quote:Originally posted by Order of the Phoenix: Graf_Genn is a man.
I never said I was a "new" member. So
I think you are missing the point. The conclusion I believe that HE (Graf_Genn) was trying to make, and forgive me for taking some liberties here MISTER Genn. He was trying to say that while a minority can change and adapt to their new surroundings, perhaps even affecting minor changes in the political climate there is NO way, short of military coup that they can COMPLETELY change the government of the majority into what they as the minority want it to be. Unless they somehow become the Majority in which case the arguement is still valid.
Nice Patronus, Phoenix. Graf_Genn seemed to me to be merely expressing a realistic view. Minorities, in any culture, simply don't have the clout to easily effect radical change.
Graf was outlining a commonly held outlook, and from what he subsequently said, it is clear that he is fully aware that minorities have an equal civil and legal footing, in secular democracies. He wasn't advocating taking rights from those whom already have them. He appeared to be simply questioning the wisdom of those immigrants declaring the wish to fundamentally change the core majority beliefs of the host nation.
Graf: ''If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps ''
Perhaps the above general point on extremism was a little difficult to extract. Auto immediately demonstrated his own biased interpretation, by stating the obvious:
''Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.''
He suggested that Graf said, ''if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one." and "be prepared for the concentration camp"" He didn't. Graf said,'' If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic ( or any other religion foreign to the majority ) then be prepared for the concentration camps.'' Spot the difference? Having failed to twist the argument, Auto reverted to his usual ''You're stupid', churlish, childish nonsense. BTW, Graf is most definitely a guy, for the paranoid out there.
The initial question asked ''Does Western culture has to get part of Islamic culture?'' My view is that it absolutely does have to - as muslims are citizens, just as jews, catholics and atheists are. Every citizen can influence a western, secular democracy, although this may take a while, and proportional representation factors need to be taken into account. Minorities, over time, can and do make a difference, and a positive one. Culture is more than just a background fabric, against which we live - it is a rich, constantly changing, vibrant reality. Extremists can advocate anything they like, within the law. That is the price of living in a secular democracy. It's what free speech is all about.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
This brings us to the details of "which part of Islamic culture?" As well as, of course, the methodology. If one will be so upset that a veiled woman has to show her face for ID pictures that one will incite a riot, I think that one is better off leaving the country. The ID card is for Identification, not pornography The BBC has been having a lot of programmes about Islam lately (wonder why? ) and one of them had a reporter visiting two imams; one very peaceful and into the relationship between God and mankind, and the other very aggressive and espousing the "conquest" dogma of the Qur'an. The former imam felt that England has been a very gracious host for Muslims, while the latter felt that all Muslims that didn't want an Islamic state were either ignorant or infidels. Of course, the latter also complained about oppression. So, again, it comes down to the details. It really isn't the peaceful Muslims that are complaining about Western culture being willing to accept aspects of Islam, because to them Islam has already been accepted.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isolation, combined with a very hostile environment would drive many Muslims to leave the U.K of their own accord.: Prince Of Nothing
Alistair, I see where your last serious response is coming from, in some respects, but I have a question on the statement above. Where exactly would British citizens go to? Immigrants, without full citizenship are in a different position...and have come from 'somewhere', do you see my point?.
Britain is well used to terrorism, following thousands of deaths, as a result of white, British, christianextremism . I think that the British public has way more sense, than to blame all muslims, for the activities of a few. The racist element in society will harden, I agree there, and prejudices will create victims of the innocent. Governments are always attempting to diminish civil rights. It's up to British citizens to ensure that they get the balance right and protect all people.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reminds me of some funny things what happened with women who were dressed fully covered, like Saoudi-Arabic women. One time I`ve met somebody who seemed to know me, but we`ve met when she was not dressed like that, so I didn`t recognise her. She started to talk and I really didn`t have a clue who she was. Painfull. Another one was a young man with a mother dressed in the same way. He seemed to hang around on the streets, doing things his mother didn`t want him to do, and every time she knew what he had done, and he got punishment from his mother. He didn`t recognise his own mother outside! Later he watched all the women`s shoes, so he could recognise her on time... Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Graf-Genn: ''It really isn't the peaceful Muslims that are complaining about Western culture being willing to accept aspects of Islam, because to them Islam has already been accepted.''
Agreed.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: Alistair, I see where your last serious response is coming from, in some respects, but I have a question on the statement above. Where exactly would British citizens go to? Immigrants, without full citizenship are in a different position...and have come from 'somewhere', do you see my point?.
Yes I see your point. However, in my theoretical scenario, the BNP is in power and most non ethnic Britons will not be made very welcome...even the citizens.
Most of them would leave and go back to their parents or grandparents' country of birth, or elsewhere I suspect.
I remember reading an article where a BNP member did talk about this; paying non natives to leave the country. Quite a few European nations are implementing this concept.
I believe it's called "repatriation."
I doubt they would be forced out, but in a post major terrorist attack atmosphere, they would likely leave of their own accord rather than stay and face overwhelming hostility and persecution.
The BNP has a severe hatred for Islam and Muslims, and would love nothing more than to get rid of them.
quote:Britain is well used to terrorism, following thousands of deaths, as a result of white, British, christian extremism . I think that the British public has way more sense, than to blame all muslims, for the activities of a few. The racist element in society will harden, I agree there, and prejudices will create victims of the innocent. Governments are always attempting to diminish civil rights. It's up to British citizens to ensure that they get the balance right and protect all people.
Obviously you're referring to the IRA. While the U.K did suffer from attacks by the IRA, attacks from Islamic fundamentalists are a different matter entirely I believe.
The IRA were bloodthirsty and violent, but they were fighting for what they considered their homeland. Also, they sometimes called ahead and warned people that they were going to blow sh*t up. No excuse I know, but compared to radical Islam where they attempt to kill the most people, it's a big difference.
Many Britons may even sympathize with their cause (minus the violence ofcourse)...and by Britons, I mean ethnic Britons.
However, I feel that most native Britons would not have the same tolerance towards Islamic fundamentalists.
Fighting for your homeland is one thing, but fighting to DESTROY BRITISH CULTURE and replace it with something hideously repressive and ALIEN would not sit well with the British people I believe.
quote:Originally posted by Order of the Phoenix: Graf_Genn is a man.
I never said I was a "new" member. So
I think you are missing the point. The conclusion I believe that HE (Graf_Genn) was trying to make, and forgive me for taking some liberties here MISTER Genn. He was trying to say that while a minority can change and adapt to their new surroundings, perhaps even affecting minor changes in the political climate there is NO way, short of military coup that they can COMPLETELY change the government of the majority into what they as the minority want it to be. Unless they somehow become the Majority in which case the arguement is still valid.
Nice Patronus, Phoenix. Graf_Genn seemed to me to be merely expressing a realistic view. Minorities, in any culture, simply don't have the clout to easily effect radical change.
Graf was outlining a commonly held outlook, and from what he subsequently said, it is clear that he is fully aware that minorities have an equal civil and legal footing, in secular democracies. He wasn't advocating taking rights from those whom already have them. He appeared to be simply questioning the wisdom of those immigrants declaring the wish to fundamentally change the core majority beliefs of the host nation.
Graf: ''If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps ''
Perhaps the above general point on extremism was a little difficult to extract. Auto immediately demonstrated his own biased interpretation, by stating the obvious:
''Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.''
He suggested that Graf said, ''if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one." and "be prepared for the concentration camp"" He didn't. Graf said,'' If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic ( or any other religion foreign to the majority ) then be prepared for the concentration camps.'' Spot the difference? Having failed to twist the argument, Auto reverted to his usual ''You're stupid', churlish, childish nonsense. BTW, Graf is most definitely a guy, for the paranoid out there.
The initial question asked ''Does Western culture has to get part of Islamic culture?'' My view is that it absolutely does have to - as muslims are citizens, just as jews, catholics and atheists are. Every citizen can influence a western, secular democracy, although this may take a while, and proportional representation factors need to be taken into account. Minorities, over time, can and do make a difference, and a positive one. Culture is more than just a background fabric, against which we live - it is a rich, constantly changing, vibrant reality. Extremists can advocate anything they like, within the law. That is the price of living in a secular democracy. It's what free speech is all about.
Seriously. did you think I expected anything else?
I've told you that before, not only are you stupid but you can not even read.
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Order of the Phoenix: He suggested that Graf said, ''if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one." and "be prepared for the concentration camp" He didn't.
NO, I'm not suggesting anything at all , SHE DID write EXACTLY THAT. She and you and all those mind readers among you can argue all you want that fact remains that she did in fact write those comments and they are racist, criminal and pure stupid. Read first what you're replying to you .
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
PS: Who is 'SHE'? Graf-Genn, as far as I know, is a guy. Graf, please would you let us know if this is correct? Auto seems to be on complete meltdown over your gender.
* Edited to fairly reflect Auto's typo. Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: Taken away from whom?
All these laws guaranteeing rights and freedoms ,in the UK for example, were enacted tens or hundreds of years ago for the benefit of the British people. According to their laws, those rights apply also to new citizens. So the question remains, take away rights from whom?
1- New citizens only: Have something like in Kuwait where there's differnent classes of citizenship.
For example "true" British have the right for Freedom Of Speech and new citizens don't!
2-Eveyone:
And end up with an oppressive and closed society.
Now the problem with option one is :
-It leaves a loop hole regarding "true" British who may want to change the government to let's say an Islamic one. Unless you come up with the Law specifically banning speech regarding Islam. Then you will need to do that with the right to peacfull assembly and so on
-The UK then can no longer advocate freedom of speech to other countries. For example, Egypt would be free to limit the rights of Copts (which in some ways it already does) to protect our way of life. Right?
You get my point. The problem is however you change the laws it will affect the "true" citizens just as it will the new citizens.
History shows that in the right circumstances, peoples' rights can easily be taken away.
My example of what happened to Japanese American citizens in WWII shows this.
Same goes for the Jews in Nazi Germany, except this was far more extreme.
I severely doubt the British gov't would put it's Muslim citizens in concentration camps without very SERIOUS consideration.
Something terrible would have to occur, ie a War with the entire Middle East, or a Nuclear attack on the U.K by Islamic radicals.
Anyway, lets play out a scenario of what could plausibly happen if the U.K is struck by a terrorist attack similar in scale to 9/11, as this is far more likely to occur than a Nuclear attack or War with the entire Middle East.
First of all, there would be massive paranoia concerning Muslims. Native Britons' hostility towards Muslims and Islam would increase a hundred fold, far more than it is today.
Secondly, emergency powers would be granted to the Prime Minister, similar to how Bush was granted powers after 9/11.
And thirdly, here's where it gets hairy.
The British National Party's popularity would increase DRAMATICALLY.
The BNP have no qualms about proclaiming their hatred for Muslims, and after the theoretical attack on British soil, their party would receive a major boost in support.
This is an extreme right, racist, pro-British party that would have no problems implementing something similar to your number (1) possibility wherein native Britons receive rights that other citizens of foreign descent do not get.
I could see them paying immigrants (especially Muslim ones) to leave, or even worse, making life for them so difficult and hostile that British Muslims leave of their own accord.
Sarkozy is doing something like this in France at the moment; paying immigrants to leave.
Besides, after such a terrorist attack, the environment in the U.K will be so hostile towards Islam and Muslims that many of them would not even need to be prompted to leave.
So all it takes is the right situation to occur. At the moment, the majority of Britons may tolerate Muslims and Islam, but this could easily change.
Graf himself has acknowledged that the mood against Islam in the U.K has darkened due to the attack in Glasgow and those car bombs in London which never detonated.
quote:I guess that's another option, isolation!
Isolation, combined with a very hostile environment would drive many Muslims to leave the U.K of their own accord.
~Alistair
First of all you're not in any way focused.
We were discussing people exercising their rights to effect changes in their community and or government, legally. I'm not talking about wars and terrorism and all that. That is a different issue altogether which I will address briefly at the end.
The way I see it is this, you can not offer people freedom of speech and then tell them they are not allowed to speak about Islam. I realize that there are limits on everything including rights and I keep asserting that for as long that they are operating within the law then they should be free to speak and advocate for an Islamic society or anything else that is within the law. That is how free societies work. Now these rights are not there for fun or because they look good on paper. They are there because poeple believe those rights are vital to preserving their quality of life. So it would be hypocritical to want those rights for yourself and deny them to others. Not to mention it is not at all practical to remove those rights for small segment of the same population.
Do you get my point? It is about NOW not what could happen if a war breaks out or another terrorist act is commited.
Now for some reason you keep bringing me examples of Nazis and the Japanese concentration camps in the US. We were suppose to use those examples as lessons to never repeat those same mistakes again. BUT, I agree that the reality is people can be led astray again as we've seen in your country with Iraq and the patriot act. So yes it is possible but you can not ask people to stop exercising their rights because some lunatic may come and try to exterminate them! That doesn't make sense at all. The problem is you see Muslims wanting the entire world to convert as fanatic, I don't. I simply see it as their right to want and advocate that for as long as they do not use force.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know what PON ! Think of what you're saying as it applies to Copts in Egypt not Muslims in the UK.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę:
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Order of the Phoenix: Graf_Genn is a man.
I never said I was a "new" member. So
I think you are missing the point. The conclusion I believe that HE (Graf_Genn) was trying to make, and forgive me for taking some liberties here MISTER Genn. He was trying to say that while a minority can change and adapt to their new surroundings, perhaps even affecting minor changes in the political climate there is NO way, short of military coup that they can COMPLETELY change the government of the majority into what they as the minority want it to be. Unless they somehow become the Majority in which case the arguement is still valid.
Nice Patronus, Phoenix. Graf_Genn seemed to me to be merely expressing a realistic view. Minorities, in any culture, simply don't have the clout to easily effect radical change.
Graf was outlining a commonly held outlook, and from what he subsequently said, it is clear that he is fully aware that minorities have an equal civil and legal footing, in secular democracies. He wasn't advocating taking rights from those whom already have them. He appeared to be simply questioning the wisdom of those immigrants declaring the wish to fundamentally change the core majority beliefs of the host nation.
Graf: ''If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps ''
Perhaps the above general point on extremism was a little difficult to extract. Auto immediately demonstrated his own biased interpretation, by stating the obvious:
''Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.''
He suggested that Graf said, ''if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one." and "be prepared for the concentration camp"" He didn't. Graf said,'' If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic ( or any other religion foreign to the majority ) then be prepared for the concentration camps.'' Spot the difference? Having failed to twist the argument, Auto reverted to his usual ''You're stupid', churlish, childish nonsense. BTW, Graf is most definitely a guy, for the paranoid out there.
The initial question asked ''Does Western culture has to get part of Islamic culture?'' My view is that it absolutely does have to - as muslims are citizens, just as jews, catholics and atheists are. Every citizen can influence a western, secular democracy, although this may take a while, and proportional representation factors need to be taken into account. Minorities, over time, can and do make a difference, and a positive one. Culture is more than just a background fabric, against which we live - it is a rich, constantly changing, vibrant reality. Extremists can advocate anything they like, within the law. That is the price of living in a secular democracy. It's what free speech is all about.
Seriously. did you think I expected anything else?
I've told you that before, not only are you stupid but you can not even read.
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee:
quote:Originally posted by Order of the Phoenix: He suggested that Graf said, ''if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one." and "be prepared for the concentration camp" He didn't.
NO, I'm not suggesting anything at all , SHE DID write EXACTLY THAT. She and you and all those mind readers among you can argue all you want that fact remains that she did in fact write those comments and they are racist, criminal and pure stupid. Read first what you're replying to you .
Would someone translate Auto's reply into sane, please? Many thanks. Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę:
We were discussing people exercising their rights to effect changes in their community and or government, legally. I'm not talking about wars and terrorism and all that.
I realize that there are limits on everything including rights and I keep asserting that for as long that they are operating within the law then they should be free to speak and advocate for an Islamic society or anything else that is within the law. That is how free societies work.
The problem is you see Muslims wanting the entire world to convert as fanatic, I don't. I simply see it as their right to want and advocate that for as long as they do not use force. [/QB]
Muslims wanting an Islamic state are fanatic.Most of them are jihaddis and see everyone non Muslim as Kaffir. Yes they may have the right in a free society to campain within the law but where is the logic in campaigning for something that will eradicate that very freedom of the society that allows them to campaign. Muslims do not have a right to want to convert the rest of the world, that is contrary to their own religion.
Posts: 3809 | From: Paradise | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Take the Dutch government for example, they are in a huge dilemma of trying to be fair to everyone. If practicing religion is allowed to everyone under the Dutch law, then they cannot ban Muslims from having their own schools and mosques.
Wheat happens is, in many of those schools and mosques, it is taught and preached that the Dutch are evil (just like Bert ) and they deserve to be terrorized and killed for being Koffar and supporters of America blablabla.
Nowadays there are strong political voices that call for closing down mosques and Islamic schools, and for those who object that it's against the constitution, it is suggested to change the constitution to make it one size fitting all: NO EXPRESSION OF RELIGION AT ALL- be it Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. Just like in France with religious symbols and the hijab ordeal.
I'm being a moderate Muslim but I still would accept the Dutch government's decision of closing down Islamic schools and worship places, although I do know that such a measure would only add manure to fire.
Posts: 8756 | From: Tax-Free Zone | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After enough bombings from the terrorists, the moderates will be accused for not policing themselves and failing to reporting extremists. That, too, is already happening, but Auto isn't aware of the world around him. Time and time again we see moderate Muslims being called to denounce terrorism. Why would that be necessary unless they under intense suspicion merely for being Muslim?
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę:
quote:Originally posted by SayWhatYouSee:
quote:Originally posted by Order of the Phoenix: Graf_Genn is a man.
I never said I was a "new" member. So
I think you are missing the point. The conclusion I believe that HE (Graf_Genn) was trying to make, and forgive me for taking some liberties here MISTER Genn. He was trying to say that while a minority can change and adapt to their new surroundings, perhaps even affecting minor changes in the political climate there is NO way, short of military coup that they can COMPLETELY change the government of the majority into what they as the minority want it to be. Unless they somehow become the Majority in which case the arguement is still valid.
Nice Patronus, Phoenix. Graf_Genn seemed to me to be merely expressing a realistic view. Minorities, in any culture, simply don't have the clout to easily effect radical change.
Graf was outlining a commonly held outlook, and from what he subsequently said, it is clear that he is fully aware that minorities have an equal civil and legal footing, in secular democracies. He wasn't advocating taking rights from those whom already have them. He appeared to be simply questioning the wisdom of those immigrants declaring the wish to fundamentally change the core majority beliefs of the host nation.
Graf: ''If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic (or any other religion foreign to the majority) then be prepared for the concentration camps ''
Perhaps the above general point on extremism was a little difficult to extract. Auto immediately demonstrated his own biased interpretation, by stating the obvious:
''Most if not all western countries offer certain freedoms to all their citizens including freedom of religion. You can not prevent Muslims from exercising their right and allow Christians.''
He suggested that Graf said, ''if you want an Islamic society, simply move to one." and "be prepared for the concentration camp"" He didn't. Graf said,'' If you start advocating that all societies should be Islamic ( or any other religion foreign to the majority ) then be prepared for the concentration camps.'' Spot the difference? Having failed to twist the argument, Auto reverted to his usual ''You're stupid', churlish, childish nonsense. BTW, Graf is most definitely a guy, for the paranoid out there.
The initial question asked ''Does Western culture has to get part of Islamic culture?'' My view is that it absolutely does have to - as muslims are citizens, just as jews, catholics and atheists are. Every citizen can influence a western, secular democracy, although this may take a while, and proportional representation factors need to be taken into account. Minorities, over time, can and do make a difference, and a positive one. Culture is more than just a background fabric, against which we live - it is a rich, constantly changing, vibrant reality. Extremists can advocate anything they like, within the law. That is the price of living in a secular democracy. It's what free speech is all about.
Seriously. did you think I expected anything else?
I've told you that before, not only are you a lovely conversationalist but you can not even be bested in a debate. Four star rating **** 4 you
Fixed. Expecto Patronum!
Posts: 35 | From: Rising From The Ashes | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Penny: Yes they may have the right in a free society to campain within the law but where is the logic in campaigning for something that will eradicate that very freedom of the society that allows them to campaign.
Very good question and in a country of Muslim majority that would be a worry but that's NOT what I've been talking about. Nevertheless to answer this questions, in a country like Egypt for example people should stop being afraid of the MB and simply campaign based on their own ideas and understanding of Islam. If people sit back and let the MB do all the work and win( in dream land) an election then they are entitled to implement the ideology for which people elected them.
But what I have been talking about is Muslims in western countries. For whatever reason you and others are implyin that those you call fanatic pose a great threat to you countries. I honestly find that very hard to believe for many reasons such as:
1- The number of Muslims who are mostly "jihaddis and see everyone non Muslim as Kaffir" ( I have no clue what you mean by jihaddis) is very small compared to the rest of the Muslim community and tiny compared the population of the country and almost non-existent compared to the entire region.
If you have reliable numbers I would be interested in knowing them
2- There are Laws to deal with those who advocate violence. If the Laws are weak, you strengthen them as best as you can with as little damage as possible to those rights and freedoms you cherish so much. No need for barbaric measures such as concentration camps and mass deportation. No need for racist or discriminatory laws.
But again the main topic did not deal with violence at all. The problem is Europeans specifically fear the change that comes from increasing number of immigrants. At least that's the impression I get. We had a little discussion a while back when the German government introduced tests of some sorts for new immigrants to take and it was not aimed at filtering out terrorists but to keep out those who can not be Germanized.
I'm guessing that the concerns you have are mostly a result of media warmongering and fear tactics employed by western ( and eastern) governments.
quote:Originally posted by Penny: Muslims do not have a right to want to convert the rest of the world, that is contrary to their own religion.
Yes we have the right "to want to convert the rest of the world" and it is NOT contrary to Islam. Unless you're implying force or violence again in which case I have no interest in the discussion.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most people do now think logical or rational, it is just a matter of feelings. Feelings of uncertainty and unsafety, in combination with large media-attention to everything what can be linked at Islam or Muslims and the insuniation that all this has been caused by that group...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The immigration issue in Europe is much different than in the U.S. because there is less tendency for the Muslim community to accept the ways and laws of their new country and a greater desire to replace these same laws with sharia law. This is the hot potato...the balance between religious freedom and intolerance. The ones who protest the loudest are the ones who take advantage of their new freedom of speech to promote intolerance of all others, often by violent means. Worldwide terrorism by radical Islamists has brought the spotlight on this issue. Europe has tried very hard to keep a hands off policy, and now they are in a position where they can keep their hands off no longer if they want their own culture to survive.
Posts: 19 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sadik12: Worldwide terrorism by radical Islamists has brought the spotlight on this issue.
Give examples of "Worldwide terrorism by radical Islamists" that was motivated by their desire for an Islamic state or anything along that line.
quote:Originally posted by sadik12: Europe has tried very hard to keep a hands off policy, and now they are in a position where they can keep their hands off no longer if they want their own culture to survive.
Keep their hand of what?
If Europeans are so worried about their culture changing they can deal with it with stricter immigration Laws that make sense. They can simply reduce the number of Immigrants they are willing to accept, that is quite reasonable.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don`t you think they did, Auto? Every particular country has its own extreme-right party, who are trying to preach hatred within the law. They use freedom of speech like an elastic and simply state that everybosy is free to get to court when they think it has been insulting. And they are insulting, really they are...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only one example of a txt pretending that this is Islam. It is about a woman and it is about the unequality and that it is permitted to use violence against her.
O Allah, as I lie here wounded, my spirit broken I hear in my head the judge’s voice as he pronounces me guilty The sentence I’ve to serve is in your words: “The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication flog each of them with a hundred stripes; let no compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by God, if ye believe In God and the Last Day; and let a party of the believers witness their punishment
Two years ago, on a sunny day, while on the souk my eyes were caught by those of Rahman, the most handsome man I have ever met. After that day, I couldn’t help but notice his presence whenever I went to the marketplace. I was thrilled when I learned that his appearance on the bazaar was not a coincidence. One day he suggested we meet in secret, and I said, ‘Yes’.
For months Rahman and I met, shared drinks and delicacies. We danced and dreamed… yeah, we built beautiful castles in the air. And we made love, on every secret meeting. As the months went by our relationship deepened. What is more, out of our love a new life started to grow. Our happiness did not go unnoticed and before long, envious eyes gave way to malicious tongues; ‘Let’s ignore these people and trust in Allah’s mercy, Rahman and I said to each other. Naive, young and in love perhaps, but we thought that your holiness was on our side. Rahman and I shared affection, trust and a deep respect for each other, how can God disapprove? Why would he?
And so we ignored the mean tongues, and together we continued to live our dream, albeit in more secrecy. O, Allah, until we were summoned to court and charged with fornication! Rahman called me a day before we were to appear before the judge. He said that his father had smuggled him out of the country. What a pity that my father happens to be a pious man, I thought. Rahman told me that he loved me and that he would pray for me. He also encouraged me to be strong and have faith in you. O Allah, how can I have faith in you? You who reduced my love to fornication? I lie here flogged – abused and shamed – in your name. The verdict that killed my faith in love is in your holy book. Faith in you…, submission to you... feels like… is self betrayal.
When I was sixteen my father broke the news to me in the kitchen. “You are going to marry Azziz; he is from a virtuous family and he will take good care of you”. When I saw pictures of Azziz instead of feeling excitement I thought of him as unattractive, and even though I did my best to see the perfect whole I could’t help but notice de faulty details: a scar on the lip, a bent nose, so much hair on the eyebrows.
My wedding day was more of a celebration of my families than of mine Once in my marital home my husband approached me Ever since then I recoil from his touch I am repulsed by his smell, even if he has just had a bath Yet, O Allah I obey his command Sanctioned by your words I let him take me Each time I push him away he quotes you “They ask thee concerning women’s courses Say: they are a hurt and a pollution So keep away from women In their courses, and do not Approach them until They are clean But when they have Purified themselves, Ye may approach them in any manner, time or place Ordained for you by God For God loves those Who turn to him constantly And he loves those who keep themselves pure and clean” So I stretch the days of my period But of course there comes a time, when I must Undress, he orders me and I submit Not to him, but to you Lately, enduring my husband is getting harder and harder O, Allah, I pray, give me the strength to endure him or I fear My faith shall weaken.
O Allah, most high You say that ‘men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because, you have given the one more (strength) than the other’. I feel, at least once a week the strength of my husband’s fist on my face O Allah most high Life with my husband is hard to bear But I submit my will to you My husband supports me from his means, Therefore I am devoutly obedient, and I guard in my husband’s absence what you would have me guard; But my husband, maintainer and protector, fears disloyalty and ill conduct on my part; he accuses me of being ungrateful to him; Like an army general on the battlefield he screams his every whim at me; Threatens never to share my bed again And goes away for nights on end I suspect to another woman I dare not ask him about her Even though family and friends whisper about him and the other woman When he comes back He always finds a reason to doubt my loyalty to him And after a series of warnings and threats he starts to beat me First lightly on my arms and legs, just as you, most high describe – ahhhuh O shall I say prescribe – in your holy book; But mostly on the face. And why? For not responding fast enough to his orders; For ironing the wrong shirt For not putting enough salt in the food For chatting too long with my sister on the phone
O, God, most elevated, submission to your will assures me of a better life in the hereafter But I feel that the price I pay for my husband’s protection and maintenance of is too high I wonder how much longer I will submit.
O Allah, most gracious, most merciful. Just as you demand of the believing woman I lower my gaze, and guard my modesty. I never display my beauty and ornaments; not even my face or hands. I never strike with my feet in order to draw attention to my hidden ornaments, not even at parties. I never go out of the house unless it is absolutely necessary; and then only with my father’s permission. When I do go out I draw my veil over my bosom as you wish.
Once in a while I sin. I fantasize about feeling the wind through my hair or the sun on my skin, perhaps on the beach. I day-dream about an extended journey through the world, imagining all the places and people’s out there. Of course I shall never see these places or meet many people because it is so important to guard my modesty in order to please you, O Allah. So I cheerfully do as you say and cover my body from head to toe except while I am in the house and with family members only. In general I am happy with my life.
However, since my father’s brother, Hakim is staying with us Things have changed! Hakim waits till I am alone at home and comes to my room. Then he orders me to do things to him, touch him in places most intimate. Since he is with us I took to the habit of wearing the veil inside the house in order to deter him. That doesn’t stop him though. Twice now he unveiled me, ripped my inner garments and raped me. When I told my mother she said she would take it up with my father. My father ordered her - and me - not to question his brother’s honour.
I experience pain each time my uncle comes to see me. I feel caged, like an animal waiting for slaughter. I am Filled with guilt and shame; and I feel abandoned, yet I am surrounded by family and friends. O Allah, Hakim is gone, now that he knows I am pregnant. For the moment I can hide my abdomen behind my veil, but sooner or later someone will notice. I shall be openly shamed and killed by my father, for not being a virgin.
When I consider this, I think of taking my life but know that in the hereafter the one who commits suicide shall never count on your mercy. O Allah, giver and taker of life. You admonish all who believe to turn towards you in order to attain bliss.” I have done nothing my whole life but turn to you. And now that I pray for salvation, under my veil, you remain silent as the grave I long for. I wonder how much longer I am able to submit!
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: First of all you're not in any way focused.
We were discussing people exercising their rights to effect changes in their community and or government, legally. I'm not talking about wars and terrorism and all that. That is a different issue altogether which I will address briefly at the end.
The way I see it is this, you can not offer people freedom of speech and then tell them they are not allowed to speak about Islam. I realize that there are limits on everything including rights and I keep asserting that for as long that they are operating within the law then they should be free to speak and advocate for an Islamic society or anything else that is within the law. That is how free societies work. Now these rights are not there for fun or because they look good on paper. They are there because poeple believe those rights are vital to preserving their quality of life. So it would be hypocritical to want those rights for yourself and deny them to others. Not to mention it is not at all practical to remove those rights for small segment of the same population.
Do you get my point? It is about NOW not what could happen if a war breaks out or another terrorist act is commited.
Now for some reason you keep bringing me examples of Nazis and the Japanese concentration camps in the US. We were suppose to use those examples as lessons to never repeat those same mistakes again. BUT, I agree that the reality is people can be led astray again as we've seen in your country with Iraq and the patriot act. So yes it is possible but you can not ask people to stop exercising their rights because some lunatic may come and try to exterminate them! That doesn't make sense at all. The problem is you see Muslims wanting the entire world to convert as fanatic, I don't. I simply see it as their right to want and advocate that for as long as they do not use force.
Auto, you still don't get it.
People value their skins more than anything.
If they think their safety and way of life is threatened, do you honestly think some "Law," "Freedom" or "Right" is going to stop them from confronting, or dealing with this threat appropriately?
The threat doesn't even have to be real. It could be imagined.
The Jews in Nazi Germany are proof enough of that.
There are so many historic examples which demonstrates the truth of what I, and Graf have been saying, that I think this shouldn't even be under dispute.
Radical Islam is the greatest threat to ISLAM itself, and it's a shame that so many Muslims can't even see it.
Radical Islam seeks to wage a Jihad against non Muslims and make all of the World submit to their version of Islam.
However, all they'll succeed in doing is fermenting the hatred of Islam and Muslims the World over, and drawing the rest of the World into conflict with Islam and Muslims.
If 9/11 had not occurred, Afghanistan and Iraq would still be under the rule of the Taliban and Saddam respectively, and would not be occupied by Western forces.
posted
Agree completely, PON, regarding the last remark: It is difficult to make a choice between bad and bad. Often I`ve heard people from Iraq stated that they`d prefered to live under Saddam, because it brought them more stability as after the Americans invaded. I don`t think that`s a rational perspective, because also under Sadam nobody was certain about anything, situations could change by just a idea of the dictator himself. Taliban were and still are an unreliable threat to all, as also Saddam has been. So, it is difficult to state what is worse; Saddam, Taliban or foreign invasion followed by national instability. I feel sorry for all that innocent people that have been and still are a victim. Once somebody said that a country is having the gouvernment that they deserve at that time, and it`s a hard remark. But, if we are honest, both countries were not ready for democracy...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: Don`t you think they did, Auto? Every particular country has its own extreme-right party, who are trying to preach hatred within the law. They use freedom of speech like an elastic and simply state that everybosy is free to get to court when they think it has been insulting. And they are insulting, really they are...
I'm not clear on what you're saying. Who are abusing the law and the right to freedom of speech, the "extreme-right party"?
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Prince of Nothing: Auto, you still don't get it.
People value their skins more than anything.
If they think their safety and way of life is threatened, do you honestly think some "Law," "Freedom" or "Right" is going to stop them from confronting, or dealing with this threat appropriately?
The threat doesn't even have to be real. It could be imagined.
The Jews in Nazi Germany are proof enough of that.
There are so many historic examples which demonstrates the truth of what I, and Graf have been saying, that I think this shouldn't even be under dispute.
If you are able to go back in time, knowing what you now, what advice would you give to Jews in 1939-1945?
quote:Originally posted by Prince of Nothing:
Radical Islam seeks to wage a Jihad against non Muslims and make all of the World submit to their version of Islam.
How are they doing that? What did/do they do to implement their plan?
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: If you are able to go back in time, knowing what you now, what advice would you give to Jews in 1939-1945?
I would have told them to leave Germany before the Nazi party began it's campaign.
It was already far too late for them to try and rectify the situation. The Jews had always been maligned in Europe for centuries, due to their separatist mentality, perceived greed and strange culture.
After World War I, Germany was in a state of ruin. The once proud and mighty nation was reduced to it's knees, and Hitler used the broken pride and haughtiness of the German people to bind them to a leash of their own making.
He took the natural dislike that most Germans had for Jews, and amplified it to alarming levels by using them as a scapegoat for every ill affecting Germany.
And people believed him....because they wanted to!
There are parallels between the Jews and the Muslims. Both are seen as not inherently European, and both are generally disliked.
If Muslims allow the dislike of non Muslims toward them and their religion to grow to the extent that was seen in old Europe against the Jews, then it is certainly possible that a second Holocaust may rear it's ugly head; but this time instead of Jews, it would be Muslims who are targeted.
I would like to believe that the World has changed since the 1930s and 1940s, and that people would not allow such a thing to occur.....again.
But, History has a way of repeating itself in more ways than one.
quote:Originally posted by Prince of Nothing: How are they doing that? What did/do they do to implement their plan?
First of all, let me state that many notorious radical Muslims have stated publically that they wish to bring the entire World under the umbrella of Islam (or atleast their version), whether through peaceful or violent means.
They make no bones about this, and they feel it is their God given duty.
As for how they are doing this..
In the past, Islam spread through both peaceful and violent means.
Muslims have a very high birth rate, and once they'd colonized a new land, it was only a matter of time before they outnumbered the natives and brought them under the fold of Islam, usually through dhimmitude.
Eventually, the native non Muslims would convert to Islam to enjoy full civilian rights, rather than keep to their own ways and suffer dhimmi status.
Anyway, this is the main strategy.
Europe has an ageing population and a slow birth rate, while the Muslim population is much younger and with a far higher birth rate.
If Muslims outbreed native Europeans, then it's conceivable that they could "Islamicize" the European continent in a century or two.
That is, if things don't change...
The other alternative, is using violence and this is what makes radical Islam so dangerous to Islam itself and ordinary Muslims.
Radical Muslims have the misguided view that by resorting to terrorism, they can influence nations and bend them to their will.
This is a fallacy, and it has never worked....even in Muslim nations.
They intend to unite the Muslim World, and then War against non Muslims.
However, it's just a pipe dream.
Even if they could unite the Muslim lands, logic tells us they would never be able to conquer the rest of the globe using force, as they would be outnumbered 5:1 and seriously outgunned.
It's an insane delusion, but they still believe it because when you believe you're fighting for God/Allah, then anything is possible I suppose.
As to how this ties in with 9/11, it doesn't..
Al Qaeda meant 9/11 to act as a warning and a deterrent for Western nations that interfere in or occupy Muslim lands; even if they are invited (ie Saudi Arabia, Kuwait).
Ofcourse, this backfired, and instead of Westerners ceasing to meddle in the affairs of Muslim nations, they are now meddling with a far greater intensity than they ever were before.
Now Al Qaeda and other similar organizations have to contend with the idea of a democratic Iraq and Afghanistan, and thousands of non Muslim soldiers occupying the Middle East.
And should they strike another "blow for Islam," they'll find that the situation would only worsen.
In this, they are stupid beyond belief. If I were Osama bin Laden, my strategy would NOT involve attacking Westerners on their own soil, as this would threaten my long term plans.
They are simply too powerful to f*ck with.
Instead, my strategy would be to destabilize Muslim nations which have puppet governments that pander to Western interests.
Mass terrorism would be out of the question, as this could potentially turn the populus against me. Instead, targeted assassinations would be my primary employ, along with alot of religious propaganda.
Eventually, if the average Muslim realizes that the secular puppet governments aren't worthy to lead them, they would revolt of their own accord and do my dirty work for me.
Thats how I would do it. It would take decades, or even a lifetime, but once the average Muslim sees that I have his/her best interest at heart, they would give their support.
But these radicals aren't very bright, and with their current methods, have doomed not only themselves, but potentially millions of other Muslims.
posted
To stay at the subject (because all extremists are doing this) Yes, the extreme right politicans are trying to create an atmosphere that is basically against Islam and at the same time they try to make it look as it is totally authorised to have these thoughts, under the imagineering as (state-)safety and abuse. Examples: The prohibition for girls to wear a veil, because it should be dangerous when doing gymnastics. The prohibition for women to wear a burqa, because there could be hided weapons or bombs under it. ( Within the law this is a difficult one, because they should have to forbid all kinds of similar clothes, like a Santa Claus costume) The prohibition of Islamic schools, while there are numbers of Christian schools. The prohibition of building mosques, while there are Christian churches. Calling the Islam an backward religion, with aspects that are in fight with the constitutional laws.(Christianity also is) They are creating an atmosphere that Muslims are a treat to their culture, safety, norms and values, while it is normal and from all ages that a culture is changing by it`s population composition and the situation in the world.
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę:
quote:Originally posted by ?????: Don`t you think they did, Auto? Every particular country has its own extreme-right party, who are trying to preach hatred within the law. They use freedom of speech like an elastic and simply state that everybosy is free to get to court when they think it has been insulting. And they are insulting, really they are...
I'm not clear on what you're saying. Who are abusing the law and the right to freedom of speech, the "extreme-right party"?
quote:There are parallels between the Jews and the Muslims. Both are seen as not inherently European, and both are generally disliked.
Not only are they both generally disliked, but it is for same reason: They maintain their allegiance to their culture and religion higher than their allegiance to the nation which hosts them. In times of national and regional turmoil, the people who are not remotely loyal to the state do not fare well.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Graf, that's not exactly correct. Jews have been the historic scapegoat of choice. If there's a problem, it's because the Jews run the banks...or the movie industry...or the dirty Jew lawyers, just to site a few examples. Muslims are associated with fear, thus the common misconception that all Muslims are terrorists.
As far as assimilation is concerned, Jews worldwide (again, unless they are of the extreme sects) have embraced the ways of their "host nations." They even did this in Germany in the 30's. Therefore, many Jews during the Nazi era, could not believe that their homeland would turn against them, and so they did not leave before things got out of control.
Posts: 19 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sadik12: Actually, Graf, that's not exactly correct. Jews have been the historic scapegoat of choice. If there's a problem, it's because the Jews run the banks...or the movie industry...or the dirty Jew lawyers, just to site a few examples. Muslims are associated with fear, thus the common misconception that all Muslims are terrorists.
As far as assimilation is concerned, Jews worldwide (again, unless they are of the extreme sects) have embraced the ways of their "host nations." They even did this in Germany in the 30's. Therefore, many Jews during the Nazi era, could not believe that their homeland would turn against them, and so they did not leave before things got out of control.
Of course, because they saw theirselves as citizen`s first, their religion was second. The same as it is by many Muslims, Catholics, etc. My religion also doesn`t take an important part of how I am as a person, my personality does! So, it`s a bit weird to realise that people might have objections against you, because of your religion. It`s a rather dumb point of view, judging people on their reigion... Nevertheless we all do it sometimes. We have thoughts by identities without even knowing the people. There are cartoon-albums of Asterix, where the Germans all are yelling in bold and gothic letters, the British all are pale, drunk, and uncivilised, the Syrian is a sneaky weasel, and the Egyptian the man with numbers of ridiculous demands. The Celtish (Asterix and Obelix) are strong brave fighting men. It`s a stereotype, based on historic events and expierences. It`s funny, but in fact it`s a mirror to ourselves...
Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Jews have been the scapegoat of choice because they always have held their allegiance to their culture and God first and foremost. You are stating the modern reasons, yet overlook that this precedent is evidenced in ancient times in Jewish relations with Egypt, Persia, Greece, Macedonia, Rome, Mongolia; and continued even in the Imperial Prussian era. They always rejected rule of other imperial powers because they held that their religion stated no man could be "god-king" or "son of god" which happened to be the popular concept of emperor for each of the forementioned cultures. Greece and Rome didn't see it necessary to eradicate Egyptians, for example, because the Egyptians declared Alexander and Caesar to be Pharaohs in their respective eras. The Jews on the other hand, rejected the rule of said emperors, in the name of God. The Jews did not embrace Germany in the 30's any more than Muslims embrace the United States presently. 5 out of 7 leaders of the German communist party in the 30's were Jews, and they were continuing their ongoing effort to erase the remnants of Kingdom of Prussia (which in the 30's was called the Free State of Prussia.) The communist party is what pressed for the German surrender of World War One, even though Germany was winning the war at the time, and naturally the soldiers and their families felt betrayed. The fact that the communist party was led by Jews is what initially led the Germans to believe that the Jews were once again being loyal to their interests rather than that of the state, as the kibbutz concept that was practiced by Jews in Palestine was harmonious with communism. Communism, however, was not at all harmonious with empire, which is essentially what Germany was at the time. Which is in part why Hitler's subsequent campaign of establishing a new empire (Deutsches Reich) was so popular.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: If you are able to go back in time, knowing what you now, what advice would you give to Jews in 1939-1945?
I would have told them to leave Germany before the Nazi party began it's campaign.
It was already far too late for them to try and rectify the situation. The Jews had always been maligned in Europe for centuries, due to their separatist mentality, perceived greed and strange culture.
After World War I, Germany was in a state of ruin. The once proud and mighty nation was reduced to it's knees, and Hitler used the broken pride and haughtiness of the German people to bind them to a leash of their own making.
He took the natural dislike that most Germans had for Jews, and amplified it to alarming levels by using them as a scapegoat for every ill affecting Germany.
And people believed him....because they wanted to!
There are parallels between the Jews and the Muslims. Both are seen as not inherently European, and both are generally disliked.
If Muslims allow the dislike of non Muslims toward them and their religion to grow to the extent that was seen in old Europe against the Jews, then it is certainly possible that a second Holocaust may rear it's ugly head; but this time instead of Jews, it would be Muslims who are targeted.
I would like to believe that the World has changed since the 1930s and 1940s, and that people would not allow such a thing to occur.....again.
But, History has a way of repeating itself in more ways than one.
If the above is what you truly believe, then you are fighting on the wrong side. You should be concentrating you refers to inform westerners/non-Muslims to not be misled by their leaders and to not repeat mistakes of the past.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: The Jews have been the scapegoat of choice because they always have held their allegiance to their culture and God first and foremost. You are stating the modern reasons, yet overlook that this precedent is evidenced in ancient times in Jewish relations with Egypt, Persia, Greece, Macedonia, Rome, Mongolia; and continued even in the Imperial Prussian era. They always rejected rule of other imperial powers because they held that their religion stated no man could be "god-king" or "son of god" which happened to be the popular concept of emperor for each of the forementioned cultures. Greece and Rome didn't see it necessary to eradicate Egyptians, for example, because the Egyptians declared Alexander and Caesar to be Pharaohs in their respective eras. The Jews on the other hand, rejected the rule of said emperors, in the name of God. The Jews did not embrace Germany in the 30's any more than Muslims embrace the United States presently. 5 out of 7 leaders of the German communist party in the 30's were Jews, and they were continuing their ongoing effort to erase the remnants of Kingdom of Prussia (which in the 30's was called the Free State of Prussia.) The communist party is what pressed for the German surrender of World War One, even though Germany was winning the war at the time, and naturally the soldiers and their families felt betrayed. The fact that the communist party was led by Jews is what initially led the Germans to believe that the Jews were once again being loyal to their interests rather than that of the state, as the kibbutz concept that was practiced by Jews in Palestine was harmonious with communism. Communism, however, was not at all harmonious with empire, which is essentially what Germany was at the time. Which is in part why Hitler's subsequent campaign of establishing a new empire (Deutsches Reich) was so popular.
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: If the above is what you truly believe, then you are fighting on the wrong side. You should be concentrating you refers to inform westerners/non-Muslims to not be misled by their leaders and to not repeat mistakes of the past.
Who says I'm fighting on ANY side to begin with?
Basically, this is the way I see it.
I don't believe in judging or stereotyping a mass population.
Thats the height of stupidity in my opinion.
I deal with people on an individual basis..
However, what I think won't matter at all in the big picture. I'm just one little fish in a big ol' aquarium.
Aslong as radical Muslims continue to attack Western countries or interests under the banner of Islam, then the image of Islam and Muslims will continue to deteriorate around the globe; and especially in the West.
This is simply unavoidable. It's human nature to hate that which you fear.
The only way to truly prevent this would be to stop radical Islam, but because radical Islam is a belief, it will be very difficult to stop; with might of arms atleast.
The only way to stop it completely, will be to destroy it with an opposing belief.
There are multiple ways to go about doing this, but because I'm not a Muslim, I won't even bother to expound.
In the end, radical Islam is the most dangerous enemy to Islam, aswell as it's practitioners.
Current World events undeniably demonstrate this.
If Islam wants to survive, then it must find a way to deal with the radicals permanently.
quote:As long as radical Muslims continue to attack Western countries or interests under the banner of Islam, then the image of Islam and Muslims will continue to deteriorate around the globe; and especially in the West.
Quoted for Truth.
With that said, we also must remember that ultimately the burden of change is on the immigrant. WE are the strangers in their midst. If we do not want to be cast with the extremists then we cannot sit silent while other Muslims bomb trains in London, but then riot when when some girls in France are not allowed to cover their hair.
Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:As long as radical Muslims continue to attack Western countries or interests under the banner of Islam, then the image of Islam and Muslims will continue to deteriorate around the globe; and especially in the West.
Quoted for Truth.
With that said, we also must remember that ultimately the burden of change is on the immigrant. WE are the strangers in their midst. If we do not want to be cast with the extremists then we cannot sit silent while other Muslims bomb trains in London, but then riot when when some girls in France are not allowed to cover their hair.
Quoted for its stupidity and ignorance. Truly disgusting Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: If the above is what you truly believe, then you are fighting on the wrong side. You should be concentrating you refers to inform westerners/non-Muslims to not be misled by their leaders and to not repeat mistakes of the past.
Who says I'm fighting on ANY side to begin with?
Basically, this is the way I see it.
I don't believe in judging or stereotyping a mass population.
Thats the height of stupidity in my opinion.
I deal with people on an individual basis..
However, what I think won't matter at all in the big picture. I'm just one little fish in a big ol' aquarium.
Aslong as radical Muslims continue to attack Western countries or interests under the banner of Islam, then the image of Islam and Muslims will continue to deteriorate around the globe; and especially in the West.
This is simply unavoidable. It's human nature to hate that which you fear.
The only way to truly prevent this would be to stop radical Islam, but because radical Islam is a belief, it will be very difficult to stop; with might of arms atleast.
The only way to stop it completely, will be to destroy it with an opposing belief.
There are multiple ways to go about doing this, but because I'm not a Muslim, I won't even bother to expound.
In the end, radical Islam is the most dangerous enemy to Islam, aswell as it's practitioners.
Current World events undeniably demonstrate this.
If Islam wants to survive, then it must find a way to deal with the radicals permanently.
~Alistair
The problem with discussing anything with you is your inability to focus.
There are two separate issue that you tend to lump together. 1- Peace loving Muslims living as citizens in Western countries. 2- Terrorism.
The topic started by discussing the effect Muslim have on western culture and the unfounded fear that that may bring. You see it has nothing to do with terrorism and radicals and all that crap. These discussions have been going on in Canada for as long as I've lived here and it did not involve Muslims but instead Chinese and Indians. The question to you remains, should western culture accept a change as as a result of immigration? Is it right or wrong of those new citizens to live the way they wish for as long as it is within the law and done in a peaceful manner? Is it right or wrong to mass deport them or put them in concentration camps because they chose to exercise their rights within the law?
Don't answer me by talking about terrorism and radicals and the threat to the world and that nonsense. None of that has anything to do with the above questions and I don't beleive any of that crap anyway.
Come on for God's sake, it's not rocket science.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
@Automatic For The Peoplę: You "troll" better on your other accounts, where you do not have to pretend to be intelligent. Argumentum ad nauseam. Have fun. Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question to you remains, should western culture accept a change as as a result of immigration? Is it right or wrong of those new citizens to live the way they wish for as long as it is within the law and done in a peaceful manner? Is it right or wrong to mass deport them or put them in concentration camps because they chose to exercise their rights within the law?
It`s not about right or wrong. Culture is not statical. Its is a changing subject. Culture changes by numbers of influences, inside and outside this culture. Majority of people does not like changes. They associate a change with unsafety. They feel uncertain. Somebody is trying to change OUR cultural believes and habits. They don`t realise that the culture they know right now has been a changing one all the time. They also don`t realise that their grandparents also were having problems with the changing culture in those days. It is a fact that every culture that`s not isolated, is changing all the time.And that the fear of changing becomes out of uncertainty and unsafety.
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: The question to you remains, should western culture accept a change as as a result of immigration? Is it right or wrong of those new citizens to live the way they wish for as long as it is within the law and done in a peaceful manner? Is it right or wrong to mass deport them or put them in concentration camps because they chose to exercise their rights within the law?
It`s not about right or wrong. Culture is not statical. Its is a changing subject. Culture changes by numbers of influences, inside and outside this culture. Majority of people does not like changes. They associate a change with unsafety. They feel uncertain. Somebody is trying to change OUR cultural believes and habits. They don`t realise that the culture they know right now has been a changing one all the time. They also don`t realise that their grandparents also were having problems with the changing culture in those days. It is a fact that every culture that`s not isolated, is changing all the time.And that the fear of changing becomes out of uncertainty and unsafety.
What ????? has just said, is sort of what I was trying to say, further above:
SWYS: ''..The initial question asked ''Does Western culture has to get part of Islamic culture?'' My view is that it absolutely does have to - as muslims are citizens, just as jews, catholics and atheists are. Every citizen can influence a western, secular democracy, although this may take a while, and proportional representation factors need to be taken into account. Minorities, over time, can and do make a difference, and a positive one. Culture is more than just a background fabric, against which we live - it is a rich, constantly changing, vibrant reality. Extremists can advocate anything they like, within the law. That is the price of living in a secular democracy. It's what free speech is all about''
Why is it always the negative aspects of immigration that are focused on? The latest immigrants are always the ones to face the most problems, as they are vulnerable.
Posts: 2953 | From: Slightly south of Azkaban. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Graf_Genn: @Automatic For The Peoplę: You "troll" better on your other accounts, where you do not have to pretend to be intelligent. Argumentum ad nauseam. Have fun.
I hope that means they've finally sent you the invitation...........good riddance.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: It`s not about right or wrong.
I agree that your question and the original topic is not about right and wrong. But since the introduction of mass deportation and concentration camps in the discussion it became important to determine what is right and wrong.
quote:Originally posted by ?????: Culture is not statical. Its is a changing subject. Culture changes by numbers of influences, inside and outside this culture. Majority of people does not like changes. They associate a change with unsafety. They feel uncertain. Somebody is trying to change OUR cultural believes and habits.
I agree and I looked at your question from my perspective as it applies to Egypt. I don't like what can be called the westernization of our culture and customs. I understand western culture being afraid of change. And as I mentioned earlier it is a problem becasue many of those countries need young immigrants whether Muslims or otherwise.
I also agree with you that the change will happen anyway regardless of who they allow in their countries. There are practical problems with new immigrants that have to be addressed such as learning the language and participating in community affairs but they should not be forced to completely abandon their culture and adopt a new one.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is an enormous problem in European countries, because of the way an Egyptian man usually chose his destination: between other Egyptians. This not different as the former immigrants who used to leave Europe in the 50`s of last century, they live in European enclaves, sticking in that particular culture as it was when they left their country. And it is an universal law that cultures are changing. As you are worried about your culture changed by Western influences, the Western countries are worried by influences of thier immigrants. The only difference is that the number of Muslim immigrants in Europe is much higher as Western immigrants in Egypt. I think the situation would be the same when the amount would be the same... They are trying to hold on to what they have, in both cultures, and they are not able to...
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ?????: It is an enormous problem in European countries, because of the way an Egyptian man usually chose his destination: between other Egyptians. This not different as the former immigrants who used to leave Europe in the 50`s of last century, they live in European enclaves, sticking in that particular culture as it was when they left their country. And it is an universal law that cultures are changing. As you are worried about your culture changed by Western influences, the Western countries are worried by influences of thier immigrants. The only difference is that the number of Muslim immigrants in Europe is much higher as Western immigrants in Egypt. I think the situation would be the same when the amount would be the same... They are trying to hold on to what they have, in both cultures, and they are not able to...
I didn't mean to imply that the change in Egyptian culture is due to immigration. Obviously it is not.
Posts: 194 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, as I said, there are more influences as immigration. Media, communication, globalisation, but also the situation in the world as it is right now. After 9/11 Islam as a religion became a prominent subject in many ways, not always correct. The religion is used as an justification, also not correct. Thereby isn`t there one Islam that can be explained in one way. The religion has many streams and many interpretations. And, the Book is difficult to read. And the outcoming opinions also are not equal. Media-attention is big, and there is an overkill in Islam-news in a negative way.
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree that your question and the original topic is not about right and wrong. But since the introduction of mass deportation and concentration camps in the discussion it became important to determine what is right and wrong
Apparently still not getting any closer to comprehension... Posts: 345 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I will meet you there.” Posts: 7202 | From: EU | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Automatic For The Peoplę: The problem with discussing anything with you is your inability to focus.
There are two separate issue that you tend to lump together. 1- Peace loving Muslims living as citizens in Western countries. 2- Terrorism.
The topic started by discussing the effect Muslim have on western culture and the unfounded fear that that may bring. You see it has nothing to do with terrorism and radicals and all that crap. These discussions have been going on in Canada for as long as I've lived here and it did not involve Muslims but instead Chinese and Indians. The question to you remains, should western culture accept a change as as a result of immigration? Is it right or wrong of those new citizens to live the way they wish for as long as it is within the law and done in a peaceful manner? Is it right or wrong to mass deport them or put them in concentration camps because they chose to exercise their rights within the law?
Don't answer me by talking about terrorism and radicals and the threat to the world and that nonsense. None of that has anything to do with the above questions and I don't beleive any of that crap anyway.
Come on for God's sake, it's not rocket science.
OK, so the problem is either I'm not focusing, or you're not comprehending..
I'll take my chances on the latter
I've actually answered your questions several times throughout the course of this thread.
Peaceful Muslim immigration and terrorism are LINKED whether you want to admit it or not.
To explain further, I mean that due to the terrorism being performed under the banner of Islam, a stereotype about Muslims and Islam has been created which directly affects every Muslim living in the West to some degree; even the peaceful ones.
The stereotype I'm referring to is that all Muslims are religious fanatics which hate the West and seek to subvert Western culture via nefarious means.
Everytime the average Westerner watches the News channel and sees some Muslims dancing around and chanting,"Death to America! Death to Israel! Death to Denmark!" etc while burning the flags, or some idiot decides to blow up an Embassy, the stereotype gains strength.
Ofcourse, terrorism is only one component in the equation. The other is the innate cultural divide.
There are several real World examples I can think of which prove my point.
The bombings in London, the Parisian riots, the Danish cartoon ordeal, Theo Van Gogh's murder, etc have all prompted European nations to start tightening immigration laws, and enacting legislation which targets Muslims specifically. Ofcourse they don't say this is what they want publically, but only a fool would not realize this.
So, obviously the European nations judging by their reaction are NOT accepting the changes being brought by Muslims to European Society (peacefully or not), otherwise they would not move to such lengths to restrict Muslim immigration.
Now the questions of whether this is right or wrong from a moral perspective doesn't really matter.
Because nations tend to act solely in their best interest, morality does not enter the equation.
Yes, it's quite simple. Every immigration population brings both positive and negative changes to their adopted Society.
If immigrants bring mostlyPOSITIVE change to their adopted Society, they will be embraced.
But if they bring mostlyNEGATIVE change on the other hand, they will be rejected.
The stigmas surrounding Islam complicates this further, because once people start to identify Islam with everything thats backward, hateful and regressive, people will automatically tune into the NEGATIVE changes that Muslims bring with them, moreso than the positive.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Graf_Genn seemed to me to be merely expressing a realistic view. Minorities, in any culture, simply don't have the clout to easily effect radical change. 
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
...10! ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Immigrants, without full citizenship are in a different position...and have come from 'somewhere', do you see my point?. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic