Sura 9, verse 29:

29. Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

This is the essence of dhimmitude.

Refer to the last words: "and feel themselves <the non-Muslim dhimmis> subdued". What are the historic precendents and methods used by Muslim rulers to achieve this feeling of subjugation?

we've had similar arguments before, on other threads. in fact, you've quoted that before, right? for every sura you quote, i can quote one with a different "twist" on the relationship between muslims, jews, and christians.

we could sit here all day, quoting and counter-quoting, but the point, the very marrow of any argument about the relationship between islam and the west, is the interpretation of the quran.

true, some muslims will feel it is their duty to fight non-muslims. others will feel that there is a common bond between "people of the book."

so arguing about suras, quoting out of context or from different translations which make different implications, gets us nowhere. the topic of the thread is about muslims in western countries -- about certain groups which link religion to all aspects of life living in a secular society.

and personally speaking, the things that get my goat, that make me mad in terms of my personal relationship with western culture or societies, are how arabs and muslims are viewed and treated by some elements of western culture -- nothing rpt nothing to do with my personal interpretation of the quran. i'm sure that's true for a lot of other muslims too.

the quran hasn't changed since the 7th century. the relationship between islam and the west has. so the question should be, what's changed in the last 5-10 years that has lead to a surge in the numbers of islamic extremists dedicated to attacking the west?

Muslim belief that is, I know, but nevertheless extremely questionable from historical research's perspective. Historcial events and fundamental changes in Arab language let it appear as an impossebility that it "hasn't changed since the 7th century". I'll come to that in some days.

Getting back on topic, actually, a camel might be one of the faster transportation options in Paris, at the moment.

If they wore Muslim religious attire, I would naturally assume they were going to wash their face, hands and feet before prayer.

Here's a clue to identifying terrorists: They look like everybody else! They try to avoid obvious things such as wearing religious attire, entering restrooms in groups, looking mean and dangerous etc. Think about it: If you were plotting some foul play, wouldn't you want to be as inconspicuous as possible? Those who flaunt their religion are SO not the ones to worry about.

Re: Go take the camel...
 

Well, this is demonstrably the case.

Perfectly understandable. If you were arrested and carried off in full public view for doing nothing wrong, wouldn't you feel a bit miffed?

Beg your pardon? So foreign customs are illegal, now? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: a society that refuses to open up to outside influences will stagnate. Personally, I like such things as sugar, spices, acupuncture, chess, tea, garlic, coca cola and Chinese food. I'd mention coffee, but I'm not a coffee drinker. But anyway, none of them are good old, traditional Norwegian elements. And all of them have made a significant impact on our culture and heritage. What's Christmas without a Christmas tree and rice porridge? What would any country look like if we didn't embrace new things?

In any case, what sort of precedence would you be setting by persecuting innocent people? What you are suggesting is nothing short of martial law for a certain segment of the population, namely the Muslims. I'd be very interested in seeing how you would present that case, when the two Muslims had done nothing wrong.

You can bet your sweet burqa on that!

Well, there can be several reasons for that. Some theories suggest:

* chromosomal abnormality
* imbalances in hormones
* problems with early parent-child bonding
* harmful child-rearing practices

;)

(What do you know. The fourth link when I google "transexualism" is Transexuality in Israel. It's a small world, indeed. :P )

Re: Go take the camel...
 

I think you are completely missing my point.
I got a bit pizzed off by the enormous consternation and chaos caused by the for us Dutch extremely unusual habit of ritual washing in a train as a preparation for prayers (in the train as well?). The Dutch public is being made aware of terrorist threats since Muslim suicide bomb attacks on public transportation are 'en vogue'. Are the Dutch people who called the police stupid and narrowminded? Are the Arabs, for not understanding local sensitivities...? It's up to you to decide, but I have been raised by parents who always told me to respect the sensitivities of others and their culture when in a foreign environment.

Whether you can claim damages when arrested as innocents depends on the reason for your arrest.You find a claim perfecrly understandable, I doubt very much whether they have a case, to put it mildly... One of the Muslims later declared that after the arrest he understood that his behaviour had caused some alarm. He should have shown that understanding before...
By the way he also wondered why nobody of the passengers had asked them if they had any bad intentions... Go figure!
You ask if foreign customs are illegal nowadays, when I only - jokingly - suggested that the Dutch Railroad system could claim damages.
Again you are completely missing the point. Nobody here is talking about criminal law, anything "illegal", or not respecting religious freedom. I was - half seriously - suggesting a civil claim for damages. To give you an example: when I leave my backpack with a ticking alarm clock in a bus, metro or train, whether in Amsterdam, New York, Paris or London I am not doing anything illegal. However I might well caused huge delays and damages to the public transportation system and its many passengers. Of course those can claim those damages.
You add the accusation that a society that is not open to outside influences will stagnate. If you mean Holland, your remark proves that you have no knowledge at all about the openness of Dutch society. As a general rule you are right though. Just look at the average Muslim (controlled) society.
You are defending a point of view that nobody - me the least - is attacking.

Really getting in the mood, you take the next step attacking me, by saying Nobody, me the least, has been talking about persecuting innocent people at all. Your next line is exaggeration beyond comprehension. If my - short lived - irritation for utterly un-Dutch behaviour in public like practicing religious rituals in a train is considered by you as nothing less but discriminatory "martial law" against the Muslim segment of the Dutch population, you utterly lost me...
I think you either need to apologise for making a farce of and lack of respect for my opinion or take a Prozac and calm down...
As you will understand I really have difficulty taking the content of your posting serious.
Neither do you, as your response to The Avon Lady clearly shows...

Re: Go take the camel...
 

I don't think they have a case, either. But I do understand their desire to take legal action.


You say jokingly now, but it was not apparent in your post. On internet forums it is customary to throw out a smiley or two to show that a comment was made in jest or tongue in cheek. And based on your previous posts, I had every reason to believe you were dead serious.

Fair point, but applied in this case would be the same as to say, "sorry, but your kind just look so awfully scary when you carry anything that could potentially hold a bomb". There is supposed to be equality for the law, and if a couple of white people had been arrested under similar circumstances, most people would say the police overreacted.


You add the accusation that a society that is not open to outside influences will stagnate. If you mean Holland, your remark proves that you have no knowledge at all about the openness of Dutch society.[/quote]

I did not mean Holland, or any country in specific. The comment was directed at you, because you advocate shutting the door to foreign impulses which are too different from your own culture.

Well, you did say "The point is that certain outdated cultural habits (it has nothing to do with freedom of religion) are not acceptable or not accepted by modern Dutch society". And you also suggested that by wearing their traditional clothings the Muslims were "confronting" the general public with their religion. What they did - or as the case is, wore - is not a confrontation in my book. What if a Maori was show up with his face full of tribal tattoos? Would he be confronting people with his culture? It's not like he can take them off. Similarly, removing all trappings of faith is not an option for many a religious person either. Should they hide their religion as if they were ashamed?

As far as I'm concerned, the problem is that many people haven't been assimilated to these new cultures yet. And yes, it is my opinion that assimilation is not purely the responsibility of the newcomer. As "old-timers" (for lack of a better word), it is our responsibility to realize that prople from foreign cultures are bound to have foreign habits, and we should accept that. They assimilate as much as they need to, but we shouldn't really expect more than that.

You have already forgotten what you wrote, I see. So I'll remind you:

"The lawyers of the Dutch Railroad are not considering a legal claim for damages against the two Muslims... which would really be the long term solution for the problem: they are obviously in Holland because they prefer the better living to their own country, so let them pay for the damages that introducing their own country's habits caused the Dutch society."

Sure, now you say that you were only joking. Or half-joking. But if my reaction was a misunderstanding, it is one for which you are responsible. I still can't see anything in that paragraph that would suggest you were joking.

If you advocate that certain people may be detained for no good reason, that ethnicity is sufficient "probable cause", that is definitely a trait of martial law. You say now - now - that you weren't really serious, but how was I or anyone else to know? And really, if this was a misunderstanding on my part, what are you getting upset about?

I am not the one getting all huffy and puffy here. You said yourself that what you wrote was the product of your "short-lived irritation for utterly un-Dutch behaviour in public", and that's your big mistake. Never post in anger. You have no idea how long I spend on some of these posts because I have to moderate myself. Sometimes I scrap my own post altogether if it serves no other purpose than to vent my feelings.

As for the farce comment... If you think I'm going to apologize for mistakes you're responsible for, you've got another think coming.

Hmmm... You demand that I respect your opinion, but here you admit to not taking me seriously. Tell me, how would you view such a person?

I always enjoy a good and fair fight, and Avon Lady gives me that. Whether I agree with her or not, I like and respect her - if anyone can give me a good run for my money, she's it. And whether you choose to believe me or not, I do respect you as well, as well as every single poster on this forum. This is because no one has done something so outrageous as to cause total loss of respect. However, I do not care much for your temper, and you are in no position to demand an apology when you manage to hurl insults in the very same sentence.

Go take the camel...
 

I wonder whether I should really care to answer you.
You just seem to enjoy creating misunderstandings...
I also enjoy a good and fair fight, but I certainly don't find it with you.
And if you did not see some humor and relativism in my original posting (and in the title I choose), where should I begin?
However I might decide to respond fully and try to solve any misunderstanding.
But if I do so, it will be tomorrow.

why can't we all just get along? ;)

Can you?...Can you you Really?...I have listened to you and Kissaki for a few weeks now and have asked for exactly that...and yet ...Where are these quotes that counter what Avon Lady is quoting? Until you can provide the specific places where these Extreme views are discounted you guys are Hot Air.
I challenge you to provide it..I beg you...I have the feeling you will only answer again with emptiness.
Please discount this verse Avon Lady quoted that is to be followed by Muslims with another verse from the book.If you can't then plz don't make quotes about things you know nothing about.

a. go check the old threads.
b. i'm a muslim, so i'd probably know the views of myself and other muslims
c. or don't believe me, go read the quran yourself.