PDA

View Full Version : The increasing risks that go with the rise of Islam


Sam L
Nov 26th, 2006, 01:33 PM
AUTHOR MARK Steyn's "America Alone" is the jauntiest bit of doomsaying you'll ever come across. Part Philip Longman, part Samuel Huntington, part Robert Kagan, "America Alone" takes the two most important global trends -- falling fertility and surging Islamism -- and examines what the world around their intersection is going to look like.
Not that it takes much imagination. Throughout the developed world, birthrates are already falling to historically unprecedented lows. In Spain and Russia, for instance, fertility rates now hover about 1.1 births per woman -- a number demographers call the "lowest low." (A rate of 2.1 is needed for a stable population.) The result is that populations in these countries and many others, ranging from Europe to Russia to Japan, will begin a sharp contraction during the next 40 years. In some countries, the decline has already begun.
The other trend, the rising tide of Islam, is also well in evidence. As Steyn points out, every year, "more and more of the world lives under Islamic law. ... Today, there are more Muslim nations, more radicalized Muslims within those nations, (and) more and more Muslims within non-Muslim nations." Steyn notes that Islam is taking hold in the most unlikely places. What's the most popular baby boy's name in Belgium, Amsterdam, and Malmo? Mohammed.
Islam is, by definition, both a religion and a political system. As the population of Europe withers away, Muslim immigrants are amassing power, bringing the political culture of Islam into close conflict with Western liberalism. Steyn wonders what will happen when the laws of sharia smack up against the mores of Europe.
It is not an unfounded concern. Consider Bertrand Delanoe, who in 2001 became the first openly gay mayor of Paris. In October 2002, Delanoe was stabbed by a Muslim immigrant in the middle of a public festival. As Steyn writes, the good news is the would-be assassin wasn't a "terrorist." The bad news is he was merely a Muslim who hated homosexuals.
From the Danish cartoon riots to the persecution of Ayaan Hirsi Ali to the murder of Theo van Gogh, you can hardly go a fortnight without seeing some story of Muslim aggression in Europe. While one could see such crimes as the inevitable result of large numbers of people suddenly thrust into an alien culture, Steyn sees a wider significance to them: Such incidents are the precursors to conflict between a declining population with one set of values and a rising population with very different ones.
The European reaction thus far has been accommodation. In 2005, for instance, England's chief inspector of prisons banned flying the flag of England on prison grounds because it featured the cross of St. George, which might be offensive to Muslims. Britain's version of the department of motor vehicles has also banned the English flag, as has Heathrow Airport.
Yet none of this has helped Europeans avoid trouble. Take the words of Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed to Lisbon's Publica magazine soon after the March 11 terror attacks in Spain: "We don't make a distinction between civilians and noncivilians, innocents and noninnocents. Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value."
As Steyn observes, there are no "root causes." There is only an ideology that requires submission of the host culture. Even in a country as amenable as France. The French are hostile toward both Israel and America, they were against the Iraq war, and they are in favor of allowing Iran to pursue its nuclear dreams. If you're an Islamist, what's not to like?
Yet five days before the 2005 Bali slaughter, Steyn writes, "nine Islamists were arrested in Paris for reportedly plotting to attack the Metro." When extremist terrorists attacked a French oil tanker, the group responsible, the Islamic Army of Aden, released a statement saying, "We would have preferred to hit a U.S. frigate, but no problem, because they are all infidels."
No problem! But the real problem is that capital-T Terrorists aren't the only problem. Steyn argues that "Islam itself is a political project." We see this reflected repeatedly in news reports from France, Denmark, and other European countries, in which disaffected Muslims chafe at the trammels of Western law. Such reports bring to mind the grim admonishment of James C. Bennett, businessman and president of the Anglosphere Institute: "Democracy, immigration, multiculturalism. Pick any two."
So where do we go from here? Steyn has some ideas. Noting reports that the majority of women in European battered women's shelters are Muslim, he suggests a serious push for women's rights in the Islamic world, which could fundamentally destabilize the Islamist project. Listing a number of Muslim terrorists who lived on the European dole -- Muhammed Metin Kaplan, Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada, etc. -- he posits that Euro-welfare should be remade. But ultimately, Steyn admits that Islam itself will have to be reformed if it is to become compatible with modernity.
Buried in "America Alone" is a question Steyn asks but leaves unanswered. Surveying the history of Islam as it has regressed over the last few generations, Steyn wonders: "We ... talk airily about 'reforming' Islam. But what if the reform has already taken place, and jihadism is it?"
Some possibilities are too dark for even a book about the End of the World.


Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/16101718.htm

Thoughts?

*JR*
Nov 26th, 2006, 01:44 PM
So where do we go from here? Steyn has some ideas. Noting reports that the majority of women in European battered women's shelters are Muslim, he suggests a serious push for women's rights in the Islamic world, which could fundamentally destabilize the Islamist project. Listing a number of Muslim terrorists who lived on the European dole -- Muhammed Metin Kaplan, Abu Hamza, Abu Qatada, etc. -- he posits that Euro-welfare should be remade.

So is the West ready to pay those Muslim women enough for the jobs they're able to do for them to escape dependency on their husbands and fathers? (Along with battered women in general, BTW).

Lord Nelson
Nov 26th, 2006, 02:05 PM
One idea is to start converting Muslims into other religions, why not? Muslims try and convert others to their faith like in London. In Russia, both the Catholic and Orthodox churchs are trying to convert Muslims. In 'secular' Turkey two Turkish converts were arrested for 'insulting' Islam when they were just converting people like Muslims. Buddhists should try and convert them too. That would be a step in the right direction. Other steps include cutting the wings of radical groups. List Wahhabist and salafist groups as hate groups like neo Nazis and ban them from preaching in the West.

Sam L
Nov 26th, 2006, 02:09 PM
One idea is to start converting Muslims into other religions. why not? Muslims try and convert otherers to their faith too like in London. In Russia, both the Catholic and Orthodox churchs are trying to convert Muslims. In 'secular' Turkey two Turkish converts were arrested for 'insultng' Islam when they were just converting people like Muslims. Buddhists should try and convert them too.
Yes I read that article on Turkey too. Really pathetic. I think conversion is a good solution but that'll be really hard. You should know this, Lord. ;)

I think the author above raised an important point and that is, Islam is more than a religion, it is a political system like communism. Why should we not be able to undermine the political system?

Kart
Nov 26th, 2006, 02:11 PM
Thoughts?

All immigrants to the West ought to be wary.

Who knows which group will be next in the firing line to comply with the 'tolerance' of Western society.

BUBI
Nov 26th, 2006, 02:19 PM
One idea is to start converting Muslims into other religions, why not?

Why into other religions? Why not atheism? :cool:

hdfb
Nov 26th, 2006, 02:32 PM
Well I daresay the decision-makers of our world are more or less Catholic/Christian, yet our world isn't as bad as it could be.

Muslims just need to practice tolerance. All of my muslim friends are very open and certainly aren't extremists who would stab gay people because of their own contempt for them.

Staticbeef
Nov 26th, 2006, 03:47 PM
:wavey: Hey guys, erm excuse me but, to me this sound a lot like the typical propaganda sprouted by 1937 Berlin Brown Shirt. Even though, and I am not yet prepared to believe that the population in a catholic country is on the decline or even that the West is in some immediate danger, does this not sound like racial profiling???? Yes I know you did make it clear that Islam is the enemy. Why am I uneasy about this language??????

Josh
Nov 26th, 2006, 04:07 PM
Just a correction : the most popular baby boy's name in Belgium is not Mohammed, the author probably meant Brussels.

MistyGrey
Nov 26th, 2006, 04:19 PM
Enough with the Islam bashing already! that was such a biased article, I couldn't even read all of it.

kabuki
Nov 26th, 2006, 04:22 PM
Thoughts?


Yah. Get a new hobby.

kiwifan
Nov 26th, 2006, 04:26 PM
Why into other religions? Why not atheism? :cool:

Cuz athiests don't have Soul: http://youtube.com/watch?v=noX6Aigurc0








:devil: no I mean :angel: :angel: :angel:
can anyone tell that the Cowboys aren't playing today, I'm bored.

GrassGOAT
Nov 26th, 2006, 04:29 PM
http://www.400monkeys.com/God/index.html

Rocketta
Nov 26th, 2006, 04:51 PM
Cuz athiests don't have Soul: http://youtube.com/watch?v=noX6Aigurc0








:devil: no I mean :angel: :angel: :angel:
can anyone tell that the Cowboys aren't playing today, I'm bored.

I would soooooo go to a church that jams all day but unfortunately they are usually holiness and well the jamming doesn't offer enough to counteract having to listen to the preacher. :o :o :o

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:02 PM
I find this to be absurd.
Any rise of any religion has it's risk.
I can change Muslim to Evangelical and put on a scenario of right-wing thinking and little to no progress in the scientific area.

This just appears to be a picking on of the Muslims who like any faith has it's extremist.

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:09 PM
Cuz athiests don't have Soul http://youtube.com/watch?v=noX6Aigurc0



Oh good. I can talk about Kirk Franklin now.
He's gay and he needs to pay Patricia Rushen some royalities for Looking For You.
Just because someone say they're doing something for God doesn't mean copyright laws don't come into play.

kiwifan
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:12 PM
I would soooooo go to a church that jams all day but unfortunately they are usually holiness and well the jamming doesn't offer enough to counteract having to listen to the preacher. :o :o :o

Yeah, I have a hard time listening to religious "leaders/preachers/ministers/etc." of any faith, potificating.:rolleyes: :yawn: :rolleyes:

I just watch this video on Sundays...

...instead of going to church. :o :o :o

Hey, uh NFL Football and uh, 'He knows what's in my heart.' :angel:

Martian Willow
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:51 PM
I find this to be absurd.
Any rise of any religion has it's risk.
I can change Muslim to Evangelical and put on a scenario of right-wing thinking and little to no progress in the scientific area.

This just appears to be a picking on of the Muslims who like any faith has it's extremist.

The bit about Islam being a political movement didn't quite get through, did it? Oh well, its only been explained 73927466575983 times.

Rocketta
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:58 PM
Yeah, I have a hard time listening to religious "leaders/preachers/ministers/etc." of any faith, potificating.:rolleyes: :yawn: :rolleyes:

I just watch this video on Sundays...

...instead of going to church. :o :o :o

Hey, uh NFL Football and uh, 'He knows what's in my heart.' :angel:

Well I won't put it on all preachers because I know there has to be one that I agree with most of the time....I haven't found him/her yet but I still have hope. :angel:

Checking to see if Pittsburg is playing.. :bolt:

Diam's
Nov 26th, 2006, 05:59 PM
The French are hostile toward both Israel and America, they were against the Iraq war, and they are in favor of allowing Iran to pursue its nuclear dreams.

Afghanistan ... 2001 ... does it ring a bell ?! :weirdo:

Wannabeknowitall
Nov 26th, 2006, 06:29 PM
The bit about Islam being a political movement didn't quite get through, did it? Oh well, its only been explained 73927466575983 times.

No. I did. You just happened to miss me mentioning that Evangelicals could be the same kind of political movement.
My comments about right-wing thinking should have made that clear.

fufuqifuqishahah
Nov 26th, 2006, 06:46 PM
I would soooooo go to a church that jams all day but unfortunately they are usually holiness and well the jamming doesn't offer enough to counteract having to listen to the preacher. :o :o :o

:haha:

wta_zuperfann
Nov 26th, 2006, 09:29 PM
:wavey: Hey guys, erm excuse me but, to me this sound a lot like the typical propaganda sprouted by 1937 Berlin Brown Shirt. Even though, and I am not yet prepared to believe that the population in a catholic country is on the decline or even that the West is in some immediate danger, does this not sound like racial profiling???? Yes I know you did make it clear that Islam is the enemy. Why am I uneasy about this language??????



Yup. Ain't that the truth!

Rollo
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:19 PM
I am not yet prepared to believe that the population in a catholic country is on the decline ....

Believe it. There's no doubt that the birthrate in Europe is well below the replacement rate of 2.1

Maybe the birth-rate is declining in places like Italy and Spain because religion in these so-called "Catholic" countries no longer matters?

It will be interesting to see if Islam does go through some sort of reformation this century. I doubt that change will come from the outside, as that only feeds fundamentalists IMO.

Parsley
Nov 26th, 2006, 11:42 PM
Thoughts?

I'm sure Nazis published similar articles (replace the word Muslim with Jew) in the past. What are your thoughts about them?

ico4498
Nov 27th, 2006, 12:10 AM
i'm asking 'cause i don't know ...

do Islamic terror merchants intend to draw hard lines between muslims and everyone else?

does western paranoia play into their agenga?

if yah answer yes to both questions, and support the rising hysteria surrounding non-christians, there is no doubt you're a tool of the terror merchants.

my humble suggestion; there may, possibly, be an issue worth recognition when men, women and kids all decide this world aint worth living.

clearly there is a disconnect.

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 01:33 AM
Source: http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/opinion/16101718.htm

Thoughts?Really not all that different from what's been written of in America. Fear mongering is pathetically strong here as well. :shrug:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/10/hispanics/index.html

Incidentally, the conclusions by Mark Steyn sound extremely suspect and typically biased to me. And honestly, all this fear mongering is getting to be very tiring. There is no common ground that can't be struck as long as all sides benefit to some degree or another. However, it would require all sides abandoning the BS of their beliefs being the only 'real' belief.

Yeah, yeah, I know...

Fat chance of that happening. :rolleyes:

Veritas
Nov 27th, 2006, 01:44 AM
What's interesting is that before 1967, France was Israel's biggest supporter. Gilles Kepel notes that it wasn't until Israel schooled Egypt and Syria in the Arab-Israeli War (1967), the U.S. took over from France as Israel's self-appointed mentor.

Back to the topic, I think many people in the West are being overly hysterical about this so-called "threat". Caution is needed, but when you go overboard, you're bound to upset a lot of people. Solving problems and promoting peace won't work if you give others a reason to resent you.

This is similar to the experience of Japanese-Americans during WWII when they were interned in military camps. Justify all you want about War hysteria and so on, but if people are targetted just because (1) they look like the enemy, and (2) they share the same ethnicity, then what hope do we have for people acting rationally on a whole? Many Japanese-American families even had sons volunteering to fight for the U.S. army, despite having their loved ones treated like convicts.

Point is, it's lazy of people to not bother trying to understand others and being open-minded. Labeling people by pointing to the most obvious difference - physical features - is a juvenile thing you'd expect most people to have grown out of after high school. If these people really want peace, then they're going about it in the wrong way.

RVD
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:04 AM
What's interesting is that before 1967, France was Israel's biggest supporter. Gilles Kepel notes that it wasn't until Israel schooled Egypt and Syria in the Arab-Israeli War (1967), the U.S. took over from France as Israel's self-appointed mentor.

Back to the topic, I think many people in the West are being overly hysterical about this so-called "threat". Caution is needed, but when you go overboard, you're bound to upset a lot of people. Solving problems and promoting peace won't work if you give others a reason to resent you.

This is similar to the experience of Japanese-Americans during WWII when they were interned in military camps. Justify all you want about War hysteria and so on, but if people are targetted just because (1) they look like the enemy, and (2) they share the same ethnicity, then what hope do we have for people acting rationally on a whole? Many Japanese-American families even had sons volunteering to fight for the U.S. army, despite having their loved ones treated like convicts.

Point is, it's lazy of people to not bother trying to understand others and being open-minded. Labeling people by pointing to the most obvious difference - physical features - is a juvenile thing you'd expect most people to have grown out of after high school. If these people really want peace, then they're going about it in the wrong way.Your post makes the point better than mine quite nicely. :cool: :)

Lord Nelson
Nov 27th, 2006, 11:50 AM
What's interesting is that before 1967, France was Israel's biggest supporter. Gilles Kepel notes that it wasn't until Israel schooled Egypt and Syria in the Arab-Israeli War (1967), the U.S. took over from France as Israel's self-appointed mentor.

Back to the topic, I think many people in the West are being overly hysterical about this so-called "threat". Caution is needed, but when you go overboard, you're bound to upset a lot of people. Solving problems and promoting peace won't work if you give others a reason to resent you.

This is similar to the experience of Japanese-Americans during WWII when they were interned in military camps. Justify all you want about War hysteria and so on, but if people are targetted just because (1) they look like the enemy, and (2) they share the same ethnicity, then what hope do we have for people acting rationally on a whole? Many Japanese-American families even had sons volunteering to fight for the U.S. army, despite having their loved ones treated like convicts.

Point is, it's lazy of people to not bother trying to understand others and being open-minded. Labeling people by pointing to the most obvious difference - physical features - is a juvenile thing you'd expect most people to have grown out of after high school. If these people really want peace, then they're going about it in the wrong way.

In other words they are allowed to be hostile towards us but not us towards them . Sorry but not in my books. I always believe in an eye for an eye.

"Sluggy"
Nov 27th, 2006, 12:15 PM
I have the solution: Every available heterosexual non-muslim man in Europe takes a muslim woman as his lover. Then she can talk some sense into her Boyfriends! Here is my dream GF:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v454/FrogBurger/rsomethingnew1.jpg

"Sluggy"
Nov 27th, 2006, 12:16 PM
oh and how dare you post something about France, dont U have anything better to do?

Sam L
Nov 27th, 2006, 01:07 PM
I'm sure Nazis published similar articles (replace the word Muslim with Jew) in the past. What are your thoughts about them?

Big differences:

- Jews did not commit terrorist acts.

- Judaism (and Jewry) were not growing. Judaism was/is a non-proselytizing religion.

- Nazis thought of the Jews purely as a race and wanted to eliminate them regardless of their religious beliefs. No one thinks of muslims as a race and we're opposed to Islam as a political system rather than a religion. A political system that is attempting to change Europe and the world to become like itself.

So a better comparison would be communism. And we have triumphed over the oppressive communist regimes. Most of them anyway. And we should fight oppressive Islamic regimes.

Staticbeef
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:31 PM
Big differences:

- Jews did not commit terrorist acts.

- Judaism (and Jewry) were not growing. Judaism was/is a non-proselytizing religion.

- Nazis thought of the Jews purely as a race and wanted to eliminate them regardless of their religious beliefs. No one thinks of muslims as a race and we're opposed to Islam as a political system rather than a religion. A political system that is attempting to change Europe and the world to become like itself.
So a better comparison would be communism. And we have triumphed over the oppressive communist regimes. Most of them anyway. And we should fight oppressive Islamic regimes.


Sam, I have been thinking about the best way to express my total opposition to your arguments, a way to express my opinion without alienating you, because I think your way of thinking is just as dangerous and as misguided as those from 1937 Germany. I could cut & paste examples of Nazi propaganda from 1937, but I resist giving the filth even a nano-second of life (You can Google Nazi Propaganda and see for yourself) The above Bolded statement is typical of the propaganda of that era, your arguments run parraled to theirs, I dont think you are aware of how close you come to sprouting the same thrash, because I see you proudly flying the Israely flag in your Avitar, present your arguments to somebody in your family who is a bit older than you and have heard the vile Nazi message, please do yourself that favor.

lakeway11
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:34 PM
"In 'secular' Turkey two Turkish converts were arrested for 'insulting' Islam "

not hard to do...just ask the Pope

lakeway11
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:36 PM
and the 'secular' quotes are quite appropriate...i mean a country that is 99% muslim does not sound too secular to me but it is better to be atheist than Christian

Hagar
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:50 PM
I'm sure Nazis published similar articles (replace the word Muslim with Jew) in the past. What are your thoughts about them?

There is no way the situation of Jews in Europe before WOII and that of Muslims in Europe anno 2006 can be compared.
To start with, I think there were far less Jews then than there are Muslims now, but OK, I could be wrong here.
The most important difference however is that Jews were very well integrated into society. A lot of them were intellectuals, earned good money and were not living in seperate parts of cities (although some parts had a high proportion of Jewish people). Also, Jews never organized violent attacks on innocent cocitizens.

The only solution to the problem is to enforce the Western rules and norms towards the Muslim population. And to be zero tolerant towards those Muslims who don't want to get it. I personally think that Muslims who blatantly breach the law should be sent back to their home country.

We have been too complacent towards Muslims, and to be honest, I fear that we will not be able to reverse the situation. If the situation become worse, I know I will leave Europe, just like Jewish people did before WOII.

Staticbeef
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:55 PM
There is no way the situation of Jews in Europe before WOII and that of Muslims in Europe anno 2006 can be compared.
To start with, I think there were far less Jews then than there are Muslims now, but OK, I could be wrong here.
The most important difference however is that Jews were very well integrated into society. A lot of them were intellectuals, earned good money and were not living in seperate parts of cities (although some parts had a high proportion of Jewish people). Also, Jews never organized violent attacks on innocent cocitizens.

The only solution to the problem is to enforce the Western rules and norms towards the Muslim population. And to be zero tolerant towards those Muslims who don't want to get it. I personally think that Muslims who blatantly breach the law should be sent back to their home country.

We have been too complacent towards Muslims, and to be honest, I fear that we will not be able to reverse the situation. If the situation become worse, I know I will leave Europe, just like Jewish people did before WOII.


:wavey: Cremate them maybe????

Hagar
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:59 PM
[/b]


:wavey: Cremate them maybe????

Hey, why don't you come up with arguments which has some intellectual value instead of your hysterical rants.

The only person here who is talking about cremating is you. What I am saying is that if you have a large group of people who refuse to follow the rules of the society they live in, that society is in trouble. This is not applicable to the European Jews before WOII. But it is applicable to the Muslims in Europe anno 2006: they don't want to follow the rules and if they get negative reactions, they start to yell that they are discriminated.

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 27th, 2006, 02:59 PM
The only solution to the problem is to enforce the Western rules and norms towards the Muslim population. And to be zero tolerant towards those Muslims who don't want to get it. I personally think that Muslims who blatantly breach the law should be sent back to their home country.

We have been too complacent towards Muslims, and to be honest, I fear that we will not be able to reverse the situation. If the situation become worse, I know I will leave Europe, just like Jewish people did before WOII.

The ones born in Europe have a right to be there, just as you do.
What about the Europeans ones that converted to Islam, what you gonna do about them :rolleyes:

where you gonna go live ??
Smurf Land and take up home with Dopey Smurf :tape: :lol:

Staticbeef
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:04 PM
Hey, why don't you come up with arguments which has some intellectual value instead of your hysterical rants.

The only person here who is talking about cremating is you. What I am saying is that if you have a large group of people who refuse to follow the rules of the society they live in, that society is in trouble. This is not applicable to the European Jews before WOII. But it is applicable to the Muslims in Europe anno 2006: they don't want to follow the rules and if they get negative reactions, they start to yell that they are discriminated.

Lets not get personal, I am trying to be sensitive about this issue!!!
I am not defending criminals, all I am trying to do is get you guys to go to the Nazi propaganda site and see just how close your arguments and solutions is to theirs, just go, I wont post that evil here, I wont.

lakeway11
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:04 PM
What I am saying is that if you have a large group of people who refuse to follow the rules of the society they live in, that society is in trouble.

sounds like the illegal immigration problem in America...the Western world is committing suicide...

samsung101
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:04 PM
Mark Steyn is great. Read his latest book. It is depressing. It is
scary. Came out before the election. Too bad no one cares to really
pay attention.

Bush is the only terrorist.
Bush is satan.
Bush is the cause, beginning and end, of all the problems in
the world.
History began and ended with the Vietnam war.



The terrorists succeeded in turning elections in Spain, Britain,
and now the USA. What exactly do we do to combat that?
They bomb or kill for the tv cameras, and it's played up big time
in the USA, with no proportion or perspective offered up, and
we buy it hook, line, and sinker.

We're seeing the results of our election in Iraq.
If it worked so well for that, why stop now?

They don't need to destroy the nation, they only need to
do enough to get on tv ,and make us see and feel the deadliness
of Muslims killing Muslims, and believe it is our fault.

Where are the protests about mosques being blown up by Muslims?
Women and babies being killed by Musilms?
For what? Territory, gang control, oil control....it's not about
faith. It's just about power ,and control, and bringing their
form of Islam to your neighborhood. Please do listen to what
they say, it's about spreading Islam, the religion of peace, to
the west, by any means - force included.

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:06 PM
This is going to turn out to be another one of those Islam Bashing threads:

Main CONTRIBUTERS:

Infiniti2001
Hagar
Sam L(nothing personal but kinda true)
catherine

samsung101
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:10 PM
3 successful elections in the face of violence.
Nearly half a million join the Iraq military in the
face of death and threats.
Free newspapers and press.
A shaky govt. that still stands.
All of that was victory. It was ignored
and played down.

What has run into serious problems is
the reconstruction and handing over of
full power to Iraq...and it continues to falter.

For a lot of reasons: #1 is that we didn't
put the hammer down on Sadr and others and
kill them outright earlier.

None of that matters now though.

What do see?

Only what militias are doing.

Yes, it's deadly and violent, more than it should be.
It's a turning point. Either we stand up w/the Iraqi
military and fight to the death - kill them, don't arrest
the insurgents. Violence met with deadly responses,
not talks and letting them go away again.

But, as we handed over more and more power to the Iraq
military, we have backed down as our press and Democrats
wanted us to all over the nation, and we just told the Iraqis
and the Iraq insurgents via Iran and Syria on the 7th - we
surrender. What did you think would happen?

None of this is a surprise - it's going like clockwork for Iran
and Syria and Al Queda....they are waiting us out. Knowing
the USA and the press have little patience, and that hatred
of George W. Bush, and electing a Democrat, is more important
than the short and long term Iraq situation.

Now, we have James Baker, in legacy remaking mode since
his Gulf War 'let's get out now' plan ....telling us we should
negotiate with the two nations that are sponsoring much of
the insurgency - Syria and Iran.

I guess one day we will have Iran based textbooks telling us
the Holocaust never happened...at this rate.

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:16 PM
One thing I have to say,Why is the entire Islamic Race being subjected tothis kind of critisism just because of a select few.When you do this you make it sound like every muslim alive today is a terrorist.I mean,where is the sense in that?Does that mean im a terrorist?Does that mean every other Muslim poster on this board is a terrorist?No.

Hagar
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:23 PM
One thing I have to say,Why is the entire Islamic Race being subjected tothis kind of critisism just because of a select few.When you do this you make it sound like every muslim alive today is a terrorist.I mean,where is the sense in that?Does that mean im a terrorist?Does that mean every other Muslim poster on this board is a terrorist?No.

The problem does not concern a select few. The problem concerns mainstream Islam which is becoming more and more radical. Examples: the idiotic headscarf and even burka's which become more and more frequent, the violent behaviour of young male muslims in European cities each time there is something they don't like, the pleas to introduce the sharia in more and more countries.
This madness has to stop, we are in the 21-st century!

Hagar
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:28 PM
Lets not get personal, I am trying to be sensitive about this issue!!!
I am not defending criminals, all I am trying to do is get you guys to go to the Nazi propaganda site and see just how close your arguments and solutions is to theirs, just go, I wont post that evil here, I wont.

I'm not getting personal, for god's sake, use your brain. I haven't said a word about you.
I was just telling you that it is completely idiotic to mention cremation here and that you are the one who uses that word, not me.
Proposing to send immigrants who do not follow the rules of their guestcountry back to their original country, has nothing to do with cremation!

Why don't you try to be sensible, instead of so hypersensitive!

Staticbeef
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:45 PM
Its amazes me that so many can't see that the spin that is being put on this issue reflexs a certain discomfort with something that is alien and different. A popular propaganda tool in 1937 was publishing pictures of Jews dressed in their religious and cultural attire, their features were exagerated to resemble something totaly alien to the Europeans of that era, even though most of the Jews in Germany had white skin and dressed in western attire. Some here claim that the Jews commited no terroist acts in Germany, yet somehow the Nazi propaganda machine spun so that it not only appeared that way, but was beleived my the majority of the population. Yet, others claim that no one is looking at muslims as a race, even though the bible clearly states that Ismael was the founder of the MUSLIM RACE.

Again, I am not defending criminals or terroist, I am deffending the innocent and the righteous, you know the people that always get trown in jail or concentration camps when this nationalistic fevor takes hold, far-fetchet?? I think not it has happened before. I am a veteran, and am familiar with war, how many here are willing to serve???? Are your Ideals strong enough for you to risk your life???

My Avitar:NEWS BRIEFS
First Black West Point Commander Dies In Iraq
Sept. 27, 2006 – The nation is mourning the death of Lt Emily Perez, 23, the first Black woman to serve as corps commander sergeant major at West Point. Perez, who graduated in the top 10 percent of her class, out-ran many men, directed a gospel choir, read the Bible every day. She also headed a weekly convoy as it rolled down treacherous roads, pocked with bombs and bullets near Najaf, Iraq. As platoon leader, she insisted on leading her troops from the front. She died Sept. 12 when a bomb detonated near her Humvee in Kifl, south of Baghdad. Shortly before shipping out to Iraq with the 204th Support Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, she flew cross-country to be a bone marrow donor for a stranger who was a match. She was the 64th woman from the U.S. military to be killed in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Staticbeef
Nov 27th, 2006, 03:58 PM
I'm not getting personal, for god's sake, use your brain. I haven't said a word about you.
I was just telling you that it is completely idiotic to mention cremation here and that you are the one who uses that word, not me.
Proposing to send immigrants who do not follow the rules of their guestcountry back to their original country, has nothing to do with cremation!

Why don't you try to be sensible, instead of so hypersensitive!

:lol: :lol: This one is hopeless, he does not even see that the language he is using to debate with me achieves nothing. Ever heard of Sarcasm??

samsung101
Nov 27th, 2006, 04:37 PM
Who said all Muslims are terrorists?


But, most terrorists today, are in fact Muslim.


Where is the 'moderate' and 'non-violent' Muslim
movement?

Silent and AWOL.


Fact is that most people in the world do not believe
we have a serious problem with terrorism, we can talk
it out. We can work it out. The world doesn't really
care to fight an enemy - Islamic Terrorists - who do in
fact want to take over the nations of the world by
any means possible. An enemy that has been attacking
nations and people for decades, not just since 2001.

We're fighting against an enemy that knows how to use
our media to make us do what they want one way or another.
They know we react to tv, to radio, to the internet. We don't
care to find out more than what we see in a few seconds.
We respond to Hollywood and tv. We don't respond to hearings
in Congress or long speeches by a president the media hated
from day one. We respond to Al Jazeera's CNN connection.

We voted that way.
They learned what we do via Spain and it worked again here.



Which is our own foolishness in the West.
We prefer to do Neville Chamberlain now.

Steffica Greles
Nov 27th, 2006, 05:36 PM
One idea is to start converting Muslims into other religions, why not? Muslims try and convert others to their faith like in London. In Russia, both the Catholic and Orthodox churchs are trying to convert Muslims. In 'secular' Turkey two Turkish converts were arrested for 'insulting' Islam when they were just converting people like Muslims. Buddhists should try and convert them too. That would be a step in the right direction. Other steps include cutting the wings of radical groups. List Wahhabist and salafist groups as hate groups like neo Nazis and ban them from preaching in the West.

Well I take it you don't mean coercion.

So if you're talking about trying to entice disaffected Muslims to convert to democratic values -- which, in its purest form, encompasses religious freedom (I am no secular fundamentalist) -- then I would agree with you. However, I find your idea that Muslims should be asked (?) to follow the teachings of yet another scripture/ideology quite worrying and wholly counter-productive.

Defending liberty is like defending one's own integrity when standing up to the bully; refusing to resort to violence even when faced with it. Robust values will prevail in the end. After all, that is the principle upon which legality rests: two wrongs do not make a right. Or, at least it should do.

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 05:49 PM
The article by Steyn has many mistakes in it. The most popular boy name in Amsterdam is not Mohammed at all. If you get the smaller details of your story it clearly appears there is a hidden agenda. Another example being the stabbing of Bertrand Delanoe. Steyn makes it appear if this is a example of the dangers of Muslim immigrants, but makes the same mistake so many make by translating the acts of one sick individual to the entire group he belongs to. But Steyn gets some of the bigger details wrong as well. Islam is a religion, not a political system. Just like any other religion, it is designed to bring people together, not to place them further apart. Elements of the religion will be used in law systems, but Christian politicians do exactly the same, and nobody ever complains about those.

Lord Nelson
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:15 PM
Well I take it you don't mean coercion.

So if you're talking about trying to entice disaffected Muslims to convert to democratic values -- which, in its purest form, encompasses religious freedom (I am no secular fundamentalist) -- then I would agree with you. However, I find your idea that Muslims should be asked (?) to follow the teachings of yet another scripture/ideology quite worrying and wholly counter-productive.

Defending liberty is like defending one's own integrity when standing up to the bully; refusing to resort to violence even when faced with it. Robust values will prevail in the end. After all, that is the principle upon which legality rests: two wrongs do not make a right. Or, at least it should do.

obviously we are not asking everyone to convert. But those who try and convert should begiven means to do so. And yes obviously I mean converting by choice and not by force. I am being serious and realistic here. In the U.S., envangical groups try and convert people there too. Also in Europe but to a lesser extent. But they don't go after muslim youth because converting away from islam in general signifies one to be stigmitized by his family if not worse. So like I said these groups shoulb be given the means just as Muslim groups get aid from arab nations to convert people to Islam.We need to fight their game and yes one should believe in tit for tat.

Martian Willow
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:37 PM
The article by Steyn has many mistakes in it. The most popular boy name in Amsterdam is not Mohammed at all. If you get the smaller details of your story it clearly appears there is a hidden agenda. Another example being the stabbing of Bertrand Delanoe. Steyn makes it appear if this is a example of the dangers of Muslim immigrants, but makes the same mistake so many make by translating the acts of one sick individual to the entire group he belongs to. But Steyn gets some of the bigger details wrong as well. Islam is a religion, not a political system. Just like any other religion, it is designed to bring people together, not to place them further apart. Elements of the religion will be used in law systems, but Christian politicians do exactly the same, and nobody ever complains about those.

:explode: :mad:

For the 73927466575984th time, it is both. Why do you think there are so many Islamic republics when there are NO Christian republics, no Jewish republics or any other republics that base their laws on 'similar' religions. What do you think Sharia law is? :rolleyes:

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:41 PM
:explode: :mad:

For the 73927466575984th time, it is both. Why do you think there are so many Islamic republics when there are NO Christian republics, no Jewish republics or any other republics that base their laws on 'similar' religions. What do you think Sharia law is? :rolleyes:

We disagree on that point then. Religions are by definition not a political system, law systems use elements of religion, but that does not make the religion a political system.

Martian Willow
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:45 PM
We disagree on that point then. Religions are by definition not a political system, law systems use elements of religion, but that does not make the religion a political system.

I don't think Islam was designed to fit some dictionary definition of 'religion'. It certainly can be both, because it is.

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:47 PM
I don't think Islam was designed to fit some dictionary definition of 'religion'. It certainly can be both, because it is.

Religion can't be turned into anything by those that want it. But that does not change the fact that a religion by definition is not a political system, a religion gives meaning to life for those that seek it and binds people together.

Bumsby
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:48 PM
We disagree on that point then. Religions are by definition not a political system, law systems use elements of religion, but that does not make the religion a political system.
:smash:

I guess you're talking about Europe under the Enlightenment and what happened only in some countries after that?

That definition is much more recent than you think, and it applies only to some parts of the world. :rolleyes:

When people say Islamic Fundamentalists want to go back to the middle-ages, what do you think they mean?

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 06:51 PM
:smash:

I guess you're talking about Europe under the Enlightenment and what happened only in some countries after that?

That definition is much more recent than you think, and it applies only to some parts of the world. :rolleyes:

When people say Islamic Fundamentalists want to go back to the middle-ages, what do you think they mean?

Fundamentalists being the right word here. Don't translate the acts and thoughts of some individuals to the entire group.

azdaja
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:03 PM
Why do you think there are so many Islamic republics when there are NO Christian republics, no Jewish republics or any other republics that base their laws on 'similar' religions.
are you suggesting that only islamic theocracies exist or have existed? or that only islamic ones call themselves "republics" :p

Martian Willow
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:04 PM
Religion can't be turned into anything by those that want it. But that does not change the fact that a religion by definition is not a political system, a religion gives meaning to life for those that seek it and binds people together.

Are you deliberately being thick? I've given you two reasons why Islam obviously is a political system, and all you can do is say 'religions can't be political'.

A religious politician allowing his beliefs to inform policies in a democracy is very different to a theocracy that imposes them on everybody.

Yasmine
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:05 PM
Enough with the Islam bashing already! that was such a biased article, I couldn't even read all of it.
Yah. Get a new hobby.
:worship:

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:10 PM
Are you deliberately being thick? I've given you two reasons why Islam obviously is a political system, and all you can do is say 'religions can't be political'.

A religious politician allowing his beliefs to inform policies in a democracy is very different to a theocracy that imposes them on everybody.

Just cause I disagree does not mean I am thick. We have different views that's all. I have not said by the way, religions can't be political. Like I said, they can be turned into anything by those who want it. It is however not so by definition.

Yasmine
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:15 PM
Just cause I disagree does not mean I am thick. We have different views that's all. I have not said by the way, religions can't be political. Like I said, they can be turned into anything by those who want it. It is however not so by definition.
:worship: :kiss:
that's the whole point of being able to have a civil discussion: accept that the other have a different view and respect it;)

Martian Willow
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:21 PM
:worship: :kiss:
that's the whole point of being able to have a civil discussion: accept that the other have a different view and respect it;)

No, the point of having a civil discussion is to counter other peoples points with clear and rational arguments of your own, not just repeat the same statement over and again when people have already given you reasons why it might be wrong. :)

Anyway, I'm sure when you're being led to the mosque at gunpoint five times a day you'll still be insisting they're only a minority and after all, Christianity was just as bad, so I don't know why I bother really.

Yasmine
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:25 PM
No, the point of having a civil discussion is to counter other peoples points with clear and rational arguments of your own, not just repeat the same statement over and again when people have already given you reasons why it might be wrong. :)

Anyway, I'm sure when you're being led to the mosque at gunpoint five times a day you'll still be insisting they're only a minority and after all, Christianity was just as bad, so I don't know why I bother really.
well you're trying to do what those muslims you're talking about are, meaning trying to convince people, that's what I call not respecting other's opinion...
And who are you to judge what I'ld think of whatever happens :scratch: I didn't judge your opinions so have the decency to do the same :o

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:25 PM
No, the point of having a civil discussion is to counter other peoples points with clear and rational arguments of your own, not just repeat the same statement over and again when people have already given you reasons why it might be wrong. :)

Anyway, I'm sure when you're being led to the mosque at gunpoint five times a day you'll still be insisting they're only a minority and after all, Christianity was just as bad, so I don't know why I bother really.

I've given my point of view, you don't agree, what difference does it make, cause you won't come any closer to my point anyway. I have agreed with you to some extent, but I never saw you even giving an inch to me. And don't say I have not given arguments, I have done so, but you don't consider them valid.

And the gunpoint is a ludicrous example. I won't even go into it. Tell me with your rational arguments though where that took place.

Martian Willow
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:32 PM
Your points didn't counter my view that Islam is a political system in any way. And, Afghanistan of course. :) It was an extreme example, but the point remains.

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Your points didn't counter my view that Islam is a political system in any way. And, Afghanistan of course. :) It was an extreme example, but the point remains.

Your points did not convince me either, so we will just have to leave it at the conclusion, we are at different sides on this discussion, after exchanging our arguments.

azdaja
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:38 PM
Your points didn't counter my view that Islam is a political system in any way
:smash:

a theocracy is a political system based on religion. a religion itself is never a political system. vatican is a christian theocracy, iran is an islamic theocracy, tibet used to be a buddhist theocracy while it was independent (not that long ago). you did not make a strong case that islam is a political system at all. in fact, what you're saying is absurd.

Hagar
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:57 PM
:worship: :kiss:
that's the whole point of being able to have a civil discussion: accept that the other have a different view and respect it;)

Hihi, I think certain views are more civil than others.
Sharia law can be seen as a different view on things. I personally find it barbarian and therefore it should not be accepted.
And some men think women need to be covered up. Well, I think they are wrong and I think it is more important that gender equality is realized than a "perfect" Islamic society in which women only show themselves to the men who "own" them.

Some views are based on a inhuman, primitive look at human nature and therefore we should go agaisnt those opinions.

Chris 84
Nov 27th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Hihi, I think certain views are more civil than others.
Sharia law can be seen as a different view on things. I personally find it barbarian and therefore it should not be accepted.
And some men think women need to be covered up. Well, I think they are wrong and I think it is more important that gender equality is realized than a "perfect" Islamic society in which women only show themselves to the men who "own" them.

Some views are based on a inhuman, primitive look at human nature and therefore we should go agaisnt those opinions.

Inhuman and primitive sum up your views on Muslims pretty well :)

Bumsby
Nov 27th, 2006, 08:37 PM
Islam is a political system
Are we really discussing this? :rolleyes:

I am a Christian and I don't understand Islam as a religion; I think that, if both Christianity and Islam are interpreted in an extreme way, my opinion is that Islam easily ends up being more violent and less compatible with freedom and democracy.

BUT, for both God's and Allah's sake, Islam is NOT a political system!!! It is not a theocracy, period, this is not a matter of opinion or taste. Islam is a religion, while a theocracy is the integration of political and spiritual power in a way that does not allow a distinction between the two.

We've had Christian theocracies here and there throughout history, even though they've disappeared now. And it's true that currently the only existing theocracies are Muslim.

Yet, it doesn't make Islam a political system at all, as shown by the fact that many real, practicing Muslims live in non-theocratic political systems :rolleyes: :shrug:

Lord Nelson
Nov 27th, 2006, 08:47 PM
are you suggesting that only islamic theocracies exist or have existed? or that only islamic ones call themselves "republics" :p
Ok there used to be a Buddhist theocratic state but that no longer is the case. China annexed it and that is good I should say. Maybe Bhutan is one today but the King has more power than monks. As for Christian theocratic states they don't exist today.India and Nepal are not Hindu theocratic states. And Japan is not a Shinto theocratic state even though the Emperor is treated like deity.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 27th, 2006, 08:53 PM
Hihi, I think certain views are more civil than others.
Sharia law can be seen as a different view on things. I personally find it barbarian and therefore it should not be accepted.
And some men think women need to be covered up. Well, I think they are wrong and I think it is more important that gender equality is realized than a "perfect" Islamic society in which women only show themselves to the men who "own" them.

Some views are based on a inhuman, primitive look at human nature and therefore we should go agaisnt those opinions.

Ironic that you would say that, since your post is one of the most primitive and judgemental arguments I have ever heard. Christians/Jews/Hindus etc will never earn the respect of Muslims if they keep spouting narrowminded value based judgements such as these. Resolving differences between religions is difficult, and it will never fully be achieved, but respect begets respect. It's a long, hard process, and hatred will only make it more difficult.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 27th, 2006, 08:55 PM
Ok there used to be a Buddhist theocratic state but that no longer is the case. China annexed it and that is good I should say. Maybe Bhutan is one today but the King has more power than monks. As for Christian theocratic states they don't exist today.India and Nepal are not Hindu theocratic states. And Japan is not a Shinto theocratic state even though the Emperor is treated like deity.

So you're opposed to Muslims "invading" European culture, but you're okay with the Chinese annexing Tibet?!

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 09:00 PM
Are we really discussing this? :rolleyes:

I am a Christian and I don't understand Islam as a religion; I think that, if both Christianity and Islam are interpreted in an extreme way, my opinion is that Islam easily ends up being more violent and less compatible with freedom and democracy.

BUT, for both God's and Allah's sake, Islam is NOT a political system!!! It is not a theocracy, period, this is not a matter of opinion or taste. Islam is a religion, while a theocracy is the integration of political and spiritual power in a way that does not allow a distinction between the two.

We've had Christian theocracies here and there throughout history, even though they've disappeared now. And it's true that currently the only existing theocracies are Muslim.

Yet, it doesn't make Islam a political system at all, as shown by the fact that many real, practicing Muslims live in non-theocratic political systems :rolleyes: :shrug:

I may be confused, but wasn't it you who smashed my head (the smiley that is) when making the point Islam was a religion not a political system?

samsung101
Nov 27th, 2006, 09:16 PM
It is a religion of peace.
There is nothing to worry about!

Sure.


The rise of violent Islam, yes, we have a worry.

But, our nation, like many others, doesn't want to
worry about it.


Where is the moderate Muslim?The non-violent Islamic
population that is ready to stand up to the violent Islamic
population?

Seriously, the west and world would embrace a peaceful
Islamic movement. I don't see it on the horizon.


Doesn't exist today.

Not that we in America are shown.

We'd rather ignore it, or blame ourselves for all the hate.

Again, not all Muslims are terrorists, and not all Muslims are out
to kill Westerners.

But, most of the terrorists arrested around the world, in the most
recent years of violence - last two decades - have been Muslim.
From Indonesia, Europe, Middle East, and South America and Asia.

That's a clear trend.
A trend we don't want to address.


May not have to.
We may be too late already.

Lord Nelson
Nov 27th, 2006, 09:27 PM
So you're opposed to Muslims "invading" European culture, but you're okay with the Chinese annexing Tibet?!

Tibet was a theocratic state and was only independant for a short period of time. So yes I support the annexation of Tibet. It is much better being part of China. If it was independant again then who should be th ruler? The Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama or some other lama???? Maybe a PM or President????:confused:
As for the Islamic invasion I am against it. They can come to Europe but they should blend in our society and adopt our values.

Bumsby
Nov 27th, 2006, 09:31 PM
I may be confused, but wasn't it you who smashed my head (the smiley that is) when making the point Islam was a religion not a political system?
go into the context of discussion:

you said religions were not political systems in response to someone saying there were Muslim theocracies nowadays, if I'm not wrong.

I thought you meant to say, "you're wrong, there can't be such a thing as a theocracy, because the definition of religion and political systems are different"

In that case, MY response to you was "there are theocracies indeed, today, and are Muslim. That definition you are talking about is recent and local history and some parts of the world today are gone back to the middle ages".

But since that poster kept insisting that the equation religion = political system was valid everywhere all the time (or so I got that, at that point), I made my distinctions.

I hope that's clearer :p

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 09:34 PM
go into the context of discussion:

you said religions were not political systems in response to someone saying there were Muslim theocracies nowadays, if I'm not wrong.

I thought you meant to say, "you're wrong, there can't be such a thing as a theocracy, because the definition of religion and political systems are different"

In that case, MY response to you was "there are theocracies indeed, today, and are Muslim. That definition you are talking about is recent and local history and some parts of the world today are gone back to the middle ages".

But since that poster kept insisting that the equation religion = political system was valid everywhere all the time (or so I got that, at that point), I made my distinctions.

I hope that's clearer :p

Somewhat yes, but my late night headache might prevent me from getting it completely. ;)

I think you misinterpreted my earlier post, but I will have to read back somewhat to be completely sure.

James
Nov 27th, 2006, 09:41 PM
It seems to be a case of misunderstanding now that I read it. The point I was making was that religion is by definition something that binds together people, giving meaning in life to those that seek it. Elements of a religion may be applied in law systems, but that does not make religion a political system. I did not say there were no theocracies which consider themselves Muslim. Their law therefore may contain elements of Islam, but that does mean the Islam is a political system.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 27th, 2006, 09:45 PM
Tibet was a theocratic state and was only independant for a short period of time. So yes I support the annexation of Tibet. It is much better being part of China. If it was independant again then who should be th ruler? The Dalai Lama, the Panchen Lama or some other lama???? Maybe a PM or President????:confused:
As for the Islamic invasion I am against it. They can come to Europe but they should blend in our society and adopt our values.

If you, or anyone you know were sent to the Middle East for a job opportunity, would you openly adopt their culture? You can't ask something of another people that you personally would be against doing.
And I'm also curious...do you feel that the Vatican should be overrun by another country, since it is a ruled by the Bishop of Rome?

Bumsby
Nov 27th, 2006, 10:15 PM
It seems to be a case of misunderstanding now that I read it. The point I was making was that religion is by definition something that binds together people, giving meaning in life to those that seek it. Elements of a religion may be applied in law systems, but that does not make religion a political system. I did not say there were no theocracies which consider themselves Muslim. Their law therefore may contain elements of Islam, but that does mean the Islam is a political system.
I was trying to make exactly the same point :p

All's well that ends well ;)

Parsley
Nov 27th, 2006, 10:50 PM
For those who are comparing Judaism, Christianity and Islam and try to assert whether one religion is better than others in terms of freedom etc, I want to remind one thing:

Judaism came before Christianity and Islam came 5-6 centuries after Christ.

If you want to make a proper comparison, compare Islam of today with Christianity of five centuries ago.

Rollo
Nov 28th, 2006, 12:13 AM
If you want to make a proper comparison, compare Islam of today with Christianity of five centuries ago.

If we take that comparison it would mean Islam would be going through its "Reformation", which was a bloody process for Europe, but also saw a lot of positive developments.

I'd like to add a personal comment about the women/clothing issue. Since the West preaches "freedom", why can't women dress in whatever fashion they darn want too? Whether it's a personal statement or a political statement (and often it's both) I don't see what difference it makes. At the very least we ought to practice what we preach.

Bumsby
Nov 28th, 2006, 12:22 AM
If we take that comparison it would mean Islam would be going through its "Reformation", which was a bloody process for Europe, but also saw a lot of positive developments.
*cheers loud for Islam Reformation* :bounce:

I'd like to add a personal comment about the women/clothing issue. Since the West preaches "freedom", why can't women dress in whatever fashion they darn want too? Whether it's a personal statement or a political statement (and often it's both) I don't see what difference it makes. At the very least we ought to practice what we preach.
There are two levels here. I think the West is uncomfortable with female Muslim traditional dresses in two cases:

1) when NO ONE is encouraged or allowed to show symbols of religious affiliation; this happens in some cases (as in French public schools) because the West is mostly SECULAR

2) when the burka covers women's faces; it's a civil / legal problem, because for reasons of public order (to prevent crimes, thefts, or to make their authors recognizable) it is forbidden to hide one's face.

In every case, what the West forbids to Muslim women, it forbids to everyone else.

Apoleb
Nov 28th, 2006, 12:32 AM
1) when NO ONE is encouraged or allowed to show symbols of religious affiliation; this happens in some cases (as in French public schools) because the West is mostly SECULAR

uh-huh, these are just French oppressive traditions. I fidn it hard to believe how anyone can look favoroubly at rules limiting one's freedom of religious expression and practise. This is nothing to be proud about.

In every case, what the West forbids to Muslim women, it forbids to everyone else.

:haha: This argument reminds me of some of the vomit Republicans like to spew about gay marriage: "gays can marry women like everyone else." :weirdo:

Bumsby
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:02 AM
uh-huh, these are just French oppressive traditions. I fidn it hard to believe how anyone can look favoroubly at rules limiting one's freedom of religious expression and practise. This is nothing to be proud about.
Having survived Western theocracies and living in a world where theocracies still exist, I am very proud about our secularism.

:haha: This argument reminds me of some of the vomit Republicans like to spew about gay marriage: "gays can marry women like everyone else." :weirdo:
:yawn:
obviously it has nothing to do with that: also some Christians would probably like to show religious symbols, not just Muslims; and also real thiefs would like to have the freedom to cover themselves from head to toe, not just Muslim women (although for different reasons). But this is justly forbidden to everyone.

These are freedoms we all renounce to: nothing to do with your argument that gays can't marry men (not even women could marry men in that case, men would just not be "marriable" by anyone).

Veritas
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:46 AM
In other words they are allowed to be hostile towards us but not us towards them . Sorry but not in my books. I always believe in an eye for an eye.

No, you either misunderstood what I wrote or decided to only take issue with certain points.

I never said or implied extremists groups are "allowed" to be hostile to anyone, whether it's against non-Muslims or Muslims themselves. If you're gonna put a spin on my comments then at least try to stick to what I said.

My point is that peace between countries won't be achieved if neither side is willing to understand where the other's coming from. Islamists blame most of their country's problems on the West, while the West tends to see these movements as only an evil one where foreign policies of countries like the U.S. had no hand in. It's a neverending process because both sides are too proud to come to a compromise.

I'm not denying there are opportunists like bin Laden who use their wealth to fund these networks. But there are also people in these groups who joined more because their lives took a turn for the worst and see this as the only recourse for what little life opportunity they've got. And Western interference in a lot of the Middle East's affairs is one of the reasons why things have turned out badly.

If you think the "eye for an eye" approach is the best way to go about solving this conflict, then by all means go ahead and attack. But don't expect the other side to meekly submit because you've just given them more reason to keep up with their murderous ploys. An "eye for an eye" works both ways, and it doesn't stop anything.

Apoleb
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:18 AM
Having survived Western theocracies and living in a world where theocracies still exist, I am very proud about our secularism.


Stop lumping the whole "Western" world together. The attitude of France towards religious expression is very different from other so-called "Western" countries.

Hagar
Nov 28th, 2006, 08:57 AM
Ironic that you would say that, since your post is one of the most primitive and judgemental arguments I have ever heard.

What is primitive and judgemental about saying it like it is?
Is Islam a pacifist religion? Hell no!!! Does Islam consider women to be equal to men? Absolutely not!!! I will only believe they do the day that men start wearing headscarves.
And comparing Islam with Christianity of the Middle Ages, no problem, but we are 2006 now and the Middle Ages are long gone. Time for Islam to grow up and accept the rules of modern societies.

But hey, if you want to believe Europe is so much better off by accepting all the Islamic whims, go ahead. Let's see how Europe looks in 20 years when we now accept headscarves, apply positive discrimination (= give the jobs to the least integrated in our society), teach Arab in schools. I think that in 20 years I will have the means to leave Europe if things are getting too bad here, I hope for you that you will be able to do the same...

Somebody said that there were less problems for Muslims in the USA. That is because there represent a far smaller proportion of the population and because not just any Muslim can come to the USA. America's immigration policy is a lot more stringent. Therefore those who come are educated and are usable on the American job market. In Europe, however, it is not the elite, but the poor uneducated from rural areas who come. The elite has no need to come to Europe. And before you are shocked at what I am saying here, this does not come from me but from North African people I know.

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:02 AM
oh how good it is to see people criticising a religion who have never set a foot in a muslim country nor have made the effort to understand how they live and what traditions are :rolleyes: well done the stupid media! :worship: :o

Hagar
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:11 AM
oh how good it is to see people criticising a religion who have never set a foot in a muslim country nor have made the effort to understand how they live and what traditions are :rolleyes: well done the stupid media! :worship: :o

Why on earth would I have to try to understand that religion? There is no law that says that I have to understand it.
I see, hear and read enough things about that religion every day in the city I live in, and I don't like the information that I get.
I have read articles and books about Islam, and I even speak about Islam with Algerian neighbours of mine. And they share my opinion about a lot of aspects of Islam.

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:19 AM
right so you take the right to discuss and judge it but don't want to try to understand it :scratch: gosh that's pretty obnoxious, but that's nothing we didn't know is it...

fifiricci
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:37 AM
oh how good it is to see people criticising a religion who have never set a foot in a muslim country nor have made the effort to understand how they live and what traditions are :rolleyes: well done the stupid media! :worship: :o

I believe its called "bigotry" Yas. You might also want to remember that up to 40% of Belgians were quite happy to see the Jews carted off without explanation in the 1930s and 40s (which when you think about it is a whopping 50% of the number of people who say their cats prefer Whiskas and all the more frightening for that!). :eek:

fifiricci
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:40 AM
If you want to make a proper comparison, compare Islam of today with Christianity of five centuries ago.

You mean the christianity of the "renaissance" when the papacy was riddled with corruption and hypocrisy and subjugated millions to a life of dogma induced slavery to the church? Oh yes lets!! :lol:

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:44 AM
I believe its called "bigotry" Yas. You might also want to remember that up to 40% of Belgians were quite happy to see the Jews carted off without explanation in the 1930s and 40s (which when you think about it is a whopping 50% of the number of people who say their cats prefer Whiskas and all the more frightening for that!). :eek:
well if you look for a similar statistic for the french that probably goes well over 50% :tape:

fifiricci
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:49 AM
well if you look for a similar statistic for the french that probably goes well over 50% :tape:

Tut tut, honestly you Europeans are such a bigoted lot ;)

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:51 AM
Islam is !NOT! a political system.

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:54 AM
Why on earth would I have to try to understand that religion? There is no law that says that I have to understand it.
I see, hear and read enough things about that religion every day in the city I live in, and I don't like the information that I get.
I have read articles and books about Islam, and I even speak about Islam with Algerian neighbours of mine. And they share my opinion about a lot of aspects of Islam.



^^

That right there is what normal people call unhealthy obsession.:tape:

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:55 AM
Tut tut, honestly you Europeans are such a bigoted lot ;)
us europeans? :lol: is Swansea far away from anything to do with Europe? :devil:

Renaissance
Nov 28th, 2006, 10:14 AM
Why on earth would I have to try to understand that religion? There is no law that says that I have to understand it.
I see, hear and read enough things about that religion every day in the city I live in, and I don't like the information that I get.
I have read articles and books about Islam, and I even speak about Islam with Algerian neighbours of mine. And they share my opinion about a lot of aspects of Islam.

You and your Algerian neighbours are very clever religion scholars ...oh yeah for sure

look at your posts, sometimes you are close to hysteria .:help:

fifiricci
Nov 28th, 2006, 10:36 AM
us europeans? :lol: is Swansea far away from anything to do with Europe? :devil:

Yes! :lol:

Sam L
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:02 PM
What is primitive and judgemental about saying it like it is?
Is Islam a pacifist religion? Hell no!!! Does Islam consider women to be equal to men? Absolutely not!!! I will only believe they do the day that men start wearing headscarves.
And comparing Islam with Christianity of the Middle Ages, no problem, but we are 2006 now and the Middle Ages are long gone. Time for Islam to grow up and accept the rules of modern societies.

But hey, if you want to believe Europe is so much better off by accepting all the Islamic whims, go ahead. Let's see how Europe looks in 20 years when we now accept headscarves, apply positive discrimination (= give the jobs to the least integrated in our society), teach Arab in schools. I think that in 20 years I will have the means to leave Europe if things are getting too bad here, I hope for you that you will be able to do the same...

Somebody said that there were less problems for Muslims in the USA. That is because there represent a far smaller proportion of the population and because not just any Muslim can come to the USA. America's immigration policy is a lot more stringent. Therefore those who come are educated and are usable on the American job market. In Europe, however, it is not the elite, but the poor uneducated from rural areas who come. The elite has no need to come to Europe. And before you are shocked at what I am saying here, this does not come from me but from North African people I know.

Hagar, this is so true. The only thing I disagree with you is that you keep saying if things go bad you will leave Europe. What? You're just going to give up like that? The time to fight is now. The time for change is now. I don't think a defeatist attitude is good.

Sam L
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:03 PM
Islam is !NOT! a political system.

Sorry Alina but all evidence points to otherwise. Look, this is NOT a personal attack, you know I'm not a prejudiced person but you and I both know that there are extremist aspects of Islam that has taken shape as a political system and that threatens the non-muslim world. You know this, and you know that we need to fight this together. This is what I'm talking about.

Sam L
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:08 PM
If we take that comparison it would mean Islam would be going through its "Reformation", which was a bloody process for Europe, but also saw a lot of positive developments.

I'd like to add a personal comment about the women/clothing issue. Since the West preaches "freedom", why can't women dress in whatever fashion they darn want too? Whether it's a personal statement or a political statement (and often it's both) I don't see what difference it makes. At the very least we ought to practice what we preach.

What's that saying again? Your freedom to swing your fist ends when it's about to hit my face or something?

Same thing here Rollo. The burqa should be rid of for security reasons. Imagine if a woman (of whatever race, colour, heritage or religion) comes into a cafe or restaurant wearing a burqa. She could be hiding anything underneath it and it will make the people really uneasy.

I just think that if people are going to migrate to a new country and call that country home they need to make a few sacrifices. They're coming to a western country and saying "Hi I want to live here, I want to call this place home, please accept me." They need to show more humility. Rather than turning up and saying "Look I'm going act, speak and do things like I did in my old country. I'm going to make this country the same as the one I lived in." If the latter is the attitude they want to take, they should be shown the door.

Hagar
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:19 PM
You might also want to remember that up to 40% of Belgians were quite happy to see the Jews carted off without explanation in the 1930s and 40s

And where on earth do you get that figure from? Do you think they did a poll back then? I'd like to know your source for these figures. There has never been blatant antisemitism in Belgium, and a lot of Belgian citizens have risked their lives while hiding Jewish people.

Hagar
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:29 PM
You and your Algerian neighbours are very clever religion scholars ...oh yeah for sure

look at your posts, sometimes you are close to hysteria .:help:

Most hysteria in this thread can be found among those who want at all costs to defend Islam.
There is no need for me to be a scholar in religion. I have a degree in political sciences, I know a thing or two about how a society should be organized and I have opinions about what makes it work and what destabilizes it. There needs to be a core of common values and norms and this implies choices. If a society opts for gender equality, then a society cannot accept that women are covered up because of religious regions in public places and events.

Hagar
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:32 PM
who have never set a foot in a muslim country

Well, since you speak of a "muslim country", at least one problem is solved: Islam is also a political system.
I haven't seen anyone speak about a "catholic" or a "protestant" country, so there must indeed be a difference.

Never set a foot in a muslim country... You are right. Please give me the name of one muslim country where I will be safe as a woman who does not wear a headscarf, and I'll immediately visit it. :p

Sam L
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Well, since you speak of a "muslim country", at least one problem is solved: Islam is also a political system.
I haven't seen anyone speak about a "catholic" or a "protestant" country, so there must indeed be a difference.

Never set a foot in a muslim country... You are right. Please give me the name of one muslim country where I will be safe as a woman who does not wear a headscarf, and I'll immediately visit it. :p

There isn't one!

Also, you raise an important point. No one speaks about a catholic or protestant country now but about 600 years ago Spain was a catholic country with catholic monarchs. And guess what they did they expelled the Jews. Luckily Spain has changed into a modern secular society with modern values. The islamic world is going through that same phase and they need to stop it right now.

azdaja
Nov 28th, 2006, 01:46 PM
I haven't seen anyone speak about a "catholic" or a "protestant" country, so there must indeed be a difference.
some european parties tried to include a clause about christianity in the eu constitution and declare the whole continent to be "christian". that's how safe "our" secularism is.

we also have religion lessons at schools, crosses in every classroom and similar stuff. catholics have to pay church taxes. you can safely say that austria is a catholic country, noone will complain.

trivfun
Nov 28th, 2006, 02:01 PM
The bashing of Islam will stop once you see blue-eyed Islam becoming a reality. This is true with Christianity, Judaism, and Hinduism. You can talk philosophy and beliefs. But if that person is a blue-eyed blond, the bashing will stop and everyone starts being understanding. It is all about appeal.

BUBI
Nov 28th, 2006, 02:22 PM
some european parties tried to include a clause about christianity in the eu constitution and declare the whole continent to be "christian". that's how safe "our" secularism is.

we also have religion lessons at schools, crosses in every classroom and similar stuff. catholics have to pay church taxes. you can safely say that austria is a catholic country, noone will complain.

That's a very good point. Christianity is taught in public schools in Finland and Lutheran church gets their share from taxes that all businesses pay.... I want to see the separation of church and state in my own country first, then I can start complaining about others.

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:16 PM
Well, since you speak of a "muslim country", at least one problem is solved: Islam is also a political system.
I haven't seen anyone speak about a "catholic" or a "protestant" country, so there must indeed be a difference.

Never set a foot in a muslim country... You are right. Please give me the name of one muslim country where I will be safe as a woman who does not wear a headscarf, and I'll immediately visit it. :p

Pakistan.VERY few people in Pakistan especially Lahore,Karachi and Islamabad wear headscarves.BTW,Is your name Hagar in real life?If so then your Muslim translation would be Hajra.

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:25 PM
Sorry Alina but all evidence points to otherwise. Look, this is NOT a personal attack, you know I'm not a prejudiced person but you and I both know that there are extremist aspects of Islam that has taken shape as a political system and that threatens the non-muslim world. You know this, and you know that we need to fight this together. This is what I'm talking about.


Please call me Asif.And im not saying that there arent extremist issues in Pakistan.But as my sister said and i quote "This is hypocrisy.Why was an Afghan's life worth any less than an American's?" in her TIME Magazine interview.In other words why is Muslim's life or a Jew's or a Christian's life any different.I mean,People are calling The holy Quran a book of evil,etc.But if they read the real translation which many Non-Extremist Muslims have you can see that it is a sacred book just like The Injil and the Taurat.or words,Torah and Bible.

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:27 PM
and by the way,what wrong with Teaching Arabic.Oh no,is it another form of spreading terrorism.Huh!!!!!!If some one says Assalam-O-Alaikum to you will you think they're threatening you??Thats just dumb!!

Hagar
Nov 28th, 2006, 03:50 PM
some european parties tried to include a clause about christianity in the eu constitution and declare the whole continent to be "christian". that's how safe "our" secularism is.

Well, be assured that I am not one of the Europeans who want that clause to be included in the EU constitution.

Parsley
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:00 PM
Well, since you speak of a "muslim country", at least one problem is solved: Islam is also a political system.
I haven't seen anyone speak about a "catholic" or a "protestant" country, so there must indeed be a difference.

Never set a foot in a muslim country... You are right. Please give me the name of one muslim country where I will be safe as a woman who does not wear a headscarf, and I'll immediately visit it. :p

Albania, Turkey.

Start packing your bags.

Rollo
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:15 PM
Hi there Sam :wavey:

Posted by Sam What's that saying again? Your freedom to swing your fist ends when it's about to hit my face or something?

C'mon now-you know I'm not a pacifist.

The burqa should be rid of for security reasons. Imagine if a woman (of whatever race, colour, heritage or religion) comes into a cafe or restaurant wearing a burqa. She could be hiding anything underneath it and it will make the people really uneasy.

You have a point about burqa's -but I have two thoughts:

1. Has a crime ever been committed in a burqa?
2. Does it end there? In other words, would banning a burqa (for security reasons) lead to banning headscarves, jilbabs, etc? If that's the road you're heading down I'm 100% against it.

I just think that if people are going to migrate to a new country and call that country home they need to make a few sacrifices. They're coming to a western country and saying "Hi I want to live here, I want to call this place home, please accept me." They need to show more humility. Rather than turning up and saying "Look I'm going act, speak and do things like I did in my old country. I'm going to make this country the same as the one I lived in." If the latter is the attitude they want to take, they should be shown the door.

I half-agree with you here. Things like accepting welfare from a nation and then preaching to destroy it (as some Islamic clerics have done) is beyond reason. And it is time for Europe to wake up to that sort of threat.

But if someone is living their life without harming others then they should be allowed the same liberties anyone else enjoys.

Rollo
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:20 PM
Posted by Hagar Never set a foot in a muslim country... You are right. Please give me the name of one muslim country where I will be safe as a woman who does not wear a headscarf, and I'll immediately visit it. :p

Have I got a country for you to visit Hagar!

If you ever get the chance visit Indonesia. It's full of beautiful beaches, friendly people, and loads of culture.

Having lived there for over a year I can tell you you don't have to run around wearing a headscarve, let alone a burqa. (The one exception to that would be if you visit a mosque, where proper attire is required).

Malaysia is also a wonderful place to visit:)

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:41 PM
There isn't one!
right no there isn't :rolleyes: I wonder how I'm still alive myself... really :tape:

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 28th, 2006, 04:51 PM
What is primitive and judgemental about saying it like it is? ...
Time for Islam to grow up and accept the rules of modern societies.


Well it's primitive because you're making an ethnocentric judgement, treating your set of beliefs as the standard to which all other beliefs should be judged. You're point about Islam not being a modern society further speaks of your bigotry and your bias. Just because Islamic society is different than the society in which you live, doesn't mean it's not modern. I thought people stopped believing/preaching crap like this when colonialism ended and the notion of the "white mans burden" went out of fashion; Apparently I am wrong.

Why on earth would I have to try to understand that religion? There is no law that says that I have to understand it.

There's a giant difference between understanding and believing. How can you form intelligent, valuable opinions on something you don;t even attempt to understand?



I just think that if people are going to migrate to a new country and call that country home they need to make a few sacrifices. They're coming to a western country and saying "Hi I want to live here, I want to call this place home, please accept me." They need to show more humility. Rather than turning up and saying "Look I'm going act, speak and do things like I did in my old country. I'm going to make this country the same as the one I lived in." If the latter is the attitude they want to take, they should be shown the door.

SamL, how would you respond, then, to the various ethnic and cultural groups that come to North America, move to the big cities (NYC, LA, Toronto etc.) and form their own cultural enclave? Should all these people be shown the door? Many adhere to the cultures of the "old country", while speaking their native tongue, wearing "non-Western clothing" etc, and I'm curious to know what you think of them/wonder what you suggest we "do" with them.

There isn't one!
The Vatican is a Catholic country

Steffica Greles
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:04 PM
I'm not sure where this thread has gone, so let me just add my contribution, however disjointed.

Racial profiling

No, I don't like the idea. The idea of separating Muslims -- and mostly Muslim men -- in security checks is difficult to square with my liberal principles of recognising individuality. Such moves would be not only fraught with the assumption that all Muslims are Asian, when we know that this is not necessarily always going to be the case, but they would leave the possibility more open for white Muslim terrorists, few though they may be, and other white extremists or grudge bearers to sail through security unnoticed.

Moreoever, the measure may be wholly counter-productive in harrassing not only Muslims, but specifically young men of Asian and perhaps some of African appearance, simply for being the hue that they are. Are these young men not exactly the kind we are trying to reconcile with their nationalities?

However.

I would be interested to know whether some of those who have opposed racial profiling would be as fervently against the phenomenon had the profiled been white. We accept as a given that if a black church is bombed in a southern American state, the most likely culprits are going to be white and male. The Police are not going to search for black men unless they have any reason to point them in that direction. In Britain, when we were faced with the IRA, Irish people, or people of Irish descent, were targetted. I did not hear many anti-racist voices lamenting the targetting of Irish people when the IRA were planting bombs in public houses and commercial areas where blacks regularly walked.

So is racial profiling, or profiling full stop (i.e by sex, appearance, etc), not the reality in any criminal investigation?

That is the question that needs to be addressed. I've already stated that I don't like racial profiling, but I would like to hear a debate on that topic.

fifiricci
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:13 PM
And where on earth do you get that figure from? Do you think they did a poll back then? I'd like to know your source for these figures. There has never been blatant antisemitism in Belgium, and a lot of Belgian citizens have risked their lives while hiding Jewish people.

It was published in an article in the Independent, a UK newspaper, just a few months ago. I'm not making this up believe me! Go in there and do a search if you want to source it completely. There's been blatant anti semitism everywhere at one time or another, Belgium included. I do believe in the 1930s when Jews were moving around trying to escape persecution by the Nazis, large numbers of Jews who tried to settle in Belgium were denied visas.

Its also true that many people tried to hide the Jews, I'm not denying that fact, but I guess its not anywhere near as many as you would like to believe. I understand that after the war many jokes were made about the number of citizens from occupied countries who claimed amazing feats of bravery and valour, after the event. If all that was true and everyone was being so brave in such large numbers, it makes you wonder how 6 million jews and other persecuted minorities ever made it to the camps!

GrassGOAT
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:16 PM
I prefer the Czech Republic and its (mostly) atheism :p

KV
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:20 PM
It was published in an article in the Independent, a UK newspaper, just a few months ago. I'm not making this up believe me! Go in there and do a search if you want to source it completely. There's been blatant anti semitism everywhere at one time or another, Belgium included. I do believe in the 1930s when Jews were moving around trying to escape persecution by the Nazis, large numbers of Jews who tried to settle in Belgium were denied visas.

Its also true that many people tried to hide the Jews, I'm not denying that fact, but I guess its not anywhere near as many as you would like to believe. I understand that after the war many jokes were made about the number of citizens from occupied countries who claimed amazing feats of bravery and valour, after the event. If all that was true and everyone was being so brave in such large numbers, it makes you wonder how 6 million jews and other persecuted minorities ever made it to the camps!
The question how many voted for extreme right in this days? I think quite alot. I think you have a valid point.

Steffica Greles
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:46 PM
Well it's primitive because you're making an ethnocentric judgement, treating your set of beliefs as the standard to which all other beliefs should be judged. You're point about Islam not being a modern society further speaks of your bigotry and your bias. Just because Islamic society is different than the society in which you live, doesn't mean it's not modern. I thought people stopped believing/preaching crap like this when colonialism ended and the notion of the "white mans burden" went out of fashion; Apparently I am wrong.

Islamic societies are modern -- you're right about that. They are contemporary.

But we must be careful about saying that we can't make "ethnocentric" judgements about other cultures. For a start, Islam is a religion and not an ethnicity. Of course there are overlaps in the way "Muslims" are understood, but the religion is written theology which is adhered to. If I oppose conservatism or socialism or liberalism, am I "politiocentric"? How far are we going to take these terms? Or is it just people, mostly hypocrites of one sort or another, emotionally blackmailing people to keep them quiet?

I make judgements about all religions. In fact, I make judgements about all cultures -- including my own. Some cultures canibalise. Some marry children at the age of 12. Some force women to wear veils. Some execute homosexuals. Do you not judge them?

What we must understand in the West, is that we cannot force them to change. We can lead by example and show that flourishing societies are liberal and tolerant. Less stick and more carrot. Britain, France, America, Germany all went through implosive revolutions of their own kind. Foisting democracy on a country is a contradition in terms: democratic values can only be learned.

In so far as understanding other cultures, I would agree that this is no reflection on the people. Not so long ago in Britain women could not vote, homosexuality was illegal until 1967, etc. I do not read British history and imagine the protagonists as inherently bad.

But we need to be careful about avoiding "ethnocentric judgements", otherwise we will never have any appeal to those within oppressive societies who wish to follow our lead.

SamL, how would you respond, then, to the various ethnic and cultural groups that come to North America, move to the big cities (NYC, LA, Toronto etc.) and form their own cultural enclave? Should all these people be shown the door? Many adhere to the cultures of the "old country", while speaking their native tongue, wearing "non-Western clothing" etc, and I'm curious to know what you think of them/wonder what you suggest we "do" with them.


I've already made my stance on how we should deal with Muslim terrorism clear in other threads and earlier in this one.

As for multi-culturalism, I agree with you on this one. Or, largely I do. However, if the culture of the "old country" allows a man to beat up his wife, or force his daughters to marry men against their will, or if the "old country" imposed Sharia Law, with all its despicable oppression, then we also need to be robust in making a stand while defending anybody's right to dissent. Muslims are part of a wider community -- the country in which they live. If they did not want to live within these "free" societies (inverted commas because none of us are that free or democratic, but we're at least ahead of all Islamic states), they are free to leave. So we must assume they are, by and large, happy. Religion aside, as fellow human beings, we have responsibilities to those within Muslim communities living in the West to facilitate them, as individuals, to live in freedom, within and under the aegis of our laws. Turning the other cheek for fear of the "racist" or "ethnocentric" brand would be a craven dereliction of duty.

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:50 PM
It was published in an article in the Independent, a UK newspaper, just a few months ago. I'm not making this up believe me! Go in there and do a search if you want to source it completely. There's been blatant anti semitism everywhere at one time or another, Belgium included. I do believe in the 1930s when Jews were moving around trying to escape persecution by the Nazis, large numbers of Jews who tried to settle in Belgium were denied visas.

Its also true that many people tried to hide the Jews, I'm not denying that fact, but I guess its not anywhere near as many as you would like to believe. I understand that after the war many jokes were made about the number of citizens from occupied countries who claimed amazing feats of bravery and valour, after the event. If all that was true and everyone was being so brave in such large numbers, it makes you wonder how 6 million jews and other persecuted minorities ever made it to the camps!
yes I wonder :tape:

azdaja
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:51 PM
The question how many voted for extreme right in this days? I think quite alot. I think you have a valid point.
of course. fascism was a europe-wide phenomenon back then. german army was greeted with flowers in a lot of places.

Bumsby
Nov 28th, 2006, 05:56 PM
right no there isn't :rolleyes: I wonder how I'm still alive myself... really :tape:
:scratch:
fess up, where are your bodyguards? :hehehe:

( :lol: :tape: j/k ;) )

btw, I'm not commenting on the original topic, article, etc. because I don't have time to go through the whole thread. It seems to me though, that discussions on Muslims in non-tennis are getting more and more heated these last few weeks :p (I mean, more than they were a couple of months ago :eek: )

V.Melb
Nov 28th, 2006, 06:15 PM
I have always said this... try, just TRY and build a church in a muslim country... majority will cut your hands off as u lay the first brick.
In their territory its impossible to be a Christian, the law often prevents it, if you try and defy their religion you are often met with FORCE.

On the other hand, the rules are completely different for them in Europe.... not only can they build Mosques in Christian countries. but they seem to have the right to enforce every part of THEIR relgion on LOCAL europeans.

When my parents came to Australia they BECAME Australian, When muslims go to western europe, they should make every effort to adapt their religion to the european society.... and yes, i DO beleive Islam is adaptable to a modern european way of thinking. .... enfin, i hope!

That kind of bothers me.

They dont not seem to have problems sprining up Mosques all over europe.

Steffica Greles
Nov 28th, 2006, 06:50 PM
I have always said this... try, just TRY and build a church in a muslim country... majority will cut your hands off as u lay the first brick.
In their territory its impossible to be a Christian, the law often prevents it, if you try and defy their religion you are often met with FORCE.

You're probably right. So you want to live in the same sort of society?


On the other hand, the rules are completely different for them in Europe.... not only can they build Mosques in Christian countries. but they seem to have the right to enforce every part of THEIR relgion on LOCAL europeans.

The vast majority of Muslims don't enforce their religion on anybody. There are a few who would, that is true. There are many evangelical Christians who would do the same, believe me.

When my parents came to Australia they BECAME Australian, When muslims go to western europe, they should make every effort to adapt their religion to the european society.... and yes, i DO beleive Islam is adaptable to a modern european way of thinking. .... enfin, i hope!

They dont not seem to have problems sprining up Mosques all over europe.

First of all they don't have problems springing up mosques all over Europe because legally they are allowed to do so. We fought our own revolutions for religious tolerance and many were persecuted before religious freedom was brought about. I believe that Australia is also a country where those who are not harming others (as 99.9999% of Muslims are not) can worship in peace.

If one religion is banned, then why not others? And while you go about it, why not ban other ideas that the state doesn't like? Those societies are tyrannies in the mould of Hitler or Stalin.

And lastly, what is an "Australian"? Is it a person who lives in Australia, or is it somebody specifically non-Muslim?

Why can a Muslim not be an Australian?

Martian Willow
Nov 28th, 2006, 06:59 PM
Malaysia is also a wonderful place to visit:)

Unless you're planning to have sex, obviously. :)

Martian Willow
Nov 28th, 2006, 07:08 PM
Islam is !NOT! a political system.

Islamism certainly is: the Taliban took over the government of Afghanistan and instituted laws and punishments based on Islam. Thats a political movement. Even Karzais democratic government has/will institute a vice police which ensures Islamic standards of behaviour are met. Thats a political movement. Next door is the Islamic Republic Of Pakistan. Thats like a political system, don't you think? In Somalia Islamists have set up Sharia courts to enforce Islamic law. Sounds kind of political to me. When a relative of one of the 7/7 bomber was asked what it would take to stop Islamist terrorism, he said it would stop when Britain submits itself to the rule of Islam. That sounded rather political, too. :)

I suppose as long as it doesn't actually affect westerners they can keep their heads buried in the sand, but I imagine they will be rather upset when it does. But then it will be too late. :D

Parsley
Nov 28th, 2006, 07:14 PM
Islamism certainly is: the Taliban took over the government of Afghanistan and instituted laws and punishments based on Islam. Thats a political movement. Even Karzais democratic government has/will institute a vice police which ensures Islamic standards of behaviour are met. Thats a political movement. Next door is the Islamic Republic Of Pakistan. Thats like a political system, don't you think? In Somalia Islamists have set up Sharia courts to enforce Islamic law. Sounds kind of political to me. When a relative of one of the 7/7 bomber was asked what it would take to stop Islamist terrorism, he said it would stop when Britain submits itself to the rule of Islam. That sounded rather political, too. :)

I suppose as long as it doesn't actually affect westerners they can keep their heads buried in the sand, but I imagine they will be rather upset when it does. But then it will be too late. :D

catherine:

can you answer two questions?

1) where are you from?

2) in which century did Islam emerge?

Apoleb
Nov 28th, 2006, 07:24 PM
Well, since you speak of a "muslim country", at least one problem is solved: Islam is also a political system.
I haven't seen anyone speak about a "catholic" or a "protestant" country, so there must indeed be a difference.

I hear people speaking about the Judeo-Christian values of the "West" all the time, and the irony is that most Islam bashers here constantly bring up the point that Muslims in the West need to live up to its Christian societies.

The poster who said "Muslim country" obviously only meant countries with a majority of Muslims. So your inference that this means Islam is political is as dumb as you are.

V.Melb
Nov 28th, 2006, 08:14 PM
Why do I not tolerate it? The mosques being built?!

Because at 5am its praying time, and everyone gets to know about it, even the non muslims.... 'allah...aiiiaahhh... allah, waaaiiilllahhh...." gets chanted throughout the city...
Then, again around 3 in the afternoon, it starts again.... "Aaaalllaaah, akbaaaaah, waaaiiilah...."
let me just say, it doesnt remind me that im in a European Society.

azdaja
Nov 28th, 2006, 08:22 PM
Why do I not tolerate it? The mosques being built?!

Because at 5am its praying time, and everyone gets to know about it, even the non muslims.... 'allah...aiiiaahhh... allah, waaaiiilllahhh...." gets chanted throughout the city...
Then, again around 3 in the afternoon, it starts again.... "Aaaalllaaah, akbaaaaah, waaaiiilah...."
let me just say, it doesnt remind me that im in a European Society.
they don't do that here, but i used to live right across the street from a church and i have to say there is no sound that i hate more than church bells :tape: i'd rather listen to a muslim prayer 5 times a day than that damn bell every 15 minutes, european or not :mad:

of course, the best thing would be for them all to shut up.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 28th, 2006, 08:30 PM
they don't do that here, but i used to live right across the street from a church and i have to say there is no sound that i hate more than church bells :tape: i'd rather listen to a muslim prayer 5 times a day than that damn bell every 15 minutes, european or not :mad:

of course, the best thing would be for them all to shut up.

So true! There are 5 churches within a few blocks of my house, and we hear bells all the time.

I don't see how some people think it's any different than Muslims being called to prayer.

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 08:34 PM
of course, the best thing would be for them all to shut up.
yes :lol: going to Morroco and being woken up every single night at 4 am by the mosk does get on my nerves :mad: as much as I have huge respect that religion, I find it annoying :p

GrassGOAT
Nov 28th, 2006, 08:51 PM
When I worked in retail I worked with these two sisters from Lebanon, both whom wore the head scarves. They were quite different though. One was a very serious muslim, and a very serious person over all, and whenever she was on her breaks you'd see her in the lunch room praying. I remember it was right before she got married and no men were allowed to touch her at all.
Her sister on the other hand was quite different. Although she wore the head scarf, she did not pray on her breaks, and was just a more fun/humorous type of person to be around. She said she was "too lazy" to pray so often. It was interesting to see how different they were.

Hagar
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:37 PM
It was published in an article in the Independent, a UK newspaper, just a few months ago. I'm not making this up believe me!

HAHAHA!!! Just because it is in a newspaper makes it the truth? It's simply not possible to say what number of Belgians supported the Nazi attitude towards the Jews because no poll has been done at the time (there was a war going on and a lot of people probably did not have a clue about the Holocaust, as that was only discovered after the war).
Most collaboration in WOII in Belgium had nothing to do with antisemitism but with the dream of a number of Flemish prominent figures to seperate from the Frenchspeaking part of Belgium and be part of one big German empire.
Antisemitism was less important in Belgium as it was in the Netherlands and Germany for the simple reason that there were less Jewish people in Belgium.

Anyway, I find it so funny how the discussions about Islam on this forum always end in comparing people with Nazis. There is absolutely no parallel.

Yasmine
Nov 28th, 2006, 09:50 PM
well where do you get all your info on muslims Hagar, if not in the biased media? :scratch: have you ever gone to a muslim country? My guess is probably not so in that case your opinion has no validity either...

Steffica Greles
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:11 PM
HAHAHA!!! Just because it is in a newspaper makes it the truth? It's simply not possible to say what number of Belgians supported the Nazi attitude towards the Jews because no poll has been done at the time (there was a war going on and a lot of people probably did not have a clue about the Holocaust, as that was only discovered after the war).
Most collaboration in WOII in Belgium had nothing to do with antisemitism but with the dream of a number of Flemish prominent figures to seperate from the Frenchspeaking part of Belgium and be part of one big German empire.
Antisemitism was less important in Belgium as it was in the Netherlands and Germany for the simple reason that there were less Jewish people in Belgium.

Anyway, I find it so funny how the discussions about Islam on this forum always end in comparing people with Nazis. There is absolutely no parallel.

For the record, antisemitism was rife across Europe before World War 2.

The Jews had endured some of the worst attrocities since the 11th century right across Europe. I know they were expelled from England in the 13th century, under Edward I. By that point, England was one of the last to expel the Jews. France had expelled the Jews many times. Some of the worst attrocities, such as crowds of people being drowned in the River Danube, were committed in Germany.

Antisemitism in Germany was a recurring theme throughout history, whereas by c17th century fear of the Jews had largely died down in Britain. Having said that, I only have to listen to my grandmother to hear snipets of antisemitism. For example, "I don't like him - he looks Jewish," or, "She's pretty, but there's something Jewess about her that I don't like". Yes, I've heard it all. And it's quite common among people of her age group.

That doesn't mean that she's a Nazi. She's quite horrified by the Holocaust. "It was a terrible, terrible thing". Hehe. But yes, I can detect that in the 1930s in Britain there was some resentment of Jewish people.

Bumsby
Nov 28th, 2006, 11:43 PM
I have always said this... try, just TRY and build a church in a muslim country... majority will cut your hands off as u lay the first brick.
In their territory its impossible to be a Christian, the law often prevents it, if you try and defy their religion you are often met with FORCE.

On the other hand, the rules are completely different for them in Europe.... not only can they build Mosques in Christian countries. but they seem to have the right to enforce every part of THEIR relgion on LOCAL europeans.
Protestants were persecuted for centuries by Catholic Europe, and forced to emigrate. You could build a Catholic church in North America, but being a Protestant in Europe was a whole other matter. That was like from XVI to at least XIII century.

In Somalia Islamists have set up Sharia courts to enforce Islamic law. Sounds kind of political to me. When a relative of one of the 7/7 bomber was asked what it would take to stop Islamist terrorism, he said it would stop when Britain submits itself to the rule of Islam. That sounded rather political, too. :)
It does, because that's what a FUNDAMENTALIST has said. This guy doesn't see the possibility of Islam being just another religion, unlike some rich, high-class, "secular" Muslim living somewhere in North America.

I haven't seen anyone speak about a "catholic" or a "protestant" country, so there must indeed be a difference.
I speak about Catholic and Protestant countries all the time, because those religions have had a huge influence on our political arrangements. BUT after that, we've grown to accept "modernity", democracy, freedom, etc. and have become increasingly secular. Ok, the protestants were faster than the Catholics. And it looks like the Muslims, in general, are going to be even slower. But the time will probably come when NO Muslim sees their religion as having to replace a secular political system. If the Italian Roman Catholics made it, anyone can :p

In brief, my point is, many Muslims DO live in a world which is a few centuries backward, socially and economically. But they can make it. It will depend on their "moderates", just like those modern Catholics brought Catholic countries into modernity.

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 29th, 2006, 01:12 AM
Islamism certainly is: the Taliban took over the government of Afghanistan and instituted laws and punishments based on Islam. Thats a political movement. Even Karzais democratic government has/will institute a vice police which ensures Islamic standards of behaviour are met. Thats a political movement. Next door is the Islamic Republic Of Pakistan. Thats like a political system, don't you think? In Somalia Islamists have set up Sharia courts to enforce Islamic law. Sounds kind of political to me. When a relative of one of the 7/7 bomber was asked what it would take to stop Islamist terrorism, he said it would stop when Britain submits itself to the rule of Islam. That sounded rather political, too. :)

I suppose as long as it doesn't actually affect westerners they can keep their heads buried in the sand, but I imagine they will be rather upset when it does. But then it will be too late. :D


If a country adds Islamic to their official title doesnt mean its a political.It justmeansthat majority ofthe people in Pakistan are Muslims.As it was a country that was made so that Muslims could be free of the Hindu slavery in the Subcontinent.I am from Pakistan and there are many Foreigners livng in Pakistan esp. Lahore.Who i actually know.

fifiricci
Nov 29th, 2006, 07:49 AM
well where do you get all your info on muslims Hagar, if not in the biased media? :scratch: have you ever gone to a muslim country? My guess is probably not so in that case your opinion has no validity either...

:lol: Nice one Yas!

And the article in the Independent wasn't subjective either. They were publishing data from recently revealed public record archives. But as you say, this poster will only believe what she wants to believe, so there seems little point in providing her with any evidence - it will just go over her head.

And I also think that the Nazi persecution of the Jews and the Holocaust provides us with a very useful lesson that is very applicable in these troubled times of ours (at least I hope so). If you consider that Nazi "teachings" persuaded people that Jews must be eradicated because they were "the root of all evil" and succeeded in making people think that they were by polarising those views, its not a million miles from some of the ranting and raving that you get on here which would try and persuade the softer brained ones that women wearing the burkha/headscarves or even muslims of any description are out to get us all. :rolleyes:

Sam L
Nov 29th, 2006, 01:18 PM
If a country adds Islamic to their official title doesnt mean its a political.It justmeansthat majority ofthe people in Pakistan are Muslims.As it was a country that was made so that Muslims could be free of the Hindu slavery in the Subcontinent.I am from Pakistan and there are many Foreigners livng in Pakistan esp. Lahore.Who i actually know.

Hindu slavery?

See this is the problem I have. Where are countries like Israel and India painted as demons by the Islamic world? This makes me think Islam is a political system. Islamism as catherine said exists. It is like a political mentality and ideology. It's like the communist bloc, the islamic bloc.

Bumsby
Nov 29th, 2006, 01:28 PM
:yawn:
by this broad definition of political system, every religion can be one.

The Sacred Inquisition burned witches and everyone with a mind of their own (which was interpreted as "heresy"). That was until around the XVII century or so.

Did that mean Catholic Christianity was a political system? No (except in the Church state where they owned the territory). But it was an instrument which often came as great help to the local monarchs / emperors.

Sam L
Nov 29th, 2006, 01:42 PM
Hi there Sam :wavey:



C'mon now-you know I'm not a pacifist.



You have a point about burqa's -but I have two thoughts:

1. Has a crime ever been committed in a burqa?
2. Does it end there? In other words, would banning a burqa (for security reasons) lead to banning headscarves, jilbabs, etc? If that's the road you're heading down I'm 100% against it.

Hey Rollo!! :wavey:

I'm not heading down that path. I'm not expert in Islamic clothing but for instance, I'll be against banning yarmulkes. IMHO, even if no terrorism has been committed in a burqa it presents a threat. It is a possibility that should be avoided. Also, it creates too many problems in society like identification and employment issues. It's like that guy who got kicked off a plane because he was wearing a shirt with arabic script. Islamic terrorism is a real and present danger and people are rightfully fearful. Why would you feed that fear by provoking them with shirts like that and burqas? My advice to them is to integrate and not draw attention like that. And if they want to continue to do that, I think they should be banned so that a harmonious society can exist. For me, it's like a sign of deviance.

I half-agree with you here. Things like accepting welfare from a nation and then preaching to destroy it (as some Islamic clerics have done) is beyond reason. And it is time for Europe to wake up to that sort of threat.

Exactly!

Lord Nelson
Nov 29th, 2006, 02:03 PM
If a country adds Islamic to their official title doesnt mean its a political.It justmeansthat majority ofthe people in Pakistan are Muslims.As it was a country that was made so that Muslims could be free of the Hindu slavery in the Subcontinent.I am from Pakistan and there are many Foreigners livng in Pakistan esp. Lahore.Who i actually know.
Well we were colonized by the Mughal Empire but fortunately the British liberated us from those colonizers. That is in part why I decided to have Nelson (after admiral Nelson) as my alias for this forum, in gratitude from freeing us from the mughal invaders.

Who are the foreigners living in Lahore? Arab fundementalists, 'jihadists'?
Man I am so glad that Aurangzeb's dream to Islamize Delhi never came true. We are no longer your slaves and are now stronger than you. Our Kashmir will never fall into your hands. We should learn to respect ourselves as neighbours. But that is idelaistic and I am a realist and know that we will be in conflict till mankind ends on Earth.

Steffica Greles
Nov 29th, 2006, 02:42 PM
Well we were colonized by the Mughal Empire but fortunately the British liberated us from those colonizers. That is in part why I decided to have Nelson (after admiral Nelson) as my alias for this forum, in gratitude from freeing us from the mughal invaders.

Ah. I always wondered about whether Nelson pertained to Admiral Nelson. Nice to know that someone thinks the British did something good ;)

We should learn to respect ourselves as neighbours. But that is idelaistic and I am a realist and know that we will be in conflict till mankind ends on Earth.

England and France?

France and Germany?

Most places and Germany?

And I would say England and Scotland, but given our thread the other day I would be contradicting myself!

All of these places have been arch enemies at one time or another and managed to put aside their differences in the interests of the common good. If this world lasts another hundred years, which is obviously in doubt at the moment, is there not some chance that India and Pakistan will have healed their rift?

Admittedly it is paramount that Islamic fundamentalists do not win power in Pakistan. And India must continue to develop as a democracy and an economy.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 29th, 2006, 04:17 PM
I'm not heading down that path. I'm not expert in Islamic clothing but for instance, I'll be against banning yarmulkes. IMHO, even if no terrorism has been committed in a burqa it presents a threat. It is a possibility that should be avoided. Also, it creates too many problems in society like identification and employment issues.

I'm curious to know...what acts of terrorism can be committed in a burqa that cannot be committed in a sari, a wedding dress, jeans and a t-shirt, a trenchcoat, or by someone wearing a yarmulke?

Asif_Nawaz
Nov 29th, 2006, 04:19 PM
Hindu slavery?

See this is the problem I have. Where are countries like Israel and India painted as demons by the Islamic world? This makes me think Islam is a political system. Islamism as catherine said exists. It is like a political mentality and ideology. It's like the communist bloc, the islamic bloc.


Well,its true.The Muslims in the sub-continent prior to partition were in Slaves.Im not portraying India as a demon,Im just saying that just because a country puts the word Islamic in their official title it doesn't make Islam look like a political system.To answer your question Lord Nelson,The foreigners that live in Pakistan are Caucasian.Ther are Germans,French,Brits,Americans most of whom have lived in Pakistan for quite a large period of time and have not experienced anything dangerous.I didnt know you were from India,And yes,Admiral Nelson was a great man,Have you read the book written about him?

Hagar
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:11 PM
From the Belgian news yesterday and today:

1) Principals of school attacked by father and brother of pregnant girl.
In brief: 16 year old Turkish girl is pregnant from Moroccan boy. Is afraid of reaction parents and goes to people on the board of her school. They decide to mediate with the parents. Result: the family, educated and civilized as they are, decide to consider it as a matter of honour and goes ballistic. So school and responsible authorities decide that the girl is not safe with her family for the moment (a decision which has definitely not been taken lightly). Father and brother go to the principals and beat them up.
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Antwerpen/artikel.asp?art={75B33615-37BB-444F-B5D6-A4E133C1D237}

2) Algerian guy has a disagreement with his landlord and risks to be evicted of the house he lives in. Instead of trying to deal with it in a normal way, he threatens to blow up the house. Result: street needs to be evacuated, police has to come, etc...
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_027

3) 2 Turkish men arrested for attempted manslaughter
The two guys had a quarrel with 2 other Turkish men in Ghent, took out a gun and started shooting.
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_048

So people are wondering why I am reading articles about Muslims??? I have no choice, every newspaper I read brings me a story about Muslims... And it's rarely a story that convinces me that they are well integrated.

And then they are surprised that we do not believe that multiculturalism is a good thing.

Sam L
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:24 PM
From the Belgian news yesterday and today:

1) Principals of school attacked by father and brother of pregnant girl.
In brief: 16 year old Turkish girl is pregnant from Moroccan boy. Is afraid of reaction parents and goes to people on the board of her school. They decide to mediate with the parents. Result: the family, educated and civilized as they are, decide to consider it as a matter of honour and goes ballistic. So school and responsible authorities decide that the girl is not safe with her family for the moment (a decision which has definitely not been taken lightly). Father and brother go to the principals and beat them up.
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Antwerpen/artikel.asp?art={75B33615-37BB-444F-B5D6-A4E133C1D237 (http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Antwerpen/artikel.asp?art=%7B75B33615-37BB-444F-B5D6-A4E133C1D237)}

2) Algerian guy has a disagreement with his landlord and risks to be evicted of the house he lives in. Instead of trying to deal with it in a normal way, he threatens to blow up the house. Result: street needs to be evacuated, police has to come, etc...
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_027

3) 2 Turkish men arrested for attempted manslaughter
The two guys had a quarrel with 2 other Turkish men in Ghent, took out a gun and started shooting.
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_048

So people are wondering why I am reading articles about Muslims??? I have no choice, every newspaper I read brings me a story about Muslims... And it's rarely a story that convinces me that they are well integrated.

And then they are surprised that we do not believe that multiculturalism is a good thing.

Incredible Hagar. I sympathise with the Belgians. :sad: Those people in those stories are just RIDICULOUS!

But let me say this, multiculturalism can be a good thing if people are willing to assimilate and really wants to call their new country their home.

The problem with multiculturalism is that some people in the host country tells the new people bring your languages, your cultures and your ways to the new country. Um no, you bring yourself and adapt to the language, culture and ways of the host country.

Because if you don't, the above is what happens. And when the above happens the nationalist fascists will love it because they have an excuse against anyone not from that country.

Sam L
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:26 PM
I'm curious to know...what acts of terrorism can be committed in a burqa that cannot be committed in a sari, a wedding dress, jeans and a t-shirt, a trenchcoat, or by someone wearing a yarmulke?

Bombs can be hidden in a burqa. Terrorist acts like this has been committed in Israel so it can happen anywhere.

A sari? Well sorry but I've never heard of Hindu terrorists. Wedding dress? only in a movie.

azdaja
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:35 PM
Well sorry but I've never heard of Hindu terrorists.
well, you are hearing about islamic terrorists because you choose to pay attention only to them. until the recent wars started the most prolific suicide bombers had been the tamil tigers. and i heard about a recent report that says that only around 25% of the terrorist attacks worldwide can be attributed to islamic extremists and that at a point in time where islamic extremism is at a historic high.

and hagar's complaints about "multiculturalism" are nothing new. racists claim black people are more prone to crime and violent behaviour, xenophobic people say the same thing about immigrants from other cultures :yawn:

Princeza
Nov 30th, 2006, 01:38 PM
Bombs can be hidden in a burqa. Terrorist acts like this has been committed in Israel so it can happen anywhere.

A sari? Well sorry but I've never heard of Hindu terrorists. Wedding dress? only in a movie.

u should read more news & focus your attention elsewhere

GrassGOAT
Nov 30th, 2006, 03:45 PM
Bombs can be hidden in a burqa. Terrorist acts like this has been committed in Israel so it can happen anywhere.

A sari? Well sorry but I've never heard of Hindu terrorists. Wedding dress? only in a movie.

:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Yasmine
Nov 30th, 2006, 03:58 PM
Bombs can be hidden in a burqa. Terrorist acts like this has been committed in Israel so it can happen anywhere.

A sari? Well sorry but I've never heard of Hindu terrorists. Wedding dress? only in a movie.
sorry I can only laugh at that :lol: thanks for making my day...

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:00 PM
From the Belgian news yesterday and today:

1) Principals of school attacked by father and brother of pregnant girl.
In brief: 16 year old Turkish girl is pregnant from Moroccan boy. Is afraid of reaction parents and goes to people on the board of her school. They decide to mediate with the parents. Result: the family, educated and civilized as they are, decide to consider it as a matter of honour and goes ballistic. So school and responsible authorities decide that the girl is not safe with her family for the moment (a decision which has definitely not been taken lightly). Father and brother go to the principals and beat them up.
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Antwerpen/artikel.asp?art={75B33615-37BB-444F-B5D6-A4E133C1D237}

2) Algerian guy has a disagreement with his landlord and risks to be evicted of the house he lives in. Instead of trying to deal with it in a normal way, he threatens to blow up the house. Result: street needs to be evacuated, police has to come, etc...
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_027

3) 2 Turkish men arrested for attempted manslaughter
The two guys had a quarrel with 2 other Turkish men in Ghent, took out a gun and started shooting.
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_048

So people are wondering why I am reading articles about Muslims??? I have no choice, every newspaper I read brings me a story about Muslims... And it's rarely a story that convinces me that they are well integrated.

And then they are surprised that we do not believe that multiculturalism is a good thing.

do you go thru a million articles and find any anti-muslim ones and post them as fast as you find them :rolleyes:

got nothing better to do in life :o :o

Hagar
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:04 PM
do you go thru a million articles and find any anti-muslim ones and post them as fast as you find them :rolleyes:

got nothing better to do in life :o :o

Your reaction is very stupid. I did not need to go through a million articles, they were on the front page of the websites of these newspapers.

KV
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:32 PM
do you go thru a million articles and find any anti-muslim ones and post them as fast as you find them :rolleyes:

got nothing better to do in life :o :oWell said.

Josh
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:44 PM
From the Belgian news yesterday and today:

1) Principals of school attacked by father and brother of pregnant girl.
In brief: 16 year old Turkish girl is pregnant from Moroccan boy. Is afraid of reaction parents and goes to people on the board of her school. They decide to mediate with the parents. Result: the family, educated and civilized as they are, decide to consider it as a matter of honour and goes ballistic. So school and responsible authorities decide that the girl is not safe with her family for the moment (a decision which has definitely not been taken lightly). Father and brother go to the principals and beat them up.
http://www.gva.be/nieuws/Antwerpen/artikel.asp?art={75B33615-37BB-444F-B5D6-A4E133C1D237}

2) Algerian guy has a disagreement with his landlord and risks to be evicted of the house he lives in. Instead of trying to deal with it in a normal way, he threatens to blow up the house. Result: street needs to be evacuated, police has to come, etc...
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_027

3) 2 Turkish men arrested for attempted manslaughter
The two guys had a quarrel with 2 other Turkish men in Ghent, took out a gun and started shooting.
http://www.standaard.be/Artikel/Detail.aspx?artikelid=DMF30112006_048

So people are wondering why I am reading articles about Muslims??? I have no choice, every newspaper I read brings me a story about Muslims... And it's rarely a story that convinces me that they are well integrated.

And then they are surprised that we do not believe that multiculturalism is a good thing.

One correction : the Turkish family in the first article are actually Assyrian christians not muslims.
It's not because someone comes from Turkey, Palestine, Syria,... that one is automatically a muslim. This actually proves that religion is not the main problem but rather pre-islamic traditions in many of those countries.

Yasmine
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:45 PM
do you go thru a million articles and find any anti-muslim ones and post them as fast as you find them :rolleyes:

got nothing better to do in life :o :o
:worship: :worship: :worship: spot on!

Josh
Nov 30th, 2006, 04:54 PM
One more thing : the articles don't mention the religious affiliation of the people in question so it's not a given that they are muslims, very likely but not a given fact. Also people who are born and raised in Belgium and have the Belgian nationality are Belgians. The press should stop mentioning their ancestry cause it's basically telling them that they are not real Belgians and never will be; they will always be Arabs or Turks or Romanians or whatever so I can imagine that it must be quite frustrating for people with foreign ancestry to always be told that they are not Belgians.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:18 PM
you can find articles that say whatever you like. Are all of those cases tragic? Yes. Violence is always a horrible thing. DO they prove that Muslims are the root of all evil, as some people here are trying to suggest...not even close.

And as for the suggestion that there are no wedding dress/yarmulke/jeans and t-shirt wearing terrorists...thank you for making me laugh.

azdaja
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:18 PM
One more thing : the articles don't mention the religious affiliation of the people in question so it's not a given that they are muslims, very likely but not a given fact. Also people who are born and raised in Belgium and have the Belgian nationality are Belgians. The press should stop mentioning their ancestry cause it's basically telling them that they are not real Belgians and never will be; they will always be Arabs or Turks or Romanians or whatever so I can imagine that it must be quite frustrating for people with foreign ancestry to always be told that they are not Belgians.
true. something to think about.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:40 PM
Incredible Hagar. I sympathise with the Belgians. :sad: Those people in those stories are just RIDICULOUS!

But let me say this, multiculturalism can be a good thing if people are willing to assimilate and really wants to call their new country their home.

The problem with multiculturalism is that some people in the host country tells the new people bring your languages, your cultures and your ways to the new country. Um no, you bring yourself and adapt to the language, culture and ways of the host country.

I'm glad I in live one of the most multicultural countries on earth, where the view of multiculturalism is MUCH broader than your definition. If Canada were to adhere to the brand of multiculturalism that you suggest, the population would drop substantially, as millions of people (Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc) would be shipped back to their "homeland" as punishment for bringing their "ways" to this country.

Because if you don't, the above is what happens. And when the above happens the nationalist fascists will love it because they have an excuse against anyone not from that country.

I assume from this answer that there are quite a few members of various national fascist parties posting in this thread...

Yasmine
Nov 30th, 2006, 05:48 PM
One more thing : the articles don't mention the religious affiliation of the people in question so it's not a given that they are muslims, very likely but not a given fact. Also people who are born and raised in Belgium and have the Belgian nationality are Belgians. The press should stop mentioning their ancestry cause it's basically telling them that they are not real Belgians and never will be; they will always be Arabs or Turks or Romanians or whatever so I can imagine that it must be quite frustrating for people with foreign ancestry to always be told that they are not Belgians.
:worship: that's a very good post and very true in a country like France as well... for some reasons we have trouble accepting the fact that we're multicultural and that's what makes it so rich (culture wise)

GrassGOAT
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:34 PM
you can find articles that say whatever you like. Are all of those cases tragic? Yes. Violence is always a horrible thing. DO they prove that Muslims are the root of all evil, as some people here are trying to suggest...not even close.

And as for the suggestion that there are no wedding dress/yarmulke/jeans and t-shirt wearing terrorists...thank you for making me laugh.

But burqas and turbans hide the bombs so well!
:haha: :haha: :haha: :haha:

Hagar
Nov 30th, 2006, 08:44 PM
that we're multicultural and that's what makes it so rich (culture wise)

It depends on how civilized the cultures are. Headscarves do not make the culture of a country more rich. They make it poorer because headscarves are a symbol of the oppression of women. Yes, that is what headscarves mean and don't give me this "women want this themselves" shit. As long as men don't wear headscarves I won't believe for one nanosecond that headscarves are a neutral thing.

Muslims bring very conservative attitudes and violence to Western countries. I do not see how this can make us richer.

Dementieva_Dude
Nov 30th, 2006, 09:18 PM
It depends on how civilized the cultures are. Headscarves do not make the culture of a country more rich. They make it poorer because headscarves are a symbol of the oppression of women. Yes, that is what headscarves mean and don't give me this "women want this themselves" shit. As long as men don't wear headscarves I won't believe for one nanosecond that headscarves are a neutral thing.

Muslims bring very conservative attitudes and violence to Western countries. I do not see how this can make us richer.

You're right.... cultural richness only comes when we surround ourselves with people who share our beliefs and are equally as "civilized" as we are:rolleyes:

TheBoiledEgg
Nov 30th, 2006, 09:37 PM
It depends on how civilized the cultures are. Headscarves do not make the culture of a country more rich. They make it poorer because headscarves are a symbol of the oppression of women. Yes, that is what headscarves mean and don't give me this "women want this themselves" shit. As long as men don't wear headscarves I won't believe for one nanosecond that headscarves are a neutral thing.

Muslims bring very conservative attitudes and violence to Western countries. I do not see how this can make us richer.

would you want your daughter in a headscarf or parading around like Britney :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

you'll never know cos you probably will never have kids.

fifiricci
Dec 1st, 2006, 07:32 AM
One more thing : the articles don't mention the religious affiliation of the people in question so it's not a given that they are muslims, very likely but not a given fact. Also people who are born and raised in Belgium and have the Belgian nationality are Belgians. The press should stop mentioning their ancestry cause it's basically telling them that they are not real Belgians and never will be; they will always be Arabs or Turks or Romanians or whatever so I can imagine that it must be quite frustrating for people with foreign ancestry to always be told that they are not Belgians.

Indeed, methinks Hagar is applying her obvious prejudice here and I wonder whether these press articles appear in newspapers that lean somewhat to the right?. And if she were big enough to take her own advice, she really shouldn't believe everything that's written in the papers anyway ;)

fifiricci
Dec 1st, 2006, 07:37 AM
Muslims bring very conservative attitudes and violence to Western countries. I do not see how this can make us richer.

Wow, never one for sweeping generalisations! :help:

Seriously, I think its great that you know every single Muslim in every single Western country so that you can say with such certainty that they all have conservative attitudes and bring violence.

I must ask my very good friend Al'aa what he's done with his, because I haven't seen him use them since I met him in 1992.

:lol:

Hagar
Dec 1st, 2006, 07:45 AM
would you want your daughter in a headscarf or parading around like Britney :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Well, it sounds like you prefer a headscarf for your daughter... How sick is that?

Good news BTW. The organization "Ni putes, ni soumises" has now also a group in Brussels. And they are very clear: NO HEADSCARF!!! Of course, not everyone in the Muslim world likes this organization...

-Ph51-
Dec 1st, 2006, 08:49 AM
So cute. Fifi and Hagar...what a loving relation...
Water and fire. :lol: :angel: