While my knowledge of religions is limited at best, that little I have heard and read about people who asked Muslims about their religions that it would be difficult to expect any change to occur on the same level as Protestantism was to the Roman catholic church.

[Tribesman]

One slight problem with part of your post there Respenus.
If Islam cannot change then how are there so many different flavours of it?
Since the major problem is the wahhibi flavour with its interpretations and that is a fairly recent development it illustrates the point well , you write of the schisms within christianity, is not this islamic fundamentalism somewhat akin to some flavours of fundamentalist calvinism?

Haplo makes some very good points also, though the "old school" fundamentalism is a fairly modern thing that is less than 200 years old and is a devolution rather than an evolution, much in the same way as "old school" fundamentalist movement in christianity and the biblical literalism is a relatively new thing and a step backwards.

[Skybird]

Well Skybird, I do understand you point. However, I feel fairly confident that this has been a topic of discussion for scholars of history as well as today. After all - what your talking about is a total transformation from what Islam IS today...
(...)
...also in this case highly unlikely. But one must start the conversation that may make it happen, else it assuredly never will. For that, I applaud the writer.

Haplo,

there are several major lineages of tradition of islamic law, several schools of juristic interpretation. There are four major ones, and a handful of much less influential ones. Historically, none of them ever was capable to really "modify" or "reform" Islam the way Luther did that with regard to the Catholic church, or Jesus did that with regard to the old testament. Islam is per se an othodoxy by essence, and this orthodoxy not only is as efficient (and if needed: unscrupellous), if not more, than the Catholic church at the times of lets say the inquisition in preventing too far-reaching change - Islam also still is that powerful until today, whereas the era of total, undisputed power of the church in the christian countries has thankfully come to an end, and longer time ago so. This influence on theologic discussion and jurisdiction, always has been and still is tremendous, and many scholars at Islam'S most influential schools and universities still teach dogmas that fit the curriculum they had a thousand years ago. This type of education is EXTREMELY influential. Europeans do not want to hear that, but many of those socalled radicals or islamists and whatever creative word-inventions there are in use, are much more in conformity with true Islamic teachings, than the socalled moderates living by western standards that the West wants to assume on the other side - else he would have no negotiation partner that is available to him! This makes this assumption of this partner existing very much wishful thinking, you see. Some poeple remind me that not all muslims are muslims like not all christians are christians, well, not only is the consequence of not being chroistian and not being Muslim totally reversed in moraloutcome, but that is the exact argument for the socalled radicals why they even kill "Muslims" - untrue muslims whose killing already has been demanded by muhammad himself, because they are no Muslims. some people seem to think being mulsim could be compromised, and some muslim identity could be traded for something else. that is nonsense. You often will read in the academic literature and expert's books that they refer to Islam as a "monolithic" religion or idea. that is ver much true. It is the first true monocockpit of ideology racing. :)
Never underestimate the totalitarianism and the totality of Islam's claim to be the standard of order, everwhere, anytime, for everything and every man! There are not different kinds of Islam like there are several christian churches. There is only one true Islam, and the rest is fake and part of the house of war.

Four traditions of jurisdiction. On some issues, all these schools agree. what I tried to express about the importance and meaning of Shariah (which DOES NOT COMPARE TO JUST A SET OF RULES like Western lawcodes are!) is such a thing. You will sometimes see dispute over how this or that specialised detail should be interpreted in its relevance for this or that spect of real olife, or a given situation, but the general status of shariah as I tried to outline it, is beyond negotiatiopn and beyond dispute. From a "truly islamic" (means: in conformity with Quran and Shariah) standpoint, every muslim arguing that the shariah should be abandoned or changed or only taken in parts, is already an apostate, and if he cannot be convnced to fully submit to islamic faith again, he has to be killed. I know that reasonable moderates and idealists are trying to question this totality, and claim that that is just extremism that has nothing to do with Islam, but it simply is not true. You cannot take everything you do not like in islam and chnage it and afterwards say: this jnow still is islam. The term is a name, and a name is attributed to a specified content, meaning, quantity and quality of something. If you change the content beyond certain limits, what you then have is nothing that deserves the original name anymore.

that'S why in all muslim nations, Muslims of true faith demand the Shariah to be the highest legal authority and the basis of the nation'S constitution, or better: that the Shariah should be the legal code and should be the constitution. It is the manifestation of unerring Allah.

who are you, Haplo, that you think you must take it upon you to change Allah - are you a god yourself...? ;)

Don't compare this to goings - goor or bad - in the Christian tradition. People often try these comparisons. They never work. The structure of the Muslim universe, and the basis of the Ummah, is completely different.

P.S. On a personal note, I am not so surprised that you think islam could be changed, when I think about you. In that thread of yours you indicate that you also think science and creationsim could be brought together, or reason and religion. You indicte that you think total opposites could be compormised and meet somewhere in the middle. Honstely said, to me that show sonly that you are in some kind of conflict, you want to stick to some thigns while if not knowing than at least feeling that there is something in them that leaves to be desired, and you want to adress that dissonance by bringing what is contradicting your former conviction, intom line with it. But that does not work. Not with creationsim and science, not with rationality and relgion - and not with Islam and "modernising" it with western values. - no offence meant, Haplo, just a thought of mine on you personally, and how I perceive you. If there is some truth in what I say, than the existence of this conflict in you absolutely speaks in your favour - dogma has not been strong enough to blind and silence you once and forever, and you are still alive enough to feel the pain when something hurts you. It's like this with many muslims as well who claim they want to be seen as muslims but indeed live in full conformity with western laws and values and appreciate the freedoms of ours and want to defend them against those assumed "radicals".

"Keep diggin'!" :D

P.P.S. If, against all odds, there will be reformation in islam, than it has to be done from within Islamic socieities, not being exported by us to them. Our interference will always cause more friction and conflict than any good, becasue that acting of ours will always work as an argument for the "radicals"/true Muslims to defend their cauase and demonise liberty - because it comes from us. The "dialogue with Islam" has not brought any fruits although it runs since over 40 years and effectively is a monologe of the West with himself. It has not helped integration, nor balancing the freedoms of Islam in the West with the lack of freedoms of other cultures in Islamic countries. It hs not imporved the role of women in the muslim world, nor has it freed people from dogmatic tyranny and suffering. Islam has only taken in these fourty years, but not given anything. Islam let's the West run it's monologue since it keeps the West busy and destracted, leaving windows of opportunity wide open for Islam to advance into the West. Like - I think - Rommel said: if you see your enemy making mistakes, don't disturb him. You said at the end we "must start that conversation." must we? We are not them, and it is beyond our reach and interest (regardingthat we should not deliver the ammunition to opposition of reform), to get them started. they must do it themselves. In the end, overcoming islam means a mental and intellectual evolution - and there are no shortcuts to it. they will need to go through the same conflicts and sufferings and contradictions and will end in the same new cultural situation like we did in the West: having had long times of religious controversy, dictatorship and war, and now having a freedom that is so huge that it threatens to pervert into its opposite again and leaves many people freed from the relgious dogma, but still not having figured out hoo to use the freedom also in the meaning of not only being free from something, but also being free for something. the excessive materialism of hours last but not least is an indication that the overcoming of the religousn dogmas has left a void in our minds that we still have not filled otherwise, and the lack of orientation makes us turning towards materialism, seeing for the easy and cheep care top our inner conflict. That does not mean we are worse off when having relativised the power of religion. But it means that our quest for happiness is not over.

Well, this PPS only as a reply to the hypothetical scenario of islam getting reformed. this scenario to me is not more than just a thought experiment. I do not expect we will see it happening soon.

[Tribesman]

More rubbish from Skybird.
Four traditions of jurisdiction.
Simple question, how many hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands of different versions of sharia are there?
but the general status of shariah as I tried to outline it, is beyond negotiatiopn and beyond dispute.
As you outline it you are talking complete bollox again.

[Jimbuna]

Crikey!!....is this debate still going on? :o

[Snestorm]

Religion aside, it's time to return Europe to europeans.

People don't surrender their pride in who, and what, they are just because they move to another land. This can hold true even after many generations. And even after the original language is lost.

[Reece]

Religion aside:haha::har:

[JU_88]

Crikey!!....is this debate still going on? :o

Yep :yawn:
And it will go on until we have all been consumed by the spread of Islam, then there will no infidels left to argue against...... oh by the powers of Allah!,
Looks like they already got to me. (damn my Liberal ways - i didnt even notice!)
Now if you'll excuse me I have six wives to buy hibjabs for and a mosque to construct on a front lawn near you....

Salaam suckers!

JU_Abdul_Bilal_Khaseeb_88

[Snestorm]

:haha::har:

Whether one considers their religion, or not,:

Get them TF out . . .yesterday!

[mjs80]

"Time to return yurop to europeans" who's to decide on that then? those who agree with you perhaps ? Finns consider themselves as europeans. finns consider themselves as nordic, but if you say finns are scandinavian there are swedes to tell you otherwise..

[Snestorm]

"Time to return yurop to europeans" who's to decide on that then? those who agree with you perhaps ? Finns consider themselves as europeans. finns consider themselves as nordic, but if you say finns are scandinavian there are swedes to tell you otherwise..

"Who's to decide on that then?"
The people who still hold a majority in their own lands.
Having ones country taken away is bad enough, giving it away is unthinkable.

Finns are european.
Finns are nordic.
Finns are NOT scandinavian.
For once this dane agrees with the swedes. That in itself is amazing.

Skandinavien = Danmark, Norge, Sverige.

[Respenus]

Snestorm, your rhetoric borders on extreme nationalism, something that we Europeans have decided to put away in cold storage for as long as humanly possible. Let them come, I have no problems with immigrants, as if we look far enough into the past, we are all immigrants of sorts which changed the culture in the areas we inhabited. Yet those were different times, now we know how we can live together. The main point of this debate was the difference of values and how Muslim communities, at least a part of them, actively support the idea of turning Europe into a Shari'ah governed zone and how Islam is far from being a tolerant religion.

For all the stary-eyed individuals as Skybird calls them, go look at the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. That should give you a pretty good indication of how different we are and why we dislike the idea of our values being turned into (radical) islamic ones.

[Skybird]

For all the stary-eyed individuals as Skybird calls them, go look at the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. That should give you a pretty good indication of how different we are and why we dislike the idea of our values being turned into (radical) islamic ones.


http://www.religlaw.org/interdocs/docs/cairohrislam1990.htm

the critical passages:


Article 1
(a) All human beings form one family whose members are united by submission to God and descent from Adam. (...) True faith is the guarantee for enhancing such dignity along the path to human perfection.
(b) All human beings are God’s subjects (...)

Article 2
(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.
(c) The preservation of human life throughout the term of time willed by God is a duty prescribed by Shari’ah.
(d) Safety from bodily harm is a guaranteed right. It is the duty of the state to safeguard it, and it is prohibited to breach it without a Shari’ah-prescribed reason.

Article 7
b) Parents and those in such like capacity have the right to choose the type of education they desire for their children, provided they take into consideration the interest and future of the children in accordance with ethical values and the principles of the Shari’ah.
(c) Both parents are entitled to certain rights from their children, and relatives are entitled to rights from their kin, in accordance with the tenets of the Shari’ah.

Article 9
(a) The quest for knowledge is an obligation, and the provision of education is a duty for society and the State. The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee educational diversity in the interest of society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam and the facts of the Universe for the benefit of mankind.

b) Every human being has the right to receive both religious and worldly education from the various institutions of education and guidance, including the family, the school, the university, the media, etc., and in such an integrated and balanced manner as to develop his personality, strengthen his faith in God and promote his respect for and defence of both rights and obligations.

Article 10
Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.

Article 11
(a) Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to God the Most-High.

Article 12
Every man shall have the right, within the framework of Shari’ah, to free movement and to select his place of residence whether inside or outside his country and, if persecuted, is entitled to seek asylum in another country. The country of refuge shall ensure his protection until he reaches safety, unless asylum is motivated by an act which Shari’ah regards as a crime.

Article 16
Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical production and the right to protect the moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shari’ah

Article 19
(d) There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.

Article 22
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.

Article 23
(b) Everyone shall have the right to participate, directly or indirectly in the administration of his country's public affairs. He shall also have the right to assume public office in accordance with the provisions of Shari'ah.

Article 24
All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari'ah.

Article 25
The Islamic Shari'ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification to any of the articles of this Declaration.


I think this just confirms what I said about the total claim of shariah that I described in postings above, yes?!

There are a lot of positive things said in that declaration also, but you have to balance them against the comntext of the shariah (see the red-printed articles 24 and 25), and you have to realise that many of those signing this declaration at the time when signing it, and before, and afterwards, acted against the principles they so heroically voiced, and that many declarations of liberties and good things are in total oppositon to demands by Shariah and the Quran if you read the articles isolated and out of conetxt of the shariah, or they get limited in their scope and put into relation by the Quran, without the declaration explicitly mentioning that.

In principle you can delete that misleading declaration of Human Rights in Islam, and set up the Quran in it's place. the whole thing is just this - a deception to please the western useful idiots and lure them a bit more.

[CaptainHaplo]

Skybird,

I agree with you on many points. I simply think that you slamming the auther and calling the article "biggotted" was where you went wrong.

Your right in that Islam cannot be changed by those of us outside. If we could, we obviously would have by now. It is true that only those INSIDE the faith must question it and move it forward. But for a european writer to have the testicular fortitude to say "screw political correctness" and lay out WHY Muslims are not being accepted - because of the obvious problems in their religion, is one heck of a good thing.

We agree it won't do any good in the theology. But to even say it in the PC euro world as it exists, publicly and in writing - shows two important things. The stranglehold of political correctness toward Islam is weakening, as well as that the dissatisfaction and education about what islam truly espouses is growing in Europe. These two things are what will ultimately lead to an awakened public willing to refuse to allow such teachings that violate its standarnds of decency.

As for conflict - I know what I know. But I question things, so that I know more. Its simply the easiest way to learn. I thank you because its VERY rare that I get called someone who seeks common ground, as I am known to just "plow ahead" way too often. But then again, discussion is one thing, decision making another, and to lead in any capacity we have to be able to put away discussion and act. But thats neither here nor there.

[Tribesman]

That should give you a pretty good indication of how different we are and why we dislike the idea of our values being turned into (radical) islamic ones.
And what are the chances of our values being turned into even mild islamic ones let alone radical ones?
Is it none, none, none or errrr.....none?

The stranglehold of political correctness toward Islam is weakening,
Where is this stranglehold ?
The only real issue which muddies the debate on Islam is about the hate filled bigots who as skybird says flood every group that criticises the religion, and of course people like Skybird himself who ruins his points by contradicting himself and making crazy leaps of connection that cannot be connected...... and of course simply making things up which don't stand even a cursory examination.

[Snestorm]

I think I'll hang on to my nationalism.
"The Global Village" doesn't look very appealing.

Just for the record.
I'm not an EU supporter, and I'm opposed to adopting the euro.

[Skybird]

As for conflict - I know what I know. But I question things, so that I know more. Its simply the easiest way to learn. I thank you because its VERY rare that I get called someone who seeks common ground, as I am known to just "plow ahead" way too often. But then again, discussion is one thing, decision making another, and to lead in any capacity we have to be able to put away discussion and act. But thats neither here nor there.
We agree on many things, and disagree on others, also, on some things we necessarily must and will fight against the other's team. But as long as you understand that I do not wish to personally attack you, this strong disagreement must not make us personal enemies. I indeed think you are an intelligent person, because you show quite some creativity in your efforts of trying to bring together things that are opposites and - as I see it - cannot be brought together, since they are mutually exclusive. I of course do not agree with the claimed outcome of your thought experiment, obviously, but think that somewhere inside of you, you are aware, in some way, of the contradictions in religion's/creationism's position, and thus you try to bring reason into it by trying to merge it with science. A dumb religious nuthead would not do that, but would be satisfied with just deafening his ears, stopping to think, and be happy to just blindly believe and preach his dogma. Like that - you are not, it seems to me. that's why we can come along together, even when totally disagreeing on some things.

When calling that auhtor bigott, maybe that was a bit too personally aimed and aggressive indeed,, and I should leave it to saying that I see him as naive, and in cionflict with some basic ideas of the ideology that he, as it seems to me, just glosses over, comfortably ignoring aspects of it that nevertheless as integral parts of it. Anyhow, if taking both postings I had about that, it should become clearer what I mean. I refuse to form a final opinion on him, becasue I simply do not know enough of him, his usual work, and his record. I am just very aware that there are so many spokesmen that are presented and accepted as "moderates" and "liberals" and ´"well integrated in our societies' structures", but are indeed representing extrmist groups. Practically all spokesman of Muslim organisations we have in Germany, are like that, and they get accepted by politicians as "ndialogue" partners, thus they are accepted top represent the so-called moderate and integrated muslims as well - becasue they do in no way object to these radical sspeaking in the name of "all muslims" in Germany.

and that passiveness and phlegma makes "moderates" as guilty as the "radicals", and makes them directly suporting "radical" Islam by not hindering it.

In Austria and then Germany, it initially was only a small handful of thugs that took over the country in the thirties. but theyx acted with that intimidating behavior that most people did not dare to stand up against them, and later, many chose to simply let things run. They were no Nazis by cinviction, but thex also did not nothing to stop them while there still was time. These "Mitläufer" imo are as guilty as those beign active Nazi members. It compares to failure to give assistance, which now is a punishable offence in Germany.

[August]

A dumb religious nuthead would not do that, but would be satisfied with just deafening his ears, stopping to think, and be happy to just blindly believe and preach his dogma.

:DL

See my sig... :yeah:

[onelifecrisis]

:DL

See my sig... :yeah:

:har: :yeah: :salute:

Spot on.

[Jimbuna]

Her Majesty has instructed me to inform you that she is not keen for her residence becoming a mosque. If anyone requires further clarification she would be happy to discuss it further...on a personal one to one basis.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/members/2nd_amendment_knight-albums-funny-gun-pics-picture1228-queen-gun.jpg

[mjs80]

"Who's to decide on that then?"
The people who still hold a majority in their own lands.
Having ones country taken away is bad enough, giving it away is unthinkable.

Finns are european.
Finns are nordic.
Finns are NOT scandinavian.
For once this dane agrees with the swedes. That in itself is amazing.

Skandinavien = Danmark, Norge, Sverige.

So Danes are a part of the scandinavian peninsula?

ETA: Perhaps a little misunderstanding on my and on your part.. I agree after all with you. When Finland is included it's called Fenno-Scandia.
ETAA: My original post was directeded to the anglophones who often incorrectly include Finland in Scandinavia.
But it is indeed amazing that you agree with the people that took scania from you.. :D
And still the question remains.. who's to decide on that then?

[Snestorm]

So Danes are a part of the scandinavian peninsula?

ETA: Perhaps a little misunderstanding on my and on your part.. I agree after all with you. When Finland is included it's called Fenno-Scandia.
ETAA: My original post was directeded to the anglophones who often incorrectly include Finland in Scandinavia.
But it is indeed amazing that you agree with the people that took scania from you.. :D

Yes, it seems you and I are coming to way better terms. Cool.

Yes Skåna was once a part of Danmark, as was Norge/Norway, and Island/Iceland.
Grønland/Greenland and Færøerne/The Faeroes still are. One of my ancestors was arrested in Skåne, shortly after the swedes took it, for attempting to incite a rebelion. Technicaly the modern swedes who occupy Skåne are danes. Same as the modern germans who occupy Schleswig Holstein (Another loss - 1864).

For a brief time all three countries were united in The Kalmar Union under Margaret I.